Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the Obey amendment, and I do so on the basis of two particular aspects of the supplemental bill that I believe are particularly egregious. The first one is the provision which would strike the ability to purchase from the Russians 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium. Just a week ago we had a bill on the floor of this House which called upon our government to deploy a ``Star Wars'' system, a ballistic nuclear defense system, the physics of which are not even at this moment understood. There are serious questions as to whether or not this apparatus would ever work effectively. Nevertheless, we are prepared to spend tens of billions of dollars on that program to deploy it, and at the same time we are rescinding from this supplemental bill a small amount of money which would enable us to purchase 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium from the Russians. If we do not purchase that 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium, the likelihood is that some portion of it is going to end up in the hands of some terrorist organizations and the hands of some person like Saddam Hussein or someone else in some other part of the world that has the ability to threaten this country and threaten others. The logic of this is absolutely astonishing. There is no logic to it whatsoever. How can my colleagues come here and be for a ballistic missile defense system one week, and then the next week come back and say we ought not to be purchasing weapons grade plutonium from the Russians when we know if we do not, it is going to get in the hands of people who mean us and others harm? This is totally ridiculous. The other provision would, and this is more than half of the offsets which were offered by the majority, come from the multilateral development banks. We live in a global economy. We are still involved in a situation where there is a serious economic crisis in Southeast Asia, a serious economic problem in Central and South America, a terribly serious economic problem in Russia, all of which impact upon our economy. We are seeing it particularly in our commodities, particularly in our agricultural commodities. Part of this bill is to help our farmers around the country. At the same time we pretend to be helping our farmers in the supplemental bill, we are going to make it more difficult for them to sell their commodities on the open market. Why? Because the crisis in East Asia has closed up markets there for commodities. The Canadians and the Australians which normally sell into those markets are finding it difficult if not impossible to do so. Therefore, they are impacting on our markets. Our farmers are finding it difficult to sell in the markets that we normally have access to, let alone those that we hope to have access to. That is the principal reason why we are seeing such difficulty in the agricultural community all across our country. In this supplemental bill, by these offsets, my colleagues are threatening every farmer that sells outside of the United States, whether it is wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton. Regardless of what it is, my colleagues are threatening that part of our economy.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on August 31, 1998, the United States Senate adopted Senate Resolution 193 of the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress, as follows: ``Whereas approximately 79,000 infants, children and young adults die each year in the United States; ``Whereas the death of a child is one of the greatest tragedies suffered by a family; and ``Whereas support and understanding are critical to the healing process of a bereaved family; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates December 13, 1998 as ``National Children's Memorial Day,'' and (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation designating December 13, 1998 as ``National Children's Memorial Day'' and calls on the people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities in remembrance of infants, children, teenagers and young adults who have died. Against the backdrop of this Resolution, I would like to commend a constituent of mine, Mr. Saul Bennett, on the publication of his book ``New Fields and Other Stones/On a Child's Death.'' Mr. Bennett is himself a bereaved parent whose daughter Sara Bennett, died suddenly at the age of 24 from a brain aneurysm on July 14, 1994. ``New Fields and Other Stones'' is comprised of 50 poems that eloquently and chronologically address life for an American family following the loss of a child. The book already has prompted memorable favorable reviews and laudatory comments by leading bereavement counselors and therapists. In addition, numerous newspaper articles and broadcasters have commented on the book's importance and power. Moreover, on reading these articles, parents who have also lost a child, have contacted the author to express their camaraderie and gratitude. Mr. Speaker, losing a loved one is certainly one of the most traumatic experiences many of us will face in our lives. The void left behind is often too large to fill and it is usually quite difficult to soothe the pain that we had been afflicted with. Saul Bennett has not only worked diligently to heal his own wounds, he has reached out to help others who have faced such tragedy. I would like to commend Mr. Bennett for his personal strength and compassion and I applaud his efforts to help others deal with a loss of their loved ones.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to a constituent of mine and a dear friend, Henry Klein. I have known Henry for nearly thirty years and relied heavily on his wisdom and guidance throughout my many years in public service. I am sometimes called upon to pay homage to one of our great national heroes on the day set aside for their remembrance, and it is always a pleasure to retrace their accomplishments, the obstacles they had to overcome, and the dedication they gave to their chosen areas of endeavor. These public heroes, whether they be in the area of military or civic affairs, or the arts or sciences, are a proud part of our democratic heritage. But what about those unsung heroes, those citizens we meet in our own communities who are also worthy of special recognition for their dedication to the preservation of our democratic heritage? In all the years that I have known him, Henry Klein has been the exemplar of what a public citizen should be--fair and open-minded, and fearless whenever confronted with injustice or the ugliness of mob violence. Born in Brooklyn, he graduated from City College in New York, earned his masters degree at Columbia University, and then became a member of the armed forces in World War II, serving first as an educational instructor, helping recruits to better understand the demographic principles for which the free world was fighting, and later serving as a sergeant for three years in the European theater. After his return he did not abandon his interest in teaching the social and economic goals which were needed to ensure America's future. When he moved upstate to the Town of Rochester in the early seventies, he became active with the Concerned Consumers, an organization promoting social and economic issues affecting Ulster County communities. No one who knows Henry Klein would ever think of him as a member of a political party. He was an uncommon citizen, seeking rational and just solutions. He did not court controversy but neither did he shirk his responsibility to respond when he encountered it. At town meetings, at public forums, in letters-to-the-editor, and on call-in talks shows, when sometimes wild and exaggerated charges were being hurled back and forth between partisan groups and there was much heat but little illumination, it was Henry who would eventually provide the voice of reason and the enlightenment that was needed. Mr. Speaker, I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Henry Klein for the role he has played in raising the level discourse on public policy issues through the logic and common sense of his augments and his unwavering loyalty to high democratic ideals. Without public citizens like Henry, a healthy democratic society could not long survive.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in our recent history, Barbara Jordan gave us the best short definition of an impeachable offense during the impeachment hearings on President Nixon when she said she would not tolerate the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution. President Clinton stands accused of something far short of that standard. By now I think most Americans have concluded that the President has not subverted the Constitution. He has not undermined our system of government. This impeachment punishes the country. It robs us of the time and attention that we should be devoting to other matters. It subverts the official duties of the President. It forces us to endure a trauma that serves no practical purpose. It opens up the possibility that the country will be forced to endure similar suspensions of the Nation's business again and again if future Presidents face penalties for any charges that a hostile prosecutor or a congressional majority can find. Let us reserve impeachment for high crimes that betray the American people and our system of democracy. The charges against the President do not meet that standard.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this fall marks the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine, or more precisely, of the world's recognition of the famine that had been developing in Ukraine for two years. We have seen many horrors in this century of civilization. The Holocaust in Germany and central Europe in World War II was the most shocking and has justifiably attracted the most recognition. But it was by no means the only incident of diabolic mass slaughter. We have seen the slaughter of Armenians in the early years of the century, the massacre of Cambodians by their own leaders, and most recently the horrors in Rwanda and Bosnia. We should not allow the abundance of horrors to dull our senses or to allow us to forget any of these terrible incidents. We must remember that the instruments and techniques we have developed in this century can be used against any people in any country, no matter how advanced or supposedly civilized. As a Ukrainian-American I wish to call the attention of the House and the American people to the crimes against my family's people. Ukraine is the most fertile farmland of Europe, long called the breadbasket of the continent. Yet millions of Ukrainians--perhaps as many as 10 million, we will never have an exact figure--starved to death in the midst of plenty in the early 1930's. They starved because Stalin decided that traditional farming in the Ukraine would stop, and with the power of the Soviet state, he was able to make it stop. If people did not conform to his will, he would see to it that they had no food to eat, no seeds to plant. The wheat that was harvested was sold at cheap prices on world markets. Protests around the world did not stop the famine; instead, the market found ways to profit from it and conduct business as usual. In this respect and others, the Ukrainian famine resembled the great Irish famine of the nineteenth century, when the British government allowed people to starve by the millions rather than interfere with grain markets. I am an Irish-American too, and many of us in this chamber are descended from the people who fled that famine. The Ukrainian famine did not end until Stalin had gotten his way and subjugated the Ukrainian people. They still suffer today from the consequences of his actions: they have never been able to fully rebuild the agricultural economy that had once made Ukraine the envy of the region. I believe they will rebuild it, hopefully with our help. But let us learn from the horrors they endured. Let us commit ourselves to the principle that people should always come first, that no one should be allowed to starve. Let us apply that lesson at home, and pledge that no one should go hungry in our prosperous country because of the strictures of ideology or because of the discipline of the market. Let us commit ourselves to opposing oppression around the world, when oppression leads to genocide and death, whether the tools of that oppression are overly violent, or whether they are the subtler but no less cruel tools of deliberate starvation, deliberate hunger, deliberate poverty. Let us remember that all people are our brothers and sisters.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I joined with my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Watkins, to introduce the Rural Enterprise Communities Act. Tucked away in this monster of an omnibus is a small provision that contains the heart of our bill--the authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to designate 20 new enterprise communities in rural areas. Mr. Watkins and I believed that this legislation was absolutely necessary to address the problems facing rural America. It is easy to forget that nearly 800 non-metropolitan counties have high poverty rates. Much of the nation's substandard housing is located outside of urban areas, and the distances between places and the lack of public transportation magnify the economic problems in rural communities. The rural empowerment zone and enterprise community program is an example of an economic development program that works. Since 1993, these communities have created or saved nearly 10,000 jobs, and provided job training to more than 14,000 people. They have used their federal funds in partnership with private resources to build or upgrade health care facilities, schools, computer learning centers, and housing. A key factor in enterprise communities' success is their ability to work closely with local governments, regional planning authorities, and the private sector to leverage the maximum benefit from their funding. The money we appropriated for this program accounted for a little less than 10 percent of the economic development dollars spent in the rural ECs. The vast majority of the money for the projects I described came from other competitive federal grants, state and local funds, and the private sector. When the EZ/EC program was reauthorized last year, it provided for only five new rural enterprise communities. More than 200 applicants are competing for these designations, proving that our communities are starved for effective economic development programs. This is why we believed it was so important that these 20 additional designations be included in the omnibus appropriations bill. When Mr. Watkins and I introduced our bill, we wanted to make sure that the Department of Agriculture had the flexibility to consider factors other than poverty that contribute to rural distress. These included criteria such as outmigration, underemployment, and sudden and severe economic distress of the type that might be caused by the closure of a military base or a factory. We hoped that the Secretary of Agriculture will take these sorts of things into account when he is considering which communities qualify for the rural enterprise community designation. As I conclude my remarks, I wish to thank all of my cosponsors from both sides of the aisle for insisting that the Rural Enterprise Communities Act be included in the omnibus appropriations legislation. It was your support--and the very vocal efforts of our communities back home--that convinced the administration that this program was worth fighting for.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this fall marks the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine, or more precisely, of the world's recognition of the famine that had been developing in Ukraine for two years. We have seen many horrors in this century of civilization. The holocaust in Germany and Central Europe in World War II was the most shocking and has justifiably attracted the most recognition. But it was by no means the only incident of diabolic mass slaughter. We have seen the slaughter of Armenians in the early years of the century, the massacre of Cambodians by their own leaders, and most recently the horrors in Rwanda and Bosnia. We should not allow the abundance of horrors to dull our senses or to allow us to forget any of these terrible incidents. We must remember that the instruments and techniques we have developed in this century can be used against any people in any country, no matter how advanced or supposedly civilized. As a Ukrainian-American I wish to call the attention of the House and the American people to the crimes against my family's people. Ukraine is the most fertile farmland of Europe, long called the breadbasket of the continent. Yet millions of Ukrainians--perhaps as many as 10 million, we will never have an exact figure--starved to death in the midst of plenty in the early 1930's. They starved because Stalin decided that traditional farming in the Ukraine would stop, and with the power of the Soviet state, he was able to make it stop. If people did not conform to his will, he would see to it that they had no food to eat, no seeds to plant. The wheat that was harvested was sold at cheap prices on world markets. Protests around the world did not stop the famine; instead, the markets found ways to profit from it and conduct business as usual. In this respect and others, the Ukrainian famine resembled the great Irish famine of the nineteenth century, when the British government allowed people to starve by the millions rather than interfere with grain markets. I am an Irish-American too, and many of us in this chamber are descended from the people who fled that famine. The Ukrainian famine did not end until Stalin had gotten his way and subjugated the Ukrainian people. They still suffer today from the consequences of his actions: they have never been able to fully rebuild the agricultural economy that had once made Ukraine the envy of the region. I believe they will rebuild it, hopefully with our help. But let us learn from the horrors they endured. Let us commit ourselves to the principle that people should always come first, that no one should be allowed to starve. Let us apply that lesson at home, and pledge that no one should go hungry in our prosperous country because of the strictures of ideology or because of the discipline of the market. Let us commit ourselves to opposing oppression around the world, when oppression leads to genocide and death, whether the tools of that oppression are overly violent, or whether they are the subtler but no less cruel tools of deliberate starvation, deliberate hunger, deliberate poverty. Let us remember that all people are our brothers and sisters.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn for the year, I wanted to take a moment to honor Howard St. John, who is stepping down from the chairmanship of Ulster Savings Bank after a long and very rewarding career there. Howard has had, in a sense, many careers--as a District Attorney, President and member of many professional and charitable boards and associations, and as a very successful local businessman. Through his many endeavors and successes he has never lost his warmth and generosity or his personal touch with regular people. He has contributed to the health and well being of numerous families throughout the Hudson Valley, helping them to realize their dreams in many different ways. I join my friends back home in saluting him upon his retirement from Ulster Savings Bank and wish him the very best in what I hope will be a long and fruitful retirement.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as we are about to close this 105th Congress, there is one critically important job that remains yet to be done. Even though there are literally only hours left in this Congress, we have enough time to do it. That is to upgrade and improve the quality of our educational system. Unfortunately, the Members who run this House are trying to escape from town without fulfilling that obligation. The President has presented us with a plan to reduce class sizes, to upgrade and modernize our facilities, and also to educate new teachers, all of which is critically important to the economy of America in the 21st century. We have the responsibility and the opportunity to act before we leave town. We know that kids learn better in class sizes that are smaller. If have 35 kids in the class, not much learning goes on. If you have 18 children in that class, a lot of learning goes on. And that learning is going to be important to those children, to their families, to their communities and the country as we move into the 21st century. Let us be straight with the American people. Let us move forward with this education agenda. Let us get this job done before we leave this Congress.