Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we have seen significant changes in the Far East in the last few weeks. Most of the attention has focused on the departure of Britain from Hong Kong, and the Beijing Government's assumption of control over those territories. Many of us are deeply concerned about what that will mean for the rights of the residents of Hong Kong, and for the future of civil liberties there. But it would be unfortunate if those developments overshadowed what has happened in the Republic of China on Taiwan. On July 18, work was completed on a number of constitutional changes. Among the structural changes was the freezing of provincial government operations, a step which should make Taiwan more of a participatory and representative democracy. The changes will guarantee Taiwan's original residents full political participation. At the same time, other changes will also provide the kinds of social protections and guarantees that many of us consider an essential feature of a modern democracy. For instance, the changes will guarantee medical care to disabled citizens. Let us hope that the progress Taiwan has made in the past and the further progress it has made with these changes shall serve as an example for other Asian nations. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Jason Hu, the Representative of the Republic of China on Taiwan, on completing his first year of service here on Washington. Many of us in the House have come to know him and respect him for his work here and for sharing his perspective on Asian affairs with us. He is an able successor to his predecessor, Ambassador Liu.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, we live in a country where our agricultural production is so bountiful that it exceeds that which our people can consume. We have excess agricultural production each and every year. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people in our country go to bed hungry every night. Many of these people who are hungry are women who are carrying infants, pregnant women. Others are young mothers, their infants and children. This is a brutal paradox. And the brutality of it is made worse by the bill before us, because the bill before us would deprive, it is estimated, 50,000 people, young mothers, pregnant women, young children, infants, from the ability to participate in the women, infants and children program, which provides basic nutrition for those folks. The Obey amendment seeks to correct that brutal situation by restoring $24 million to the women, infants and children program so that some of those pregnant women, some of those young mothers, some of those infants, and some of those children will get proper nutrition. This is a reasonable thing to do. The opposition says that the Obey amendment is going to hurt farmers. The facts of the matter are quite the contrary. The Obey amendment will help farmers. It will help farmers by taking care of some of that excess agricultural production. Dairy, for example. We have excess dairy production all across the northeastern part of this country and elsewhere in the United States. The Obey bill will make sure that some of that excess milk and other dairy products are consumed by people who are hungry and need the nutrition. It is a sensible, reasonable thing to do. He takes the money, the $24 million, from the commissions of people who sell crop insurance. And he talked a little bit earlier about some of the specific benefits, like skyboxes and airplane trips and things of that nature, that are enjoyed by these commissioners. And they will be, unfortunately, deprived of those amenities, but that money now will be used to make young mothers, pregnant women, young children whole, give them better nutrition, make them strong, make them healthy. It is a good amendment, and I hope that all Members of this House will support it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, my reading of this amendment is that it would effectively prohibit the Secretary from recognizing new Indian trust lands. I therefore am opposed to the amendment, and I ask others to join me in that position. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if it were to succeed, would be destructive not only to native Americans but also in many instances to the communities around which they reside or nearby where they reside. Why do tribes petition to the Secretary to take lands into trust for them in the first place? In some cases they are reacquiring lands they have lost because of their historical or religious significance and they want those lands back again. In most cases they are acquiring lands which have the potential to produce income for the tribe, to help them become economically self-sufficient. Because of the discrimination that they have faced, because of poverty and limited education and a host of other disadvantages, and because they lost their lands which they depended upon, many tribes cannot build self-sufficiency without building on their trust lands; that is, taking advantage of the edge that sovereignty gives them. In effect, this is no different from States that make use of their statehood to draw business or create industry; gambling in Nevada, for example, or credit cards in Delaware or South Dakota, or communities that offer tax breaks to attract industries. But they cannot take their advantage of their sovereignty unless they have land, and specifically land that has some commercial potential. If they open a business 200 miles from nowhere, then obviously they are not going to get people to travel there to do business with them. If we take away their opportunity to have new lands taken into trust, lands where they are sovereign, we are taking their only real competitive edge from them, the only real edge they have. We are denying them the best chance they have to become a self-sufficient community. We are taking their livelihood away from them, just as surely as we did a century or two ago. But some will ask this question: Does this opportunity not hurt their neighbors? Does this not hurt the States? When the Secretary considers petitions for trust lands, and this point has been made here earlier this afternoon, he must take into account the interests of the affected State and local governments, and he does so in every instance. But he does not allow a State or a local government to veto a petition. He has to consider the objections to it, look at those objections in context, but that does not give the opportunity for a veto. In many cases the State and local governments benefit from the designation of new trust lands. This is true in my State and in my district. One of the counties I represent is in fact eager to see tribes acquire new trust lands in their midst, because they expect that by so doing, that will also bring in profitable businesses that will benefit all the other businesses that currently exist in that community, and will exist there in the future. So this amendment would not only deny an economic opportunity for Indian tribes, it would also block, in many instances, opportunities for the communities