Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of next week, March 31, the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Board will meet. This is a critically important meeting, for out of this meeting the FOMC will recommend short-term interest rates for the foreseeable future. There are urgings coming to the Federal Reserve now from monetarists that watch the Federal Reserve Board, and those urgings are that the Federal Reserve should increase interest rates. If they do so, that would be a very serious mistake. It would be a serious mistake if these times were ordinary or normal. But, in fact, they are not ordinary nor normal, for we are beginning to experience the profound negative economic consequences of the financial crisis that is sweeping across east Asia. I say we are ``beginning'' to feel those effects, and we will continue to feel them and the full brunt of those effects will not express themselves on our economy until some time later this year, perhaps within the next 6 months to a year. The effect of the downturn result from this financial crisis in east Asia is going to be to suppress prices, and it is estimated that it will cost us substantially in terms of our own economic growth. Our economic growth rate now, which is in excess of 3 percent, could fall by more than 2 percentage points. In other words, we could be experiencing economic growth of only 1 percent or, at worst, our economic growth could fall into the negative range. We can begin now to buttress our economy from the negative effects of the financial crisis sweeping across east Asia if we act now. One of the ways, one of the most important ways that we can act is for the Federal Reserve now to lower interest rates. Interest rates at this particular moment are high by historical standards, high in real terms; in other words, high in terms of inflation. The inflationary rate currently in our economy is essentially zero. We are experiencing virtually no inflation whatsoever. Nevertheless, real interest rates are abnormally high in that particular context. Mr. Speaker, people will remember that in 1994 and 1995, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times during that period. Back then, that was a mistake and it cost us in terms of our economic growth. We would have recovered from the recession more fully and more quickly if the Federal Reserve had not raised those interest rates. But they did so. And those raised interest rates now stand. Mr. Speaker, we have interest rates today that are higher than they ought to be, and the Federal Reserve should lower them. They should lower them in any case, but particularly they should lower them in light of the fact that we are going to feel these profound consequences from the economic crisis sweeping across east Asia. What are those profound consequences? They will be, as I have indicated, a substantial loss in the rate of our economic growth. They will have the effect of depressing prices for goods manufactured in the United States. They will increase our trade deficit. Mr. Speaker, the trade deficit in goods alone is already increasing markedly, one might say dramatically. The trade deficit, for example in January in goods alone, was $18.8 billion. That is a record for a single month. We have never had a trade deficit for goods alone as high as $18.8 billion ever before. That is up by more than a billion dollars from $17.7 billion in December of last year. So we see already that the trade deficit in goods is going up and going up substantially. As that trade deficit goes up, as the full effect of the overproduction in East Asia comes into our market, the price of our goods is going to drop. That is going to cost us jobs. It is estimated that the cost in jobs could be as much as 1 million. We could lose as many as 1 million jobs in our economy as a result of the financial crisis in east Asia if we fail to act. One of the most important ways available to us to act to head off this substantial loss in economic growth, the substantial increase in the trade deficit, and the substantial loss in jobs is through our monetary policy. The Federal Open Market Committee has the ability to control monetary policy, and they can lower interest rates next Tuesday when they meet. I am now circulating a letter to the Members of the House asking them to join me in this letter to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, asking him to exert his influence in the Federal Reserve and in the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee to lower interest rates. It is critical that we do so in order to head off the dire consequences of this economic crisis.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the late Lt. Col. Henry Van Winkle, U.S.M.C., who was killed last Friday, February 6, 1998. On Friday evening Lt. Col. Van Winkle, according to the United States Marine Corps, was returning from a mission patrolling the no fly zone above Kuwait when his F-18 collided with another Marine jet. He was pronounced dead upon the USS George Washington a short time later. Lt. Col. Van Winkle served as a member of the Marine Corps for just under twenty years. This 1974 graduate of Susquehanna Valley High School in Conklin, New York served his country with distinction. He lived as a Marine and he died serving his country. I ask that you join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to Lt. Col. Van Winkle's widow, Cheryl, to his sons Griffen, age nine, and Grant, age three, and to his mother and brothers during this dark time. We, as citizens grateful for the service of Lt. Colonel Henry Van Winkle, U.S.M.C., join his family in mourning his passing.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China assumed the office of the Presidency on January 13th, 1988, upon the sudden death of President Chiang Ching-kuo. On March 21st, 1990, Lee was elected in his own right by the National Assembly as eighth President of the Republic of China. On March 23rd, 1996, Lee won a landslide victory in the first direct presidential election in the history of China. President Lee was sworn in as the ninth President of the Republic of China on May 20, 1996. In the past ten years, Taiwan has made remarkable progress in moving toward full-fledged democracy. Vigorous opposition parties compete in regular, fair, frequent elections, allowing Taiwan citizens an opportunity to determine the future of their nation. In fact, Taiwan has succeeded in developing full democratic representation at all levels of government throughout the island. The right and responsibility to choose political representatives through the ballot box is guaranteed in the Republic of China Constitution. Taiwan's political leaders, from the lowest administrative officer to the highest office holder, must be accountable to the people. The people of Taiwan will decide Taiwan's future with mainland China. The 21 million people in Taiwan have rejected the so-called ``one country, two systems'' approach advocated by the government on the mainland. In order for meaningful dialogue to begin between Taipei and Peking, President Lee Teng-hui has made it very clear that the two sides must first narrow the enormous differences between the standards of living and political systems. On the matter of economic cooperation between the two sides, President Lee Teng-hui on January 7th explained Taiwan's ``no haste, be patient'' policy on investment in mainland China by saying that the policy is aimed at protecting Taiwan's entrepreneurs and Taiwan's overall interests. In addition to advocating economic caution in dealings with mainland China, President Lee has repeatedly said that Taiwan, like all sovereign nations, must be given a place in the international community. Since mainland China has never stopped trying to have Taipei expelled from the world village, Taiwan must promote its ``pragmatic diplomacy'' more actively. There is no question that Taiwan faces many challenges in the world. But Taiwan stands tall and firm as a beacon of freedom in the Far East. In addition, I would like to express admiration for Taiwan and President Lee Teng-hui for their skill in economic management. While other countries in Asia are suffering from plunging currency values, Taiwan has remained secure and stable. In large measure, that is because of Taiwan's careful banking practices, and high foreign reserves. The Washington Post reports that Taiwan has been so confident of its fiscal management that it is prepared to use its vast financial resources to aid its Southeast Asian neighbors. As an indication of Taiwan's willingness to offer help to its troubled neighbors, high-level delegations, composed of government officials and business leaders, have been visiting the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore. Taiwan is a good neighbor in Asia and a responsible member of the international community. On the occasion of President Lee's ten years in office, I wish him and his country much good fortune in the months and years ahead. May the year of the Tiger be a good one for all my friends in Taiwan.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a man who has devoted his life to serving the community of New York's Ulster County. Thaddeus ``Ted'' Musialkiewicz began his involvement in local activities at a very young age. From organizing youth athletic teams to founding and serving as scoutmaster in a local Boy Scout troop, Ted took a keen interest in the lives of those around him. He truly enjoyed being involved with his neighbors, and, Mr. Speaker, that feeling was reciprocated. While devoting a great deal of his time to community groups, Ted managed to establish himself as a successful businessman and craftsman. He was eventually named president of the Town of Ulster's Business Association where his capable leadership helped to guide local businesses to prosperity. Outside of his proficient professional career and generous community service, Ted selflessly entered into the civic arena by serving as both councilman and supervisor for the Town of Ulster. Once again, he used this leadership opportunity to promote a better standard of living for all of those around him. His outstanding accomplishments in this capacity are epitomized by his efforts in opening the Town of Ulster Public Library. This building, which continues to serve the Ulster community, will forever be a lasting legacy to Ted's selfless work on behalf of his peers. Although Ted was constantly busy with one project or another, he found the time to maintain strong ties to his ethnic community. In characteristic fashion, he was, and remains today, extraordinarily active in the White Eagle Benevolent Society, working to preserve Polish-American values and promote the academic success of Polish- American students. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friends in the White Eagle Benevolent Society in honoring Thaddeus Musialkiewicz for his charitable service to his community and tireless commitment to elevating those around him. I am proud to call Ted my friend and wish him and his family well.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment to congratulate Joe Wasser upon his retirement at the end of this year. Joe has served as Sheriff of Sullivan County up in my district for the past 20 years. But that alone far from captures the breadth and depth of his service to the public. Joe has served as a wonderful role model to us all by being not only a very fine public servant but also a plain old-fashioned good citizen. Joe's many achievements truly are too numerous to mention, but with this session of Congress winding to a close I just wanted to say congratulations to him and wish him many more years of happiness and good health.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in favor of the amendment that has been offered to this bill by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. The purpose of the gentleman's amendment is very simple. It is not to restrict grazing on Federal lands at all. What the gentleman from California would do is simply ensure that foreign corporations who are using Federal lands and grazing on those Federal lands, grazing cattle and other animals on those Federal lands, pay the market price for those grazing rights, either the highest of the State or the private fee, or grazing on either State or private land. This is a very reasonable amendment. It is something that should be supported by every Member of the House. Let us make it clear. We do not object to grazing on Federal lands that are suitable for grazing. We are in favor of that. Often grazing is compatible with most Federal lands. It can be in fact beneficial to some Federal lands. So we are not opposed to grazing on Federal lands. We simply want to ensure that the American taxpayer is not taken to the cleaners by foreign corporations that are grazing their animals on Federal land at bargain basement prices, often one-third or one-fourth of the market value to graze on either private or State lands. That is what the Miller amendment would do. This amendment simply recognizes that there are major foreign corporations from Switzerland, from France, from Japan, that are using vast acreage in the West, thousands of acres to graze their cattle and their animals and that grazing is being subsidized by the American taxpayer. It is high time that this practice be put to an end. What is the reason for it? There is no good reason for it whatsoever. When Members talk about the thousands of small ranchers on Federal lands, they are not talking about major corporations such as Zenchiku, which runs a huge cattle operation on Federal lands in Montana and the Interior Department inspector general noted in a recent report that there was no limit on the grazing privileges and benefits provided to foreign corporations. Why would the Members of this House, whether they come from the West or the East or the South or wherever they come from, why would the Members of this House want to go back to their districts and say, I just voted to ensure that foreign corporations can come here and graze their animals on Federal land and you all are going to have to pay for it, you all meaning the American citizens, the American taxpayers? That does not make any sense. I do not think anybody wants to do that. So the Miller amendment, again, does not restrict grazing on Federal land, not at all. What it does is this, it says that if you are a foreign corporation, you want to come here and graze cattle on Federal land, you have to pay the market price. You have to pay the fair market price. It is a very capitalist amendment, as a matter of fact. It says, no subsidizing by the American taxpayer of grazing privileges for foreign companies. Let us put these subsidies to an end. Let us make sure that the American taxpayer is not asked once again to bear the cost of grazing by major foreign corporations who are wealthy beyond the dreams of most Americans. Let us make sure that they pay the fair market value to graze their animals on Government land that is owned by all the people of this country. Let us all support the Miller amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, over the past 15 months, many of us in the House have had the opportunity to meet and work with the Representative of the Republic of China in Washington, Ambassador Jason Hu. Ambassador Hu will be leaving Washington soon to return to Taipei, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his service and his friendship, and to honor him for the great diplomatic skills he brought to his job here. Our two countries have many interests in common, most importantly our shared commitment to freedom and democratic principles. Ambassador Hu has been effective in emphasizing those common interests during his stay in Washington, and keeping us informed about Taiwan's concerns and its hopes for the future. He has demonstrated his skill in helping to define the limits and the possibilities of the relationship between our two countries, and in helping to find ways to assure that our formal and informal relations serve those common interests. While we are sad to see Ambassador Hu leaving us, I also want to congratulate him on his new assignment as the Republic of China's foreign minister. I am confident that his work in the Ministry will continue to build friendship between our countries and to build on those shared interests. I believe Ambassador Hu understands our people and our country well. The same is true, of course, of Taiwan's President, Lee Teng-hui, who once lived in my congressional district when he attended Cornell University. Let me add to my personal congratulations to Ambassador Hu my congratulations to all the people of Taiwan on their national day.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Peg Leg Bates on his 90th birthday. Mr. Bates is a world renowned entertainer, a successful businessman, and a local legend for Kerhonkson, NY, who has been a good friend to many people and warmed the hearts of even more. Mr. Bates performed with some of the greatest names in show business: Pearl Bailey, Ed Sullivan, Sarah Vaughn, Cab Calloway, Nat King Cole, Lena Horne, Billy Eckstein, and many others. With his indefatigable spirit, determination, and considerable charm, Mr. Bates showed the world that there were not obstacles, only opportunities, and not insurmountable barriers, but barriers to be danced over. He did this, and so much more, with class, poise, and brilliance. So on his 90th birthday this weekend I would like to have my fellow Members of the House of Representatives join me in saluting Pet Leg Bates and wish him many years of good health and happiness to come.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in the last several years that I have had the opportunity to serve on the Committee on Resources, I have come to have a great deal of respect and even affection for the present leaders of what is now called the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]; respectively the chairman of the Committee on Resources and the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. However, we also have occasional differences, and we certainly have a difference on this particular piece of legislation. This bill would restrict the President's ability to declare national monuments. This is a provision that has been in the law now for some 90 years. We have had a large number of monuments that have been declared. I think 13 Presidents have used it, and 102 monuments have been declared over that period of time. This bill is not really about all of that; this bill before us today focuses its attention on simply one national monument declared by President Clinton last year, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. That act by President Clinton was, I believe, one of the most important domestic acts of his administration. It set aside an area of southern Utah which is vastly important to the future of our country, and it is not the first time that this area has been considered for special consideration by a President. Many Presidents have looked at it and thought about declaring national monuments or treating it in some other special way, going back as far as the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. In fact, in Franklin Roosevelt's time, the Minister of the Interior during that administration recommended that vast portions of southern Utah be set aside as a national park. Now, this monument is something like 1.7 million acres, only a small percentage of the public land that is owned by all of the people of the United States located in southern Utah. People of the United States own more than 22 million acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management in southern Utah. This 1.7 million acres is just a small piece of that. So this legislation is designed to really destroy a process that has been in effect now for most of this century, has been used by 13 Presidents, has resulted in the setting aside of 102 national monuments, including the Grand Canyon, some of the most important parts of our country, and it would be destroyed, that process would be destroyed, that privilege would be denied this President and future Presidents if this legislation were to pass. It would be a serious mistake to pass this legislation because it would mean that an honored process that has been very valuable to the people of this country would be destroyed, and the opportunity to set aside national monuments in the future would become much more difficult. For those reasons, I hope that the Members of this House will reject this measure, and it should be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the Here Today Gone Tomorrow Monument Act. It would make two changes in the law regarding large presidentially proclaimed monuments. First, it would require the President to provide 30 days notice prior to a proclamation. And that is no surprise. As Secretary Babbitt has said, and I quote, ``The notice period would provide both incentive and opportunity to stake mining claims and carry out other development activities which could irreparably impair the ability of the President to protect the area.'' That is not just speculation. The opponents of the Grand Canyon and Arches proclamations, to mention just two specifically, said they wanted to mine those areas. Second, it would sunset a monument proclamation after 2 years if Congress did not enact legislation approving it. That means that a single Senator opposed to a monument could block it by putting a hold on the bill or a monument could be gone tomorrow simply because of delays and oversights. We can be sure once the monument declaration expired, the people who wanted to stake mining claims would be out there in force. That is what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] meant about protecting the taxpayers. Put another way, if this substitute had been in effect in 1908, the chances are that much of the Grand Canyon today would be an abandoned mining site; chances are that some of our other national monuments and others would be covered by mill tailings. The ``Dear Colleague'' of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] of last week made this same point. He said then, and I quote, ``A congressional approval process would enable any powerful committee chairman or a single Senator to single-handedly block monument declarations. And few monument declarations fail to attract at least one opponent. Just look back at the opposition that greeted the declaration concerning the Grand Canyon if you have any doubts.'' These words are equally true of the substitute being offered today. That is why this amendment should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from Secretary Babbitt to the Speaker regarding this legislation. Secretary of the Interior, Washington, October 6, 1997. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: We understand that the House soon will consider H.R. 1127, the proposed ``National Monument Fairness Act of 1997,'' a bill strongly opposed by the Administration and which I have stated would be the subject of a veto recommendation. We have serious concerns with a new amendment to the bill made in order last Wednesday. The amendment does not correct the flaws in H.R. 1127, as noted in the attached Statement of Administration Policy. If this amendment is adopted, I would still recommend to the President that he veto H.R. 1127, as the bill would continue to infringe upon the power vested in him by the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act is one of the most successful environmental laws in American history. Between 1906 and 1997, fourteen Presidents have proclaimed 105 national monuments, including Grand Canyon, Zion, Joshua Tree, the Statue of Liberty, Jackson Hole, Death Valley and most recently Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These designations have not been without controversy, but it is clear that, without the President having the authority to act quickly, many of America's grandest places would never have been protected and preserved for future generations. The proposed amendment would require the President to provide 30 days notice prior to a designation. Requiring 30 days public notice in advance of every land withdrawal severely undermines the purpose of the Act, which in part is to permit the President to protect federal lands on an immediate and time-sensitive basis. The notice period would provide both incentive and opportunity to stake mining claims and to carry out other development activities which could irreparably impair the ability of the President to preserve and protect the area. Equally as damaging to our ability to protect public lands, the amendment would make each covered Presidential proclamation effectively temporary. It would require that such proclamations be nullified if Congress does not act affirmatively to ratify them within two years. Congress currently has the authority and opportunity to act to overturn any monument designation at any time by passing legislation to do so. To make permanent monument status dependent on affirmative Congressional action within a specified time limit presents too great a risk that the complexities of the Congressional process and scheduling will undermine the protections for these special places that all Americans want and deserve. I urge the House to defeat this attempt and any others that would undermine the President's authority under the Antiquities Act. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Bruce Babbit.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, life is certainly full of inconsistencies, and nowhere is that more evident than on the floor of the House of Representatives today. We have before us something called the rule on the National Monument Fairness Act of 1997. Of course this act has nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. It has to do entirely and completely with trying to, in some misguided way, strike back at the administration for declaring a national monument in the Grand Staircase in Escalante in southern Utah, an act which, as a matter of fact, has been hailed by people all across the country, including many in Utah and many public officials in Utah. Why we are doing this is certainly beyond me, but inconsistent it certainly is. In introducing the rule on this act, the chairman of the Committee on Rules inveighed against the closed nature in which the President engaged in establishing this national monument while, in fact, that was not a closed process at all. It was a very open process and heralded in many places all across the country. What is closed, in fact, is this modified closed rule in which we are seeking to address this very important issue. Another inconsistency. Just recently, in a budget bill, we passed legislation which appropriated $5 million for the purchase of the Reagan ranch in California. Now, that may be a very good idea. I do not know. And I am sure most people do not know because there were no hearings. There was no open process. No one knew anything about it. The people in the surrounding area, I understand, are very upset about the fact that this ranch has now been purchased, or is about to be purchased, for $5 million. Talk about a closed process, this majority here seems to have the patent on closed processes. Let us talk for a moment about one of the specific amendments here, the amendment that is being introduced by my good friend from Utah which would set up a process whereby before any national monuments can be designated, 30 days notice has to be given to the State. That may not be a bad idea, but then it goes further and it says that after 2 years, after the monument has been designated for 2 years, the Congress is going to have to take some affirmative action. What that means is, in effect, that the National Monuments Act will be made null and void, because virtually any Member of the Congress would be able to hold it up. Now, my dear friend from Utah was talking a few moments ago about how a national monument can be installed anyplace in the country by whim of the President. Not so, my colleagues. That is not the case at all. First of all, national monuments can be declared only on public land, and the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument involves public land in the State of Utah, and that is what this is about. This is about designating land that is owned by all of the people of this country, public lands owned by all of the people of this country to be a national monument. Now, we were told also that there are no specifics in this proclamation. Quite the contrary, Madam Speaker. The proclamation that the President used in declaring the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument is replete with specifics. Let me mention just a few. The monument holds many arches and natural bridges, including the 130-foot high Escalante Natural Bridge, with a 100-foot span, and Grosvenor Arch, a rare double arch. The upper Escalante canyons in the northeastern reaches of the monument are distinctive: In addition to several major arches and the natural bridges, vivid geological features are laid bare in narrow serpentine canyons. It goes on and on. There are innumerable specifics in this proclamation that set forth precisely why this area was designated a national monument. So what we have before us today is not an act that seeks fairness, it is an act that seeks some perverse kind of revenge for having done something that some people may not approve of, although is approved of by the overwhelming majority of the American people and by notable public officials in the State of Utah, including the Governor of the State of Utah. This was, in fact, the right thing to do. The President has used this act in precisely the way it was intended to be used, precisely the way 13 other Presidents have used it in the past. And if this act were in effect when other national monuments were intended to be enacted, they never would have taken place. The people of this country would have been deprived of some of the most important aspects of our natural heritage. This rule is a bad rule, Madam Speaker, and the amendments that it makes germane are bad also and they ought to both be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I would point out to my friend that only 2 days time was given to file amendments and there is only 10 minutes allowed for debate on each of the amendments that have been allowed. So in my colleague's own language, and appropriately so, this rule has been described as a modified closed rule, and closed it certainly is.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was delayed en route to the vote on Treasury-Postal appropriations. If I had been in the House, I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the House is currently being operated in a disorderly fashion.

Mr. HINCHEY. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HINCHEY. The House is being operated in a disorderly manner.

Mr. HINCHEY. Of the Members, but it betrays also a deep-seated----

Mr. HINCHEY. The propensity of the majority to schedule long hiatuses day after day in the middle of the proceedings in order that some Members may socialize betrays not just a lack of consideration----

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, since the majority party in this House has not scheduled an opportunity for the House to debate and vote upon campaign finance reform, my inquiry is, why are we recessing tonight between 3 and 6 p.m. and then coming back for votes which will run later on into the evening?

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute in order to pose a question to the majority leader or his designee.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues from New York and around the country to join me in honoring the former chief judge of the State of New York, Lawrence H. Cooke. Judge Cooke is a man who has served his State, his nation, and his community with a passion and dedication to fairness and justice for all Americans. Lawrence Cooke went from being a country lawyer in his beloved Sullivan County to the very pinnacle of the legal profession by becoming the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals. He is and remains one of those most respected jurists of this century. While he scaled the very loftiest of positions as a judge, he is also know for retaining his common touch, his ability to relate to and converse with ordinary people about their concerns. This is all too rare a gift. Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 1997, Judge Cooke will be honored by the people of Sullivan County by the naming of the Lawrence H. Cooke Sullivan County Courthouse in Monticello. I hope that my colleagues will join me in celebrating and applauding the life and work of this distinguished jurist, Lawrence H. Cooke.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, because I cannot understand the reasoning behind denying communities across the country the opportunity to engage in a voluntary system, a system which will enable them to more accurately test their students to see if they are doing well. This is not, as some have suggested, about establishing a national curriculum. After all, math and reading are part of every curriculum. It is about testing for those two subjects. These are the two critical parts of every curriculum. If a student cannot participate in math and do math well, they are not going to succeed very well in society. If they cannot read and use language arts very well, they are not going to succeed in society. That is what this program is all about. The President is offering communities across the country the opportunity to participate voluntarily so they can judge and test whether or not their students are making progress, so that they can compete more effectively throughout the school system on into higher education and then on into the economy. Some have said that testing establishes a stigma. Well, what kind of stigma is worse than the stigma of not being able to do simple mathematics, or what kind of stigma is worse than the stigma of not being able to read and write, to be able to communicate properly? That kind of stigma is a real stigma, one that prevents people from participating in the economic system in a fair and just way, prevents them from getting jobs and taking care of their families. Testing will simply measure the progress that is being made. It is not something that the administration is trying to force on anyone. They are simply offering it. If you want to participate in it, you may. If you want to establish your own statewide tests, you certainly may do that and leave this one alone. If you want to establish different tests for different communities, do that, if you like, within your States. But if you want a national test that is available to you, which will enable you to see whether or not your students are keeping pace with others in other parts of the country so when they get older and as they move to other parts of the country, and, indeed, to other parts of the world, they will be able to compete effectively with those students who are educated in other places, that simply is what is at stake here. Mr. Chairman, I just cannot understand why we should be opposed to giving communities the opportunity to allow students to find out more about themselves and about the progress they are making through the educational system. That is what this test does, and we ought to reject the amendment therefore.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in opposing the amendment that is before us, I, of course, mean no disrespect to the sponsor of this amendment. The gentleman is a respected Member of this House; it is just that we differ on this particular issue. It seems to me that it is not a wise thing for us now to be reversing a policy of moving in the direction of greater cooperation with India. That is in the interest of the people of the United States as it is in the interest of the people of India and, I believe, generally in the interest of the people of the world. We have much in common with this country. That, I think, is obvious. We share a common language, we share a basic economic system in common, and we share a basic political system in common. India is a democracy. That fact has been proven if by no other reason than the recent elevation to the highest office in the land of a person from the lowest strata of society. It shows that there is political mobility based upon democratic principles, democratic ideals that we hold in common with them. Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense for us to back away from a relationship with this country. By the middle of the next century, India will be the most populous nation in the world, and my remarks are based upon not just observations in the abstract but based upon the fact that I have had the opportunity to be there and to see firsthand the kinds of things that are happening in that country. Not perfect by any means, a great many things that have to be corrected, obviously and for sure, but progress is definitely being made. We need to continue to work with them on that progress. We have major investments there. India is America's largest trading partner. That trading relationship is only going to grow and it will grow to the benefit of Americans as well. This is a bad idea. It is something that we ought to reject. We ought to continue to promote better relationships and a closer affinity with the people of this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].