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Republic of China's National Day, I wish to offer my congratulations to her people and her leaders. Taiwan has had a remarkable record of accomplishment in recent years, and deserves recognition as a model for other nations and our thanks for its constructive partnership with our nation. Taiwan is a model for other nations in two ways especially. First, it is living proof that democracy works. Not only were the current leaders of Taiwan elected in free and fair elections, but they have not flinched from the most difficult moments emerging democracies face: turning over offices to others when their own party loses. They have not only allowed open competition for office, but have promoted open discussion of the full range of issues facing their nation. Despite intense pressures, they have insisted that the people of Taiwan have the right to determine their nation's future. Second, Taiwan is a model of a stable economy. Just two years ago, it was grouped with other Asian nations with successful economies. Today, it stands virtually alone, while those other nations are in turmoil. Unfortunately, however, when Taiwan's example and its assistance could be most beneficial to the world community, it continues to be isolated from that community. Restoration of its membership in the United Nations would end that isolation. It would make sense to invite Taiwan to be a full and willing partner in international activities. Now more than ever we especially need its economic resources and expertise in dealing with today's crises, and I am convinced that its Asian neighbors and other developing nations could benefit greatly from its counsel. I also hope that the leaders of mainland China will have the wisdom to learn from Taiwan's example, and to see that democracy works. We must also let them know that aggression and coercion, whether implicit or explicit, do not work. I wish also to take this occasion to congratulate President Lee Teng- hui on his accomplishments as the Republic's leader, and his success in steering his country through difficult economic and political waters. As we all know, President Lee is an alumnus of Cornell University in my district in Ithaca, New York. The people of Ithaca were delighted to have him as a guest, and would all be delighted to see him again. Finally, I would like to thank Stephen Chen for his service as Taiwan's chief representative in Washington. Those of us who have had the honor and pleasure of meeting Mr. Chen and working with him appreciate his service in maintaining and improving the bridge between us and his country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on this resolution because I think the issue that is raised is critically important to the Members of this House and to the people of this country, and it is one that we ought to have a full and complete debate on. The reason I say that is in recognition of the statements that have been made just a few moments ago with regard to the impact that the dumping of steel is having on congressional districts and the people in those congressional districts, the workers in those congressional districts and their families across the country. This is an aggravated symptom of a much larger problem however. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a global economic crisis, and one of the features of that global economic crisis is the propensity of some nations in the world suffering the effects of deflation to attempt to dump their products, both manufactured products and commodities, on to the markets of other countries. We are in a most vulnerable position indeed to this particular activity, and we have not done nearly enough to protect our economy from the effects of this kind of dumping. One of the things that we ought to do immediately is to petition the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates substantially so that we may buttress our economy from the effects of this kind of dumping and the larger effects of the global economic crisis. In addition to that, we have a major issue that is currently before the Congress with regard to the International Monetary Fund which this Congress has not yet addressed. We need to increase the funding for the IMF, and if we were to do so, that increase in funding would make it less likely that resolutions of this nature would have to be brought to the floor. We are in an important issue right now. We need to decide this issue, bring that question of IMF funding before on the floor so that we can have a full and complete debate on it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. In one sense I am opposed to it with some reluctance, because I know that my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), has spent a great deal of time working on this legislation, and I think that he has truly made an effort to accommodate a number of people and their interests and ideas in this legislation. In many ways the bill contains a number of very good provisions. For that reason I am somewhat reluctant to oppose it. But when one looks at the bill carefully, one finds that overwhelmingly, too many of the provisions are simply unacceptable. I will just mention a couple. On the issue of the San Rafael, for example, this is a separate bill, and it is treated in this legislation in some unusual ways. It provides some very unorthodox and unusual ways of managing public land. In addition to that, it reduces the acreage of lands that are eligible for wilderness designation, and I think that that is a big mistake. It fails to give Federal agencies the water that they would need to meet their land management goals. Then they cannot manage the land properly, if we do not allow them to have the water they need in these arid areas to accomplish that objective. It gives unusual management authority over nationally-owned land to local officials. This, of course, would be establishing a very dangerous and a very wrong precedent. It creates a strong possibility that sensitive areas would be open to vehicle use. These are areas that should be closed to vehicle use in order to protect wildlife and the land itself. People go out on these areas, but they ought not to go out there with vehicles that are going to wreak havoc with the wildlife and ruin the land. Another provision of the bill deals with the American Discovery Trail. This is a piece of legislation that had broad bipartisan support. It is a top priority of hiking groups, a proposal that would benefit people from coast-to-coast, just as the Appalachian Trail has benefited people up and down the East Coast. But there is a poison pill in this initiative as well, which would require that all adjacent property owners be notified. This would tie up all or most of the money that is allocated to accomplish the reasonable and good objectives of the bill, and, in short, it would effectively kill the trail. The trail would not come into existence. The Chugach Road provision, we hear that this has been improved to meet the objections of the Forest Service. But that is not what the Forest Service has told us. We would, under this bill, still be granting an unregulated easement through one of the richest wildlife habitats and migratory bird flyways in the continent. In the final analysis I think we all have to oppose this legislation, and I have just mentioned a few of the adverse provisions. We have to oppose this on the grounds that this legislation just does not make any sense, and because of that, it is opposed by virtually every environmental group, and the Taxpayers for Common Sense, as well.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I was over in my office listening to the proceedings here. I did not realize that this tribute to Jerry was going on, but I wanted to come over and participate in it. And while I was walking over here, of course, I was reminiscing about my relationship with Jerry over the years, if one could call it that. I first met Jerry almost a quarter of a century ago. I had just been elected to the New York State Legislature, and it was late in the year, 1974, I think December. And I was going through the legislative office building, and the place was pretty dark and empty. I walked down the hall, and all the offices were dark. There was no one there, except I came upon this one office with the door opened. I looked inside, and there was someone working assiduously at a desk. It turned out to be Jerry Solomon. Mr. Speaker, that is the first time I met him. He made an impression on me that particular occasion, only because I remember it after all of these years. And that impression was not a false one. It was a very accurate one. The impression was simply this: that this was a man who was dedicated to his work; this was a man dedicated to his profession and to the people who elected him; this was a man dedicated to his work. He has lived up to that impression every single day that I have known him in the intervening 24 years. I served with Jerry for a short time in the State Assembly and then he was elected to the Congress, and then I knew about him only from time to time, and we would run across each other, reading about him in the newspapers. Then when I came here a few years later to begin to serve with him, I could witness again that same kind of energy, that same kind of enthusiasm, that same kind of dedication to his profession, to his work, to his constituents, and to his beliefs. Jerry and I differ on issues, and we have from time to time from the very beginning, and we continue to differ on some issues and will for the rest of our lives, I feel safe in saying. Nevertheless, I bear for him the greatest respect and admiration because he is an example of the total absence of ambivalence. He believes in things. He believes in them fully, firmly and devoutly. You never have to question yourself with regard to where Jerry stands on any of the issues. He is very happy to tell you, and to tell you in the most direct and forthright way. So it is with a sense of sadness that I see him leave this chamber, but also with a sense of joy for him and for his family, because I know that he is going on to a new and productive life. And whatever it is to which Jerry dedicates himself, that will have the full devotion of a very competent man, indeed.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning on National Public Radio, author and historian Richard Rosenfeld made some comments which I would now like to share with the Members of the House. These are the words of Mr. Rosenfeld: The right of the people to elect their President, and the right of Congress to remove him are competing rights. America's founding fathers knew this. They worried out loud at the Constitutional Convention that if they didn't carefully limit the idea of an impeachable offense, Congress, not Presidential elections, would be deciding who sits in the White House. So on the day the founders defined an impeachable offense, they declared their unanimous intention to limit high crimes and misdemeanors to be actions against the United States. Not private misconduct, unrelated to the operation of government, not sexual misconduct or even lies to cover it up. If there can be any doubt about the founders' intentions, they gave us plenty of proof during George Washington's first term as President when Congress was investigating the financial affairs of his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton. Three Members of Congress, including future President James Monroe, confronted Hamilton about payments he had been secretly making to James Reynolds, a convicted securities swindler. Hamilton was forced to admit the payments, but explained them as hush money to avoid public disclosure of adultery he had been committing with James Reynolds' wife. Hamilton had repeated sexual relations with Mrs. Reynolds and the hush money was only part of the coverup. Hamilton got Mrs. Reynolds to burn some incriminating letters and he offered to pay travel expenses if the Reynolds would get out of town. When Monroe and the others heard Hamilton's confession they decided the matter was private, not public, and that no impeachable offense had occurred. They kept the adultery, and the coverup, a secret among themselves, and Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founding fathers apparently went along. Congress held no hearings, Congress released nothing to the public, and Hamilton's misconduct remained a secret for 5 long years, until Hamilton was long out of office. Then in 1797, a disgruntled former clerk of the House of Representatives leaked Hamilton's secrets to a muckraking journalist and the whole country learned of Hamilton's adultery and the bribe to cover it up. And what happened? The following year, in 1798, then President John Adams and former President George Washington nominated Alexander Hamilton to be second in command of the new Federal Army. Second in command to only Washington himself. With Monroe, Madison, Jefferson and other founding fathers maintaining their respectful silence, the United States Senate quickly confirmed this confessed adulterer and liar to occupy for a second time one of the highest offices in the government of the United States. The founding fathers saw a big difference between public service and private conduct, and on the question of impeachment they warned Congress to do the same. They weren't giving Congress a right to decide who's President, they gave us Presidential elections for that. These, then, are the words of author and historian Richard Rosenfeld on this morning, October 1st, 1998.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Mr. Watkins of Oklahoma to introduce legislation aimed at securing funding for Round II of the Empowerment Zone program. Last year's Taxpayer Relief Act authorized the designation of 20 new Empowerment Zones--15 in urban cities and 5 in rural areas--but did not provide any funding for these communities. The bill we are introducing tonight builds on a measure we introduced earlier this year to expand the rural program--the Rural Enterprise Communities Act (H.R. 4071)--to include funding for the 15 urban empowerment zones. The flexible funding for EZs and ECs is so important because it gives communities the ability to participate directly with their private sector partners in development projects. The communities leverage these funds many times over, using them as seed capital to attract resources from the private sector, non-profit organizations, foundations, universities, churches, and government agencies. Without the funding in place, it will be very difficult for the new empowerment zones to begin implementing their comprehensive strategic development plans. In addition, we believe that the rural side of this program must be expanded. The Taxpayer Relief Act only authorized five rural empowerment zones. To date, more than 250 communities have notified USDA that they will be competing for these designations. Our bill recognizes the significance of this program for distressed rural communities and allows the USDA to designate an additional 33 enterprise communities in rural areas. We need to act quickly to ensure that the new EZs and ECs are funded at the beginning of their life cycle when it will do the most good. I have attached a summary of the Empowerment Zone Enhancement and Rural Enterprise Communities Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important measure. The Empowerment Zone Enhancement and Rural Enterprise Communities Act Section 2(a), (b). Selection of Additional Enterprise Communities. This section expands Round II of the EZ/EC competition to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to designate 33 rural enterprise communities. The EC designations are in addition to the five rural and 15 urban empowerment zones authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. In addition, this section extends the filing deadline until January 1, 2000 for communities to apply for a new EC designation. Section 2(c). Modification of Eligibility Criteria for Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. Poverty is still the main criteria for a rural EZ/EC designation. This section gives the Secretary the discretionary authority to consider other significant factors that contribute to distress in rural communities that are not as prevalent in urban areas. These include: Emigration; Underemployment; Rise in unemployment caused by the federal government, such as a military base closure; and Sudden economic dislocation that causes significant job loss, such as a plant closure. In addition, this section clarifies that for communities that otherwise meet all of the program's eligibility criteria, the Secretary may exempt sites that will be developed for commercial and industrial purposes from the poverty criteria as long as they do not exceed 2,000 acres or contain more than three non-contiguous parcels. Section 2(d), (e). Use of Bond Proceeds. The Taxpayer Relief Act authorized EZs to issue ``new empowerment facility bonds'' that are exempt from the state's tax-exempt bond cap, and also created a new type of ``zone academy bond'' to finance school construction in these communities. This section specifies that: Issues of new empowerment zone facility bonds must be consistent with the EZ's strategic plan to receive the special treatment; Rural ECs designated in the Round II competition may not issue zone facility bonds; The comprehensive education plan required to issue zone academy bonds must not be inconsistent with the EZ's strategic plan; and At least 25 percent of the zone academy bonds must be allocated to rural EZs Section 3(a), (b). Recognition and Incentives for Top Performing EZs and ECs. This section directs the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture to recognize top-performing EZs and ECs annually. Top performing Round I ECs that otherwise meet all the program's eligibility criteria will be given priority in the Round II EZ competition. Section 3(c). Continuation Funding for Top Performing Round I EZs and ECs. This section allows HHS to set aside up to 10 percent, of the funds for the Round II EZs ($150 million for urban, $10 million for Rural). Round I EZs and ECs that have completed or made satisfactory progress toward implementing their strategic plans will be eligible to compete for these funds at the direction of USDA and HUD. Section 4(a)-(d). Funding for Round II EZs and ECs. EZ/EC program funds are distributed through the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX). The President's budget allocates $1.7 billion for the Round II empowerment zones ($1.5 billion for urban and $200 million for rural). This section divides those funds to provide: Urban EZs an annual grant of up to $10 million for the next 10 years for a total of as much as $100 million; Rural EZs an annual grant of up to $2 million for the next 10 years for a total of as much as $20 million; and Rural ECs two grants of $1.5 million for the next two years for a total $3 million. Section 4(e). Rural Community Planning Grants. To help rural communities prepare their strategic plans during the application process, this section designates $1 million for 100 community planning grants of up to $10,000 each. Section 5. Responsibility for Environmental Review. The National Environmental Policy Act requires every federal agency that administers a program funded through grants to states, such as the Title XX Social Services Block Grant, to determine, among other things, whether the program will have any adverse effects on the environment. The Department of Health and Human Services--which releases the SSBG funds to the states for EZs and ECs--is currently required to make this environmental review for EZ/EC grants, even though it is not responsible for selecting the communities or approving their strategic plans. This section transfers responsibility for conducting the NEPA reviews to HUD for urban areas and to USDA for rural areas. It also gives the Secretaries the authority to delegate this responsibility to state and local governments and tribal authorities under certain conditions. Section 6. Performance Measurement and Evaluation. This section requires HUD and USDA to make regular evaluations of the Round II EZ's and EC's progress toward implementing their strategic plans, according to a performance measurement system established by the Secretaries. This section also give HUD and USDA authority to adjust, reduce, or cancel a zone's or community's grant for poor performance. Section 7. Distribution of Surplus Government Property. This section allows USDA to distribute surplus government property (computers, vans, construction equipment, etc.) to rural EZs, ECs, and champion communities on preferred basis. Section 8. Effective Dates. In general, the amendments made by this bill take effect as if passed as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we are for these tax cuts. In fact, virtually every one of these tax cuts was introduced by a Democrat. They were lifted from us in a transparently cynical gesture in an election year. You know this bill is not going to pass. If you thought it were, then you would have a totally different piece of legislation out here. The truth of the matter is, you have always hated Social Security, and you seek every opportunity to undermine it. That is what you are doing in this particular case by stealing money from the Social Security trust fund. If you were in the private sector, heading a corporation, and you sought to steal money out of the pension fund of that private corporation, you would be locked up. And that is what ought to happen to you in this particular context. This is wrong. It is indecent. It runs counter to everything that this Congress has stood for, and you are doing what you are doing at the expense of present and future retirees. You are not going to get away with it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we have crossed the threshold of uncertainty and we are now entering upon a new economic dimension. In fact, we have been in that dimension for some time now. Recalling the global economy, it is an area that is fraught with dangers and difficulties for us and other economies around the world. In fact, we have already seen its expression in East Asia, Russia and elsewhere, and the impact of the global economic decline is going to impact on us very soon and we need to prepare ourselves for it. The Federal Reserve in that regard should have lowered interest rates a year ago when the Asian crisis first became a threat. Chairman Greenspan has told us many times that it takes a year or more for changes in monetary policy to express themselves and become workable in the real world. In the meantime, things have only gotten worse. Economies all across Asia are depressed. Russia has collapsed, and Latin America looks like it will be the next region on the planet to contract this economic contagion. The first signs of trouble are showing up on our shores: Lower corporate profits, a rising trade deficit, a decrease in exports, layoffs in the manufacturing sector, sinking commodity prices, and, now, a looming credit crunch. Banks and securities firms the companies that were the biggest beneficiaries of the emerging market boom, are shaping up to be the biggest losers as these markets go bust. Our largest financial firms gambled trillions of dollars on these economies in a daisy chain of derivative transactions that were essentially placing highly leveraged bets on everything from exchange rates to interest rates to government bonds in a variety of countries. When the Russian government devalued its currency and defaulted on its obligations, it set off a global selling frenzy as these financial firms struggled to meet margin calls from their counterparts. Some of our biggest banks have announced losses of $1 billion or more in these transactions. Just yesterday, the New York Federal Reserve Bank orchestrated a multi-billion dollar bailout of a sophisticated hedge fund. These were not armchair investors who got in over their heads. This fund was run by the former head of a leading investment bank, two Nobel Prize- winning economists, and a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. It is amazing to think that losses of this magnitude could happen in a market that is essentially unregulated. It is even more amazing that some of my colleagues in this Congress would tie the hands of the one regulatory agency, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, that is looking into this situation. The end result for the American people is that our banks are dipping into their reserves to cover these losses in these speculative derivatives transactions. This is money that will not be loaned to local businesses to financial local growth at home because it will not be there. This is money that will not help entrepreneurs with their start-up ventures. This is money that people will not be able to use to finance new homes, cars or other major purchases, because it will not be available. It is imperative that the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee lower short-term interest rates when they meet next Tuesday. Not only will this send a signal to the global marketplace that we are committed to the strength of our economy, but it will also help alleviate the coming credit lunch. Last night I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 329, calling on the Federal Reserve Board to lower interest rates as soon as possible. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sending this strong message to the Fed that the health of our economy depends on their expeditious action.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend the next several minutes talking about something that is very important to all Americans, but something that is being, at least until recently, largely ignored here in our country; that is, the global economic crisis that originally expressed itself in Japan some 7 years ago, and then gradually swept across all of east Asia, and is now expressing itself in Russia, with the devaluation of the ruble and other economic problems in that country, and also in countries in South America and Latin America and elsewhere around the world. We, as the strongest economy in the world, have been somewhat insulated from the first direct effects of this global economic crisis. But the fact of the matter is that we are not immune from its effects, and we need to begin to bolster ourselves against it if we are going to maintain strength in our own economy. One of the most important things that we need to do is to reduce our real interest rates. That will enable our economy to strengthen by making money less expensive, so people can make the purchases they need, the longer term purchases they need to make, so that business can strengthen themselves and be prepared for the impact of this economic onslaught. Real interest rates, adjusted for inflation, are currently at a 9- year high. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted as much to the House Committee on Banking earlier this year when he said the following: ``Statistically, it is a fact that real interest rates are higher now than they have been on the average of the post-World War II period.'' We may wonder why short-term interest rates can be so high when the Federal Reserve has held them steady at 5.5 percent since March of 1997. The answer to that question, of course, is inflation, or more precisely, the lack of inflation in our economy. As measured by the Consumer Price Index, the rate of inflation is currently at 1.6 percent. The CPI in fact has been below 2 percent for many months. When we factor in this low inflation rate, real interest rates currently are more than 4 times as high as they were in 1992 at the end of the last recession. We are paying more in interest than we should be paying. The Federal Reserve Board has been hypervigilant about wringing inflation from our economy. They interpret every positive indicator, low unemployment, rising wages, increasing productivity, every one of those indicators are interpreted by the Fed as a sign that prices are going to rise. Of course, they have been wrong every time. The Fed, in fact, in its fixation on inflation, is fighting, in effect, the last major war on inflation, which occurred back in the 1970s. Their mindset is a 1970s mindset. The economy has changed, of course, dramatically since that period. I began calling for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates more than a year ago, last summer, when it became clear that falling unemployment was not going to cause inflation to rise. I was concerned at that time that the Fed would see the first real, albeit modest, increase in workers' wages in almost two decades as a precursor to inflation, and that they would act to slow the economic growth, either by raising interest rates or not by lowering them. This was before the east Asian economic situation was a factor in the rest of the world, and particularly, in our economy. At the end of the last October, when the dimensions of the Asian crisis became apparent, I urged Chairman Greenspan to hold the line on interest rates until we knew how Asia would play out here in this country. I was concerned that disinflation or even deflation due to the strong dollar and increased imports might be the real problem facing us. In fact, currently our trade deficit is the major economic deficit we are confronting as a Nation. Since that time, the situation in Asia has not gotten any better. In fact, it continues to worsen. Barely a month ago the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on their obligations, setting off another global economic problem. Latin America is already the next trouble spot, as investors are beginning to pull their money from emerging markets there and elsewhere around the world. The down side of living in a global economy has finally hit home, and we are unprepared for it. We have rushed into this global economy without our eyes open sufficiently. Interest rates on 30-year Treasuries are at record lows, and are actually below the Federal funds rate. Corporate earnings were down in the second quarter and are likely to be off again in the third quarter, judging from the early reports of many companies. The farm debt is at its highest level since 1985, as commodity prices slide and the global markets for goods dry up. Our trade deficit is the highest it has ever been, and it keeps increasing at record increments each and every month, month after month. The stock market seems to be on a daily roller coaster ride, and a decline in equity values, which is apparent, could dampen confidence and slow consumer and business spending as people watch their wealth evaporate. Mr. Speaker, this is why I am introducing a sense of the Congress resolution calling on the Federal Reserve Board to lower the Federal funds rate promptly. I hope that this resolution will be supported by all the Members.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think that he has made the points extremely well. I would just add that it is becoming increasingly clear, in spite of all the work that has gone into this bill, and we appreciate the difficulty in balancing all of the things that have to be done, the bill remains an inadequate instrument to deal with the economic problems confronting us in the global community. If we fail to recognize that, we do so at our peril. We are already beginning to see the impacts of the economic crisis in East Asia in the deflation that is sweeping across that part of the world. Just a week ago, representatives from the steel industry were here in the Capitol pleading with this government and the White House to do something about the fact that steel was being dumped on our marketplace from East Asia at prices below production cost. We heard just a few moments ago about the tragedy that is beginning to unfold in the agricultural community of this country. All across the farm belt agriculturalists lists are in dire circumstances. Why? For a number of reasons, principal among them is the fact that their markets are beginning to dry up. Not that we have that many markets in the Far East, but the Australians do and the Australian market for grain has dried up in the Far East. And they are now moving into our markets, as are the Canadians. And the result of that is that prices are dropping all around the world for agricultural commodities and our farmers are suffering. They are going to continue to suffer. If we fail to fund the IMF at the appropriate level so that that agency is able to step in and begin to stabilize the currencies and economies of these countries, the repercussions are going to redound on this North American continent next year. We will reap the whirlwind for our failure to act. We need to get this bill out on the floor. We need a full and comprehensive debate on the International Monetary Fund. Yes, we recognize it is an inadequate instrument itself, but it is the only one we have, as the minority leader of the Committee on Appropriations said so many times.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his forbearance in allowing this discussion to take place. I this he does so because he recognizes the importance of it. He may not be yet convinced of the arguments that are being presented on this side of the aisle, but to his credit and to the credit of the chairman of the committee, they recognize that there is validity to these arguments. We are in now a very perilous period in our history. So I just beg my colleagues, please give reconsideration to this decision to prevent an adequate discussion of this. Please give reconsideration to the decision not to fund the IMF. It is desperately essential that we do so.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want the allegations in the report by Mr. Starr to be made public, but the way that that would be done in this resolution is wrong. The burden of that wrong will haunt this process throughout. This process is controlled by the leadership of this House. It is important that the outcome, which could be a grave and heavy outcome, be seen as completely and entirely fair and objective by the people of this country. This process is being begun in a way that belies all of that. It is wrong. It is unfair. There is a pretense to fairness, merely the suits and trappings of fairness and objectivity, but not the real meat of fairness and objectivity. I am convinced that we are embarking on this process in the wrong way. This resolution is wrong, and therefore, I must vote in accordance with that conviction.