they live with and work with. So for those reasons, that it impinges unnecessarily, unfairly, and I believe unconstitutionally on the sovereignty of Indian tribes, and that also in many instances as a result it will do damage to the communities that adjoin those Indian tribe lands, those Indian trust lands, I oppose this amendment, and I hope that enough others will oppose it so it will be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. Hinchey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. As the sponsor of the House version of the resolution, I am pleased that it has been brought before the House so promptly and expeditiously. The Senate has already adopted the resolution by unanimous consent, and the President has publicly supported it. I especially want to thank our committee chairman, Don Young, and our subcommittee chair, Jim Hansen, for expediting the resolution's consideration, and Dan Smith, of the committee staff, for his work on this. Along with our colleague, Phil English, I served on the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, which was responsible for the design and construction of the new Roosevelt Memorial. For a long time, the Commission was ambivalent about whether the memorial should include a depiction of the President in his wheelchair. On the one hand, we knew that President Roosevelt did not want to be portrayed in his wheelchair when he was in office, and he kept the extent of his disability form the public. On the other, we know that his disability is certainly no secret today, and that most Americans find it one of the most inspiring facts about his life. America has changed in the years since President Roosevelt died, and in the years that the memorial was being planned and built. Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, which recognizes and protects the rights of the disabled to full participation in our society. When the memorial was first conceived, there was no legal requirement that it be made accessible to the handicapped, and it had already gone through several plans and designs before accessibility even became a consideration. The minds and hearts of our people have opened themselves to the disabled in a way that I am sure that President Roosevelt would have welcomed. I think this change in law and in attitude has brought most of us who were involved with the Memorial close to a consensus that the President's disability should be acknowledged in the memorial, and his triumph over it celebrated along with the many other triumphs of his life and work. President Roosevelt came from the Hudson Valley, as I do, although our families had little in common. He was a hereditary aristocrat, and grew up on a vast estate overlooking the river. He was educated at the best and most exclusive schools--Groton and Harvard--and was groomed for a life of privilege. Yet his presidency reached out to all Americans. He displayed a particular concern with the lowly, with those who had little or nothing, those whose lives were a forest of obstacles rather than a vista of opportunity. For this he was called a traitor to his class--and those of us who toiled to build the railroads and the towers, and slogged through the mud, loved him all the more for it. I believe that at least part of the reason he cared so much about those who had to struggle was his own struggle after he was stricken with infantile paralysis just before he turned 40. He made the decision that it would not let it stop him. But it also must have made him understand and sympathize with those who faced other obstacles and tried to overcome them--even if they were not as successful as he was. President Roosevelt may have intended to be more open about his disability once he left office, and no longer felt the need to convey an image of strength to the Nation. He designed a modest retirement home for himself on his estate at Hyde Park. It was at his retirement cottage where he held the famous barbecue for the King and Queen of England. He designed the cottage to be handicapped-accessible and barrier-free--a major innovation in its time. Had he lived, his home might have served as an example, and might have advanced barrier-free design by several decades. But as I said, even if his disability was not widely known when he was alive, it is known now. We should not try to hide it again at the memorial or elsewhere. Instead, we should show the positive side. We should let today's Americans and future generations know that an obstacle like the one the President suffered can be overcome. We should let them know that people with disabilities are people like everyone else, people whose talents and capabilities can benefit everyone else, people who can lead and can achieve. And we should let the memorial serve as a place of pride and inspiration for those who do suffer from disabilities: that someone who shared their burden rose as high as President Roosevelt and achieved as much. We hope that progress on this addition to the memorial will go forward as expeditiously as this legislation, and that Secretary Babbitt and the Park Service will turn their attention to it as quickly as possible. At the same time, I hope they will review some concerns that have been raised about accessibility at the memorial now that it is open to the public--to find ways to allow disabled visitors to experience the same sense of participation and closeness to the Roosevelts as other visitors, specifically to be able to feel the braille inscriptions, touch the statues, and enjoy the cooling waters as President Roosevelt himself did. The resolution gives the Park Service flexibility in developing a design for this addition, but we hope that the Service will fully take into account the sensibilities of disabled Americans, and will include a representation as prominent and tangible as the statues that have already been erected.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I must say that there is no balance in this plan that we are being asked to vote on this afternoon, nor does it balance the budget because it has to be seen in the context of the taxing bill that follows hard on its heels. These two bills in concert increase the budget deficit; they do not decrease it. In fact, shortly into the next century the budget deficit will once again be approaching $100 billion under the Republican plan. Now is this being done by accident? I doubt it. They are doing it intentionally in order to create a circumstance where this Government can no longer afford to pay for the social programs like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, just as they tried to do in the 1981 tax cut. That will be the effect of it. Just when the baby boom generation reaches its retirement age, that is when the big deficits kick in under this plan. The fact of the matter is that the budget today is almost in balance. We have reduced it over the last year some $290 billion, down now to about $50 billion, and if we left the present policies in place, the budget would be in balance shortly. This bill that we are asked to vote on today is a bill that creates class warfare. It does so by creating those big budget deficits, and it also repeals the social contract for a large number of Americans. It destroys the dignity of work, and it creates a new under class for the first time. That is the extent to which this bill goes in its class warfare by actually creating a new under class of people, people who will be denied the rights of other workers. Protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act, they will not have that protection. They will not have the protection of equal pay, they will not have protection under the civil rights law, they will not have the protection under OSHA, and they will not have protection from sexual harassment in the workplace. Finally, what does it do for health care for children, as we have heard so often this afternoon? It does not provide care for 5 million, only for 500,000. This is a bad bill and has bad implications now and for the future.