Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the great respect and admiration I have for the sponsors of this bill, I find that, nevertheless, I feel strong opposition to it. I think that there are aspects of the bill which do make a constructive contribution. First of all, a comprehensive review by the Secretary of the Department of Interior, I think, is constructive, and would be helpful. But the underlying philosophy of this bill is what I find so troubling about it. It seems to suggest that we have too many parks and that we ought to deauthorize units of the National Park System and, furthermore, I believe the sentiments in this bill, as they are expressed in the language here, would tend to focus attention on those parks and national resources which tend to be in the urban areas, which tend to be in those parts of the country where they get the most use and the most attention, which tend to be used by those people who are least likely to travel to some of the national parks in the western part of our country. Why are we doing this? Are we spending too much money on our National Park System? I do not think so. The National Park System, which is one of the most treasured possessions of this country, takes up less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the national budget. It is a very small portion of what we spend nationally. Is it true that the National Park Service does not get enough funding? Yes, unquestionably, it is. But that is a failure of ourselves, it is a failure of this Congress. The Congress ought to realize the value of the National Park Service and apportion to it a greater portion of the Federal budget. The National Park Service has been starved for funds, and this particular budget that is before us this year goes on to do that in an even greater degree than has been done in the past. Construction is cut by 50 percent. Operating funds are cut by 10 percent. That is wrong. It is the wrong direction in which we should be going, and it mitigates toward the kind of philosophy which is expressed in this bill which indicates that we have too many parks and we ought to be closing them down. We need more recreational opportunity in this country, if anything. We need greater recognition of our national heritage, if anything. We need a better understanding on the part of our citizenry, particularly our younger people, with regard to our national and ecological heritage, which is enshrined in the system of our national parks. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill, in spite of the fact that it does some things that are good, takes us inevitably in the wrong direction. The idea that we have too many parks is wrong; the idea that we should be closing some of them down, in my opinion, is misguided. What we ought to be doing is spending more, not less, on our National Park System, raising it up, making it be what it ought be in the minds of the American people, the greatest expression in many ways of our national and historical heritage.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very popular measure, this lockbox proposal. It enjoys wide bipartisan sponsorship and even broader support here in the House, and perhaps that is equally true in the other house as well. But I think it is important that at least a few iconoclastic voices be raised in opposition to this measure so that we might more adequately and more deeply reflect on what we are doing and the consequences of those actions. We have a basic responsibility here in the House of Representatives, even more so than the other house, to manage the economy, to make sure that we have a system of economic growth and prosperity, that we are creating jobs and creating economic opportunity for all Americans. I know that the Members of this House take that responsibility very seriously. Unfortunately, however, we are focusing our attention only on one aspect of our economy, and we have been doing that for far too long now. That is this deficit, the budget deficit. Focusing our attention on the budget deficit regrettably takes our attention away from two other deficits that are at least equally important and perhaps even more so: One is the trade deficit. I will not talk much about that. The other is the investment deficit. We have a substantial deficit in the investment in the future of this country. It has been estimated that that deficit ranges as high as $1 trillion a year. In other words, we may need as much as $1 trillion of public investment in order to create the kind of adequate growth in the economy that is necessary to create the kind of jobs and economic opportunity that is essential for a strong, sound, healthy economy. Other countries in the industrialized world are doing much more than we are. We unfortunately are focusing our attention on the budget deficit to the detriment of our other responsibilities in this House. In so doing, this House has already tied its hands substantially with regard to its ability to manage fiscal policy, so much so that the entire, or most at least of the management of this economy has been handed over to the Federal Reserve, which has the ability to regulate monetary policy, and it is through monetary policy that our economy is seeing the ups and downs it has experienced in recent years as a result primarily of changes in interest rates. We have taken from ourselves the ability to manage fiscal policy, which means the ability to regulate the amount of growth that we need through spending and saving policies which are primarily the responsibility of this house. Now we are taking one further additional step down into that deep cellar by the passage, and I am sure it will pass, of this lockbox proposal, because once again it restricts our ability to manage fiscal policy in a responsible way by taking away from the House that which it needs, which is flexibility with regard to our spending and saving practices. I think, Mr. Chairman, that although this seems like a good idea and although many people support it, I think that we ought to reflect more adequately on what we are doing and begin to understand the consequences of our actions in restricting our ability to manage the fiscal house, that responsibility which we have been charged to manage, our fiscal obligations and fiscal policy for this country. In passing this measure we are restricting our ability to do that. We will be restricting our ability to stimulate growth and to create jobs and economic opportunity. By so doing, we are making, I believe, a serious mistake. Nevertheless, it is something that we will probably do, and we will have to correct it at some point in the future.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I think what the American people want is economic opportunity and economic security. Let us just talk a minute about correct security. One of the things that the Republican budget does is to undermine one of the most effective aspects of that economic security that has been established in this country over the last 30 years. That is the Medicare Program. Speaker Gingrich last Sunday would have us believe that his cuts amount to only $7, but his own budget office tells us that those cuts, the amount of money coming out of seniors' pockets, will be as much as $56 a month. Mr. Speaker, we know what is going on here. They do not like the Medicare Program. They want to privatize it. They want to put it on vouchers and coupons so people will go back to the old days when they did not have any economic security, when they had to worry about health care and when families had to worry about their elderly parents and grandparents. Let us not do that. Let us not balance this budget on the backs of the senior citizens of this country in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people who do not need it and most of whom have the good sense not to want it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] is attempting to clear that up for us, because that is exactly what we are trying to do here. It has been said, for example, that these ETI's are bad investments. As a matter of fact, ETI's in California and New York are actually performing better than the market. So, they can be very, very profitable investments indeed. But we are not trying to force anyone into anything. We are not trying to say [[Page H 8770]] that anyone should go into an ETI or anything of that nature. All this amendment says is to the extent that it is possible, the Secretary of Labor shall take whatever action he deems necessary, consistent with the protections and provisions of ERISA, to try to ensure that these funds are invested domestically; that they are invested here in this country and the needs of this country, so that we can create jobs for our people and increase their standards of living and increase their buying power, which has been shrinking for the better part of 20 years. That is all this amendment says. Just invest the money here in this country domestically.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the ranking minority member something that he knows, and that of course is that we knew that a stronger amendment would not stand any chance of passage or being accepted by the other side of the aisle. It was our hope that this amendment, as moderate as it is, and as in keeping with ERISA as it is and all the protections and provisions of ERISA as it is, would be accepted. But they are apparently so zealous in their desire to prevent pension funds from being invested in domestic programs, so desirous of seeing that money, if it has to go overseas rather than being invested here in this country, that they are even opposing this very moderate amendment.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this country has a major problem. It has a major domestic investment deficit. The domestic investment deficit has been established to be as high as $1 trillion a year. That is the primary reason why we are seeing a decline in the standard of living of the American people, why we are seeing a decline in job opportunities, and why we are seeing a decline in the purchasing power of American working men and women. The investment deficit needs to be corrected. Unfortunately this Congress is going to the opposite direction. The majority party in the House of Representatives, not content with slashing and burning every domestic investment program that this country has, exacerbating the economic difficulties of the Nation, they are not content with that, now what they want to do by this bill is to place in jeopardy every investment trustee who would consider making an investment in a domestic program that has some positive social consequences. Already the problem of investment in these pension plans is causing us difficulty in that it is siphoning funds that ought to be invested here in the United States to be invested outside of our country overseas. We have heard some talk about ETI's. The ETI's, targeted investment, amount to only about $30 billion. Juxtaposed against that is the fact we have $150 billion out of pension funds invested overseas now. If the bill in chief passes without the proper amendments, that problem is going to be made immeasurably worse. We will see pension trustees fearful of being challenged on their investments here in this country, domestic investments that have positive social consequences. I am talking about things like housing, first home mortgage buyers, medical clinics, basic infrastructure. They will be cowed by the language in the bill in chief from making those kinds of investments and they will find it much easier to target those investments overseas where they are not so constrained by the language in this bill. What I am seeking to do here basically is to take the language in the amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, some time ago and modify that amendment to say as follows: The Secretary of Labor shall take such actions as are necessary to encourage domestic investments by pension plans to the extent that such investments are in conformity with the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The language in this amendment is perfectly consistent with the provisions of ERISA, perfectly in tune with the protections that are enshrined in the law currently with ERISA. We have been told that there is nothing in the bill that prevents these kind of ETI investments currently being made, that the bill does not prevent that. I am skeptical about that and I think that that skepticism was reflected by a large number of the Members of this House by a vote that was had here earlier this afternoon. Nevertheless, whether or not that is the intention, unquestionably that is the effect. The effect of this bill, if it passes, the bill in chief, will be to send a message to every pension trustee, telling them that if they want to invest in their home community, if they want to put money into housing in their town, if they want to put money into improving the water supply distribution system in their community, if they want to improve the sewage treatment plant and clean up the water supplies in their area, if they want to provide medical facilities for the people in their towns, in their communities, they had better think twice about doing it because those investments are socially sound and they have positive social value. This bill, the bill in chief, would impinge upon their ability to do that and it would have the effect of taking that money and investing it overseas. If it is true, as the sponsors of the bill have told us, that they have no intention of siphoning money that ought to be invested domestically and having that money invested overseas, if it is true that what they have said, that they have no intention of taking money from these targeted investments in needed domestic improvements, if that is true, if they do not want to make it difficult to do that, then what I am trying to do is make it easier for them. All they have to do is accept this language, and the language here in the amendment is perfectly consistent with all the safety provisions in ERISA and I think consistent with what I have heard from some of the people on the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I think it is very clear. We want the investment trustees to have as much latitude as possible to act in the context of their lights in the best interests of the people they represent in their pension system. We want them to do it insofar as it is consistent with all the protections and provisions in the law in a way that is going to promote economic growth and development in this country, because that too is in the best interest of the pensioners, potential pensioners, the investors in that pension system. To the extent that we can grow this economy and marshal our investment in ways that produce growth and create income, we are benefiting everyone in the economy. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment, because it is not clear in the bill that that would be allowed. Contrarily, if I may, the bill indicates that the trustees, if they do that in a way that is socially just, they will be imperiled.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill has been described as a clash between the super rich and the super wealthy. That Is unquestionably true, but in the clash of these titans, the question is, who stands for the American public? The answer to that question is, without the Conyers amendment, no one. The American people stand naked before the potential excesses of these giants unless we have some protection from them offered by the Justice Department. There is an incredibly high standard in this bill, Mr. Chairman. There must be a dangerous probability of substantially impeding justice before the Justice Department comes in. Let us pass the Conyers amendment and protect the American people.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have been running ads about how they are helping the children in the next generation by reducing the deficit. That is very nice but they are making sure that the kids pay for it by cutting programs that help those same kids and provide them with an education. Elementary and secondary education cuts force communities to make an unwelcome choice. They either reduce the services that Federal funds paid for or they raise property taxes to keep them going. Either way, it is the people least able to help themselves, children or older homeowners with fixed incomes who are being required to pay the bills. This bill cuts funding for title I compensatory education by $1.1 billion, that is 17 percent. My state, New York, will lose $123 million, and 100,000 New York students will be affected. This program has the strongest support of any Federal education program from our own school districts, whether they are urban, rural, liberal, or conservative. They tell us how important the program is. The program cuts funding for safe and drug free schools. It will cost New York $59 million at the same time that we hear about students shooting other students and selling drugs in schools. It is time that we had some rationale about what we are doing and pass a sensible bill. This bill needs to be defeated. Republicans have been running ads