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, it must be confusing to people who may have been watching and listening to these statements over the course of the last several minutes. There are obviously two differences of opinion here. Let us look at the analysis from an objective, nonpartisan group. The Citizens for Tax Justice, who are exactly that, have told us that the Republican tax cut benefits overwhelmingly the richest people in the country. Sixty percent of their tax cut goes to 40 percent of the American people. That blatantly is unfair. On top of that, they are attempting to repeal the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was put into place to make sure that the most profitable American corporations pay at least something in taxes every year to the Federal Government. If they are not paying their taxes, then American families have to make up that difference. That is what they are trying to do, to pass the obligation to pay for what the country needs from the richest people to the average working people. We are opposed to that and we are determined to stop it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of any tax system has to be fairness and justice. No system of taxation, particularly in a republic like ours, can be supported if it is not fair and just. What the majority here in this House is trying to do is to perpetrate on the people of this country a system of taxation which is neither fair nor just. The best example of that in the recent bill that they have proposed is a proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was established back in 1986, when it was discovered that major American corporations with huge profits were paying absolutely no taxes to the Federal Government. On one occasion, for example, a major American corporation, in spite of the fact that it had $5.5 billion in profits, paid no taxes to the Federal Government whatsoever, while the average taxpayer in my State, for example, was paying $34,000 of their hard-earned money in taxes that year. Obviously if we reduce the taxes for major corporations, others are going to have to make up the difference. That difference will have to be made up by the American working people. I am going to introduce a resolution supporting the alternative minimum tax and an amendment to the bill when it comes on this floor to make sure that profitable corporations pay their share of taxes.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was delayed on route to the Capitol following a meeting with constituents in my congressional district during the votes on H. Res. 152. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, last week I and others took the floor of this House to deplore the majority party's suggestion that 180,000 American women and children should be cut from the women, infants and children program. This program, WIC as it is known, is an extraordinarily effective program. It prevents low birth weight babies, it prevents anemic babies, it provides proper nutrition for women who are lactating to ensure that their babies grow to be strong and healthy. We were able to defeat that proposal last week, but now we have another proposal before us. An amendment to the supplemental budget that is up today would cut 500,000 women and infants from the women, infants, and children program. We need to marshal our forces once again. The Gekas amendment needs to be defeated. It should be defeated because it is shortsighted and mean-spirited. It would have the opposite effect of those who want to invest in the future of our country by investing in American families. Let us defeat that amendment and make sure that the women, infants, and children program continues to be an effective way to strengthen women, strengthen their children, and strengthen American families.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a man who has given his life to aiding the poor and underprivileged of New York's Ulster County. Thomas W. Roach, Jr. began his long and distinguished career in public service as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. After leaving the military, he spent 30 years working in the insurance industry. During that time, beginning in 1974, Mr. Roach served in several capacities on the Ulster County Legislature, including minority leader from 1978 to 1979, and chairman from 1980 to 1983. While a member of the legislature, Mr. Roach was the chairman of the mental health committee for 2 years, and chairman of the public health committee for 4 years, while sitting on several other committees as well. When Mr. Roach left the legislature, it was to continue his devotion to Ulster County as the county commissioner of social services. Under his leadership, the Ulster County Department of Social Services became known throughout New York as a model in innovative program development and initiative. Healthy Start, a home-visitor based early intervention program, the Family Violence Investigative Unit, and the Social Services Roundtable, which has greatly improved communication between the commissioner, staff, and clients of social services, are only a few of the programs developed by Commissioner Roach. Outside of his professional commitment to Ulster County and the welfare of its people, Thomas Roach has also participated in many community activities in this area. He served as president of the Maternal-Infant Services Network Board, the American Cancer Society- Ulster County Chapter, and the New York State Public Welfare Association, of which he is still a board member, and many other organizations. To my great sadness, Thomas W. Roach, Jr. has decided to retire from his position as Ulster County Commissioner of Social Services after 12 years of dedicated service. His departure will be keenly felt by those he worked with, the many people he helped during his tenure, and our entire community. I can only hope that his successor will be able to continue the precedent he has set for dedication, innovation, and collaboration, and that he continues the charitable work in our community which he has been involved in for so many years. He has always been and will continue to be a good citizen and a great friend.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago the Committee on Appropriations rejected the President's request for full funding of WIC through the end of this fiscal year. Once again, the majority party here and its leadership is asking us to literally take the food out of children's mouths. First it was the school lunch cuts in 1995, then the $23 billion in cuts to food stamps in the 1996 welfare bill, and now in 1997 as many as 180,000 pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children under age 5 will be denied basic nutrition. WIC is not Government waste. In fact, it is one of the most highly regarded Government programs. Extensive research shows that WIC has proven to reduce the incidence of low birth weights, infant mortality, and child anemia. And it is cost effective. According to the GAO, each $1 spent on prenatal WIC services saves the Government $3.50 in Medicaid and other costs. We need this program. Let us fund it fully and appropriately for the benefit and welfare of young families in America.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Republic of China and its President, Lee Teng-Hui, on the anniversary of Taiwan's first Presidential election. In 1996 President Lee became the first freely-elected President in the history of China. President Lee, who received over 54 percent of the popular vote, has proven that strong leadership does not come from strong-arming the people. Over the past year, his administration has continued to build on the same cornerstones our own country was founded on: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of economic freedom through private enterprise. Ever since the Republic of China was founded 86 years ago, we have enjoyed a very friendly relationship. Part of that friendship has been based on the Republic of China's strong foreign policy leaders. The Republic of China's newest Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Chang, has done an outstanding job of continuing this tradition. Prior to his appointment last year as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Chang worked more than 30 years to promote better relations between our two countries. Educated here in the United States, Mr. Chang served as the Director of North American Affairs in Taipei, and most recently the Minister of Overseas Chinese Affairs. Many Members of Congress have had the opportunity to meet with him over the past year, and I am sure they join me in congratulating him on a successful first year. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate Taipei's Representative here in Washington, Ambassador Jason Hu. Ambassador Hu has worked hard to strengthen the political and economic relationship between our two countries. Ambassador Hu has been instrumental in helping Chung Hwa, the newly privatized Taiwanese telecommunications company, open an office here in Washington. Chung Hwa is seeking to purchase more than 10 billion dollars worth of U.S. goods and services. Ambassador Hu's leadership in promoting political and economic relations between our countries is an invaluable resource to our continued friendship. Recently, Dr. Hu received an honorary doctoral degree from the University of Southampton where he studied from 1976 to 1978, earning a master's degree in social science from the Department of Politics. Dr. Hu later earned his Ph.D. in 1985 from Oxford University. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate President Lee for having so wisely chosen a scholar/diplomat to represent the Republic of China in the United States. A little more than one year ago, Mr. Speaker, the Republic of China held free and fair Presidential elections despite military bullying by the People's Republic of China. The PRC claims to hold elections, but the entire world knows that the people on the mainland have no choice in deciding their political leaders. That is not the case with the Republic of China, which has a multi-party system, respect for individual rights and a robust economy based on free trade. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of the Republic of China, President Lee, foreign Minister Chang and Ambassador Hu on a very successful year. I know my colleagues join me in wishing them continued success in the future.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute today to a man who gave his life defending our Nation. Sgt. Lester R. Stone, Jr., distinguished himself on March 3, 1969, while serving as squad leader of the 1st Platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry, 11th Infantry Brigade, 23d Infantry Division. On this date, the 1st Platoon as on a combat patrol mission just west of Landing Zone, when it came under intense automatic weapons and grenade fire from a well-concealed company-size force of North Vietnamese regulars. Observing the platoon machinegunner fall critically wounded, Sergeant Stone rushed into the open area to the side of his injured comrade. Utilizing the machinegun, Sergeant Stone remained in the exposed area to provide cover fire for the wounded soldier who was being pulled to safety by another member of the platoon. With enemy fire impacting all around him, Sergeant Stone had a malfunction in the machinegun, preventing him from firing the weapon automatically. Displaying extraordinary courage under the most adverse conditions, Sergeant Stone repaired the weapon and continued to place on the enemy positions effective suppressive fire which enabled the rescue to be completed. In a desperate attempt to overrun his position, an enemy force left its cover and charged Sergeant Stone. Disregarding the danger involved, Sergeant Stone rose to his knees and began placing intense fire on the enemy at point-blank range, killing six of the enemy before falling mortally wounded. His actions of unsurpassed valor were a source of inspiration to his entire unit, and he was responsible for saving the lives of a number of his fellow soldiers. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military profession and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army. To fully recognize Sergeant Stone's heroism and bravery, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in asking the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to name the new veterans outpatient clinic at the Binghamton Psychiatric Center after Sergeant Stone. I can think of no more fitting or appropriate gesture to memorialize Sgt. Lester R. Stone, Jr., and his contributions to our Nation's freedom.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important aspects of the foundation upon which this Republic is based is freedom of the press. That freedom unfortunately is under attack by the majority in this House. Two days ago, the Speaker of the House of Representatives addressing the Georgia Chamber of Commerce called upon the advertisers in America's newspapers to attempt to influence the quality and character of news as it is being recorded by the free press in this country. This comes upon the heels of the blatant attack during the last Congress to influence in an outrageous way public broadcasting, both television and radio, in this country by cutting back on their funds. Freedom of the press is critically important to the future of this country and to the freedoms that are possessed by all Americans. That freedom is under attack by this Speaker. I call upon the majority Members in this House to repudiate those remarks of the Speaker and to reaffirm that this House stands solidly behind the right of the free press in this country to report the news as it sees fit, not based upon the advertisers that advertise in those newspapers.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment tonight to recognize the accomplishments of Robert T. Brown who will soon be retiring after 23 years as president of the Ulster County Community College. Bob Brown embodies a rare combination of qualities: visionary and doer; philosopher and achiever. As Ulster County Community College's leader, he has planned for and overseen important campus expansions during times of growth and developed innovative and bold programs and partnerships to respond to economic downturns. He is an educator who has never lost his commitment to putting students first. Bob has been recognized locally, regionally, and nationally for his strong advocacy on behalf to 2-year colleges and the importance of their academic and community-based missions. He has been honored to receive the Northern Arizona University Distinguished Alumni Award, the Americanism Award from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and the University of Texas at Austin's Outstanding Community College President Award, among many others. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night I will be with Bob Brown and his family and his many friends to celebrate his life and his achievements, and most of all to thank him for being there for me and for our community. He is someone who has truly made a difference.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, the demands on our public lands and resources have been steadily increasing. Growing interest in the kinds of recreational opportunities offered by our national parks, forests, and other lands has led to overcrowding at many of the most popular parks, and increased visitorship almost everywhere. At the same time, the need for the land management agencies to advance their mission of resource protection has also increased. Growth and development has reduced wildlife habitat, has increased the demand for pure and clean water, and has intensified the environmental stresses on undeveloped land, including many of the lands owned by all the American people and managed for them by the Federal Government. But while the demands have been increasing, the share of the Federal budget devoted to these resources has been declining. The agencies have been asked more and more to pay their own way--as if the work they do did not benefit all Americans. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, originally intended to provide a secure and steady source of funding to acquire critically important properties for public benefit, has fallen into disuse: Its funds are now used primarily to lend money to the Treasury for other purposes. If we have not seen the stresses on our parks and forests and refuges with our own eyes, all of us have at least read about them--the constant traffic at parks like Yosemite and Grand Canyon, the sagging roof at Independence Hall, the damage done to Anasazi ruins in the Southwest that the Government can't afford to guard. Our national treasures are decaying. Our citizens who want to visit and enjoy them can't be accommodated. And our natural resources--our pure water, our wildlife--are suffering. It is time that we reverse direction and start increasing our investment in these resources, and increasing our attention to these problems. I'm pleased to say that over 150 organizations from all around the country--national groups and local groups, conservation groups and recreation groups, sportspeople and environmentalists, hikers, hunters, fishers, and scientists, have joined together to endorse a specific and detailed proposal for gradually and steadily increasing investment in these resources over the next 5 years. Their proposal would help to alleviate the strain on the land management agencies, help them deal with their backlog of repair and restoration projects, and help them to serve the needs and demands of the American public. Their proposal is by no means a budget buster. On the contrary, if we do not pay attention to these issues, we will be squandering our capital, the lands, and resources we hold in trust for the American people. We cannot afford to keep deferring these needs any more than we could afford to defer fixing a broken pipe or a leaky roof in our own homes. We will be hearing more about this proposal in the months ahead, as we consider the budget and appropriations for next year. I am sharing it with all my colleagues in the House today, and I ask everyone to give it serious consideration. Appropriately, the great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt provided an introduction for the plan, carrying on his family's distinguished tradition of support for public lands and the protection of irreplaceable resources. I am urging your full consideration of the attached funding recommendations--supported by 150 environmental, recreation, and conservation groups--for our public lands and wildlife systems. America's public lands and resources belong to--and benefit--all citizens in numerous ways. They represent a magnificent natural heritage that will be squandered without adequate commitment of funding to support dedicated staff and other resources necessary for proper stewardship. These irreplaceable national assets: Protect wildlife, rare and endangered species, and other living resources; help to keep our air and water clean and pure; supply renewable and non- renewable resources; support vital industries like fishing and resource dependent recreation resulting in billions of dollars of direct and indirect economic benefits for local communities; generate millions of annual recreational visits by enthusiasts engaging in activities like wildlife viewing, photography, camping, family picnics, hunting, and fishing; provide untold hours of enjoyment for millions of American families as well as solace and renewal for those wanting the solitude of a wilderness experience; and satisfy our deeply rooted national ethic to keep wild America alive and thriving. Given the overwhelming importance of these resources to present and future generations of Americans, the only fiscally responsible course is to invest adequately in their stewardship and management even as we take needed steps to balance the federal budget. Indeed, denying critically needed funding is fiscally irresponsible and shortsighted--the neglect caused by deficient funding will result in destruction and degradation of these valuable assets that is far more costly in the long run than providing the funds to properly care for them today. The attached proposal makes prudent and modest recommendations for necessary funding increases that will help to protect our public assets and ensure that our children and grandchildren will continue to enjoy and benefit from them. As President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``Wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the people who are alive today, but the property of unborn generations whose belongings we have no right to squander.'' We owe our unborn future generations a fiscal legacy that acknowledges and sustains their natural legacy. Sincerely yours, Theodore Roosevelt IV. Public Lands Funding Initiative introduction The public lands of the United States--our National Parks, Forests, Grasslands, and Wildlife Refuges--are held in trust for current and future generations of Americans. Since the election a number of organizations from the environmental, recreation, and conservation community have been meeting to coordinate an initiative to address the funding needs of America's public lands. The public lands community plans to make this a long-term campaign that will help frame the budget debate while focusing on the message that we can balance the federal budget without abandoning America's public lands. We plan to convince a majority in Congress that this is an area where additional cuts are not justified, and further, that incremental increases in the public lands budget are necessary to protect the nation's forests, parks, refuges, and wildlife. A successful effort will mean that we can maintain accessibility to these lands and improve their ecological health. This proposal establishes annualized budget goals for several Department of Interior agencies and the U.S. Forest Service. The environmental, conservation, and recreational community will also be working toward eliminating ecologically damaging federal programs and subsidies. budgetary growth: an incremental approach The following table depicts needed increases in FY97 spending levels for the 602(b) Interior and Related Agencies Budget Allocation. The table identifies the budgetary increases necessary to accommodate public land management over a six-year period. Under this scenario, much needed funding for currently unmet public land conservation needs can be achieved by FY03 through annual increases in the 602(b) budget allocation. The FY97 Interior Appropriation, less emergency funds, is $12.4 billion in budget authority. The first line in the table (Resulting Allocation) presents, in real dollars, the recommended annual funding increases relative to FY97 and not the total allocation for Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The second line represents the funding additions to FY97 level for the agencies and programs specified in this document. INCREASED 602(b) ALLOCATIONS: AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH TO BUDGET GROWTH INCREASES OVER FISCAL YEAR 1997 FUNDING

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, professors Nathan Mao and Winstan Yang have called to my attention an interesting discussion of the Republic of China's economic competitiveness written by ROC Vice President/Premier Lien Chang. Vice President Lien's discussion takes the form of a review of Michael Porter's book, ``The Competitive Advantage of Nations.'' He found that the book has much to say about Taiwan's future role in the global economy. I hereby ask permission that Vice President/Premier's review of ``Establishing a National Competitive Advantage Through Dynamic Competition'' be printed in the Record. Establishing a National Competitive Advantage Through Dynamic Competition (By Lien Chan, Vice-President/Premier, R.O.C.) The nearly 600,000-word book, ``The Competitive Advantage of Nations,'' by Harvard University professor Michael E. Porter is an examplar of works on the leading edge of contemporary academic thought that can influence current government policy. A book is considered a classic if its author raises profound questions and offers penetrating insights that enlighten the reader. One may disagree with some of its theses but must give serious consideration to their implications. At this juncture when the whole country is vigorously working toward attaining supreme global competitiveness, reading Porter's epochal masterwork, ``The Competitive Advantage of Nations,'' greatly bolsters our confidence and, during the process of government policymaking, helps us confront the following major questions: What is a national competitive advantage? What role should government play vis-a-vis industry regarding international competition? How should government and industry work together to create a national competitive advantage? How can industry seek an industrial competitive advantage? What efforts should be made with the private sector to cultivate a healthy, aggressive, and full competitive macroenvironment? Reading this book has made me keenly aware that the pattern of economic competition has changed with the times. Traditionally, competition was static, and success or failure hinged on production factors. Modem competition is dynamic, and new technologies, new products, new market demarcations, new production processes, and new management concepts are constantly emerging to change and even undermine a national and industrial competitive advantage. This book also reminds me of some of the theses proposed many years ago by Bruce R. Scott, also a professor at Harvard. After comparing the United States, France, and some developing nations, including the Republic of China, Scott formulated his ``dynamics of comparative interest.'' He maintained that some postwar countries, such as Japan and the Republic of China, have advanced and prospered rapidly because they were able to transcend the concept of static comparative interest and break through their resource limitations through scientific and technological innovation, enlarging the scale of production, and actively expanding foreign trade. Scott particularly cited Japan as an example. The Japanese understand that comparative interest can be created and renewed through the enhancement of skills, capital, and the workforce. In addition, an environment conducive to economic development can be established through institutional reform. These experiences confirm that in the midst of modern dynamic competition, it is paramount to raise national, social, industrial, and private-sector competitiveness. diamond system Over the past dozen years, Porter has published three books on ``competitive advantage.'' The first two focused on industry, while this one concerns nations. This change is quite meaningful. Porter discovered that a nation's macroenvironment crucially affects industrial competitiveness; it can either help or hinder industrial development. He astutely pointed out that the relationship between national and industrial competitiveness directly correlates with how the nation stimulates industrial improvement and innovation. After spending three years comparing the industrial development of ten nations (the United States, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore), Porter proposed his well- known Diamond Theory. He argued that two sets of determinants affect the industrial competitive advantage and, despite the rushing tide of strong globalization, the importance of these factors in determining national competitive advantage has not diminished, but in fact has become more definite. Among the first set of fundamental determinants are: Factors of production, including human resources, physical resources, knowledge resources, capital resources, and infrastructure; Demand conditions; Related and supporting industries; and Firm strategy, structure, and rivalry. The second set comprises two additional variables: Chance; and Government. Porter described the rhombic relationship formed by the four determinants in the first set as a national ``diamond.'' He emphasized that a country cannot rely on unique competitive advantages such as low-cost labor. Such reliance is risky because it can be replaced by even cheaper labor in less developed nations. When this situation occurs, the diamond may be said to be in ``static disequilibrium,'' and the competitive advantage cannot be maintained. Accordingly, Porter points out, a nation's competitive advantage should be firmly rooted in a durable diamond configuration. That is, both set of determinants should develop in relation and coordination with one another, stimulating and upgrading each other in the process. This kind of national diamond can be said to be in a state of dynamic development. It is the optimal combination for continual national progress. Professor Porter also enumerated four stages of national competitive development: a factor-driven stage; an investment-driven stage; an innovation-driven stage; and a wealth-driven stage. In order to move from one stage to the next, the government and private sector must carry out a complete metamorphosis of industrial infrastructure, international distribution the financial system, technological standards, and conventional ways of thinking. On top of this, I personally believe that even more profund consideration should be given to the cultural ethics and values behind the initiating and sustaining forces for the creation and distribution of wealth and value. In their research on the culture of capitalism British scholar Charles Hampden- Turner and Dutch scholar Alfons Trompenaars once declared that different cultures engender different cultural ethics and values, and thereby diverse ways of creating and distributing wealth. Thus, to be able to comprehend the success of similar systems adopted by different countries, one must have a profound understanding of the cultural ethics and social values of these nations. This is a point all of us should consider and study further. However, in the transitional stage of national development, it is indisputable that the government should act as healthy promoter and courageous challenger. Porter has said with great profundity that the world today needs great leaders and great executives rather than great housekeepers. national reinvention project According to Porter's four stages of national competitive development, Taiwan may be between the second, or investment- driven; stage and the third, or innovation-driven, stage. In promoting national competitiveness at this time, we hope to build our base on the strengths of the private sector, and thereby push forward comprehensive reform and accomplish the goal of national modernization. However, after comparing several countries for the growth or diminution of their national competitiveness, Professor Porter has proposed a concept mirroring the situation that deserves our vigilance. Professor Porter believes that in the first three stages of economic development, national competitiveness grows continuously, while at the forth stage, or turning point, the economy may decline. After entering the wealth-driven stage, domestic competitive activities diminish; management strategies change from aggressive to conservative; industrial re-investment willingness decreases; major businesses manipulate government protection policies to insulate themselves from their competitors. The first generation of entrepreneurs, who became rich from scratch die out and are replaced by a new generation used to operating within the system. Personnel do not work hard due to their high incomes. Labor-management relations stiffen as each party tries to retain its own vested interests. At this stage, people are far more interested in other professional fields rather than industry. The educational concept of pragmatism gradually disappears. The negligence of education by society and family results in a deterioration of educational standards. The proportion of investment in the factors of production is greatly reduced. Hovever, investment in other areas increases. The government tends to heavily tax rich people, further reducing their willingness to invest. Business capital exceeds internal deeds, yet such businesses are not willing to risk investment in setting up new businesses, but instead change their goals to merging with or buying up other businesses. Porter states that wealth-driven stage will lead to economic recession since existing wealth is not sufficient to support the needs of the economy. The ambitions of investors, managers, and people change, innovation based on sustained investment disappears, and economic improvement is sluggish. National economic goals during this stage differ from before. Emphasis is placed on pursuing social welfare, but may people overlook the fact that social welfare is based on continual economic progress. I feel that these alarming observations are very meaningful. Raising national competitiveness is for us the core of our reform, and is in line with professor Porter's ideas. However, we have not just established a national diamond of ``dynamic development,'' we have in fact instituted a project of national reinvention from a much broader angle. This task of raising national competitiveness is unique in concept and action, and deserves further elaboration for those people concerned about national competitiveness. First of all, it is global. Today, we are a member of the global village and neither can nor will exclude ourselves from international competition. Therefore, we must fully join in the globalization trend. There are many yard sticks and authoritative agencies for assessing international competitiveness, such as the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland, and the World Economic Forum. They differ in the categories they evaluate and rank, and many factors tend to be subjective, but this is no excuse for our not pursuing competitiveness. If we want to compete in this world, we need to keep an eye on these evaluation factors, make judgments according to our own need, and decide on which evaluation categories we shall strive for. This way we can avoid being subjective and meet out real needs. Second, it is comprehensive. When we talk of competitive advantage, many people immediately associate it with such economic meanings as an increase in national financial might or a boots in productive power. Undoubtedly, these factors constitute a major portion of what national competitive advantage means. However, we believe that competitive advantage means more than just economic issues; education, public safety, the quality of life, and technical might are all part of the concept. In particular, at this present stage.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as we have just hard, this bill will authorize the Federal Government to participate in the purchase of Sterling Forest, the last piece of open space in the Metropolitan New York Area. It is a critically important thing to do, protects the watershed of 2 million people in New Jersey, an additional number in southeastern New York. That alone makes this bill extremely important. Also, this bill sets aside a number of American Heritage Areas around the country, and I would particularly like to note the fact that the Hudson River Valley, probably the most historic area in the Nation, is recognized as an American Heritage Area in this legislation. The Hudson Valley of course contains West Point, it contains Washington's headquarters, the first national historic site in the Nation, and a wealth of other historic places recognized by this American Heritage Area. I want to thank my leader, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the committee. I want to thank also the chairman the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], for their work on this bill. This is a very worthy product, and I appreciate the hard work that has gone into this by all the Members, and I would urge the Members in the other House to pay attention to this piece of legislation. It is critically important for millions of Americans and deserves to be passed by this Congress.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] to explain the bill.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I just want to express my appreciation on behalf of all those who will have the benefit of seeing this memorial once it is in place. I express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Maryland for her initiation of this very worthy piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee for their expressed interest in the issues that have been raised this morning by the gentlewoman from California and Oregon. We are aware of a recent series of articles that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News which once again draws very disturbing attention to allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency during the early years, the decade of the 1980's conspired with former members of the Samosa government in Nicaragua to bring into this country large quantities of cocaine, and that cocaine traffic was used to finance the early years of the war that was lost by the contras against the Nicaraguan Government; and furthermore, that those large quantities of cocaine were distilled into crack cocaine, and that crack cocaine eipidemic then swept from California and the West Coast all the way across this country and constituted the worst epidemic of drug abuse that we have seen in the history of our Nation. This is an issue that needs detailed, thorough examination. The reason these stories persist is because prior investigations by this body and other bodies have failed to reach into the very depths of the problem and uncover precisely what went on here. I am not suggesting that there was a coverup, but what I am suggesting however is this: that there was an inadequate investigation by the Iran-Contra Committee and by other investigative bodies that looked into this issue in the past. This issue will not die, it will not go away until it is resolved once and for all, until we get to the very bottom of it, until we know precisely and exactly what occurred, and it is critical that we do so because the veracity and authenticity of very important agencies within this Government are at stake, and until we know exactly what happened and who was involved in it and what went on, this issue will not rest. It is the responsibility of this Congress to look at this matter and to look at it with the utmost care, concern and in the greater depth and detail, and I am very grateful that we have had these expressions of support in this regard from both the chairman and the ranking member this morning. This is something that we have to get to the bottom of.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement, but in doing so I just want to take a moment to draw the body's attention to a growing problem within the Veterans Administration. Funding for Veterans Administration health care programs is not keeping pace with the need. The VA is faced with some very difficult problems. As a result, they have been triaging veterans in New York and New England and across the northern part of the country to send what little funds they have for veterans health care to the South. New York veterans hospitals are suffering as a result of this. Budget cuts are forcing reductions in personnel and reductions in the quality of health care. New York State has 1.5 million veterans, the fourth largest veteran population in the country. We are going to have to address this issue in the future, and I hope to be able to work with the committee in developing a budget next year which will adequately address the health care needs of our veterans, particularly those in New York, New England and elsewhere across the northern part of the country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. That is exactly right. It is the kind of thing we support. I think that is intelligent. I think it is intelligent to provide tax support for people who want to provide their children an education to be able to deduct those costs. The cost of a college education, I think, makes eminently good sense, obviously, for the young person in that family, for the family itself, but also, very importantly, for the entire country, because our society benefits every time we graduate another person from college, another person with an advanced degree. That person goes out, applies that learning, and it is a synergistic effect. It is a situation where all of this education coming together, working out there, higher and better education all the time, creates a circumstance where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. It is a very good investment, indeed. But these guys here, the Gingrich crowd in this House, they have never seen a problem that a tax cut for a millionaire would not solve. They have never seen a problem that they do not want to throw a big tax cut out to the wealthiest people in the country. Their solution to every problem is, find the richest people you can in the country and cut their taxes, and that will solve your problem, because it is the people that they represent. They have turned their back on middle class America, they have turned their back on the working people of this country by trying to cut their health care and the health care for their parents and grandparents, they have turned their backs on them by trying to cut the educational opportunities for their children, but they never turn their backs on the millionaires. They are willing to cut taxes for them every opportunity they get.