about how they are helping children and the next generation by reducing the deficit. That's very nice, but they are making sure that the kids pay for it by cutting programs that help kids and that provide them with an education. Elementary and secondary education cuts force communities to make an unwelcome choice: either reduce the services that Federal funds paid for, or raise property taxes to keep them going. Either way, it is the people least able to help themselves--children or older homeowners with fixed incomes--who are being required to pay the bills. The bill would cut funding for title I compensatory education by $1.1 billion, 17 percent. New York will lose $103 million, and 100,000 New York students will be affected. Title I pays for remedial education. It has the strongest support of any Federal education program from our own school districts--liberal and conservative, rural and urban. They tell us how important they think the program is. It cuts funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs by 59 percent, $286 million nationwide, $59 million in New York. Does this make sense when we hear almost daily about students shooting other students, or students selling drugs in schools? [[Page H 8328]] It cuts funding for children at risk--52-percent cut in Healthy Start, HHS program to reduce infant mortality; $137 million in Head Start, cutting 60,000 children out of Nancy Reagan's favorite program for children; cut of 20 percent in programs for homeless children. It cuts funding for education reform--$250 million in funding for Eisenhower Professional Development Program for teacher improvement; total elimination of funding for Goals 2000, to improve and upgrade school curricula. Cost to NY: $18.8 million for Eisenhower, $27 million for Goals. Goals was the product of the bipartisan effort by governors, blessed by the Bush Administration, to respond to the ``Nation at Risk'' report which said that our education system was weak enough and inconsistent enough that it threatened our economic future. So, maybe today's kids will be paying less in Federal taxes--but they'll be living in a third-rate economy that was too cheap to give them the good education that all children need and deserve.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, there currently resides in the deep water reserves of the Gulf of Mexico an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil. That is a large amount of petroleum. It is estimated to be probably twice the size of the celebrated Prudhoe Bay reserves. These 15 billion barrels of oil are the property of the people of the United States of America. This Government has the responsibility to husband that resource and to make sure that the people get at least a fair return should that resource be developed, and it is in the process of being so developed. That is the real question before us today. These resources will be developed. They are being developed, and, as a matter of fact, when the May 10 leases were up for bid, 88 companies submitted almost 900 bids for those leases which were let in May. If the provisions of this bill were in effect, the Senate version of the bill were in effect when those leases were let, the taxpayers of the United States would have lost an estimated $2.3 billion. If the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is not passed, it is estimated that the taxpayers of the United States will lose an estimated $12 billion over the period of time that these resources are exploited by the petroleum companies who will successfully bid on those leases. That is the issue here. This resource will be developed. It is only a matter of time. It is finite, as all of the petroleum resources of this planet are finite. It will be developed. The technology exists now to develop them. It is only a matter of time. Will the people of our country benefit at all from this activity? We must pass the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to instruct. Otherwise the taxpayers of this country will lose $12 billion. Again, I want to stress the gentleman speaks with little knowledge of what he speaks of. Fifteen billion barrels, we have already produced 13 billion barrels in Alaska. We expect to produce about 4 or 5 billion barrels out of Prudhoe Bay. That is the largest single American domestic field we have ever had. All I am asking for is the opportunity to develop those other domestic fields offshore and onshore. I want to stress this very strongly, that this, without this amendment as proposed in the Senate side, there will be chances where there will be areas that would be developed, will not be developed, as we develop them; as I said before, get the wells drilled, get the people working, employ those 400,000 Louisianans that were lost. Let them [[Page H 7586]] have the jobs that are needed and they will pay taxes. Our taxpayers will come out much further ahead. If we adopt this motion to recommit, we, in fact, will lose the opportunity that we need for these frontier areas. I will be very up-front with everybody. I even think this will be good in the State of Alaska outside of sale 92. We have some other areas that should be developed in very deep, deep water. Unfortunately the administration does not support that, we are not going to attempt to do that, but I do think, if we want to have a steady supply of oil for the United States, we have to look at these areas. We cannot balance the budget, we cannot have a sound economy, we cannot have people working, when we are importing over 52 percent of our oil today from overseas countries, and it is odd to me that every time we try to help our own domestic companies in some way, we are accused of helping big oil, or it is a rip-off, or it is a taxpayer's rip-off. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the biggest rip-off is our buying foreign oil, and it is a policy that was set forth by some of the gentlemen that were speaking previously. The policy is to destroy the domestic oil-producing companies in this country, and they have done a good job of doing that. This motion to recommit will be a further attempt to destroy any of our domestic companies. So again I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman from California's motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in support of this amendment because I believe it will help us save the small family dairy farmer, and it will also promote health and safety for dairy consumers across the country. It has been alleged that we ought to leave this to the marketplace, let consumers decide. The fact of the matter is that consumers do not know. They do not know when they walk into the marketplace, to the supermarket whether or not the cheese or the milk that they are buying comes from cows that have been injected with bovine growth hormone. We want them to find out. We want to have it labeled, and we want that study to produce the kind of information which will result in that labeling. This current project, this injection of this hormone is already costing family farmers more than $200 million a year. We want to get the dairy herds of the United States off of drugs. They are now getting hooked on drugs. Bovine growth hormone leads to the imposition of other drugs to alleviate the causes of the imposition of bovine growth hormone. Let us get the dairy herd of the United States off drugs. The tests that we have currently to ensure the purity of milk in this country do not account for the presence of these drugs, so people do not know whether there is a problem with these drugs. We want that information, and that is what the Sanders amendment will produce. Finally, the Europeans have rejected the importation of American dairy products into Europe. The European Union has said no to American dairy products because they are fearful of the effects of this bovine growth hormone on consumers in their countries. They have said that they cannot guarantee their safety. The British journal Lancet and others have recently outlined that very clearly. Let us pass this amendment. It is very important.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my profound respect and appreciation for the work of the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I share many of the same values and interests with regard to the Nation's natural and historical resources. But unfortunately, this bill does not reflect those values in the way that I think both the gentleman and I would like it to. The gentleman has been given a very ugly package to carry here. What does this bill do? First of all, it cuts the Department of the Interior to $500 million below this current year's level, making it more difficult for the Department to protect the Nation's natural and historical resources. It eliminates the National Biological Service as a separate agency and slashes funding for that purpose by about 30 percent. It pretends that we ought not to know more about the Nation's biological resources, pretends that ignorance about these resources is a virtue. The bill prohibits the research activities of the Department, the former National Biological Service, from using even volunteers to go out and accumulate information. It revels in this kind of ignorance and prevents people from exercising their civic duty in a voluntary sense. It cuts the National Park Service by $230 million below the administration's request, including $70 million from park operations, making it more difficult for the people of this country to enjoy these natural resources, particularly our national parks. But it expends money in other areas. It exceeds the House Committee on Science's authorized amounts for the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development activities by more than $150 million. This is a giveaway to major energy corporations in the country. It provides more than $65 million for six pork barrel projects for which the Committee on Science recommended no funding. At the same time it increases funding in these areas, it slashes funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization [[Page H 6941]] program by $100 million, which means there are more people who are going to be colder in the winters and we are going to be wasting more energy. Mr. Chairman, Let me focus on one particular provision. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was set aside in the advent of an incident, another incident which occurred back in the 1970's. This bill reduces the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 7 million barrels, and it sells those 7 million barrels for now about $15 a barrel. This oil was purchased for $30 a barrel, so we are selling for $15 what we bought a few years ago for $30 a barrel. If this is any indication of the way the majority party in this House is a steward of the Nation's resources and the taxpayers' dollars, then I think it is a poor example of where we are and where we are heading. This is foolhardy to cut back on this reserve, and it is certainly wasteful of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the many achievements of Clayton ``Peg Leg'' Bates, a friend and constituent of mine who lives in Napanoch, New York. Clayton ``Peg Leg'' Bates was born in Fountain Inn, SC, in 1911. After a childhood injury with a threshing machine, his father made him a peg leg, and he began to dance at the age of 14 in 1925. By 1928 he was in vaudeville and appeared in a group of dancers, 4 Bad Boys of Harlem, with the legendary Bill ``Bojangles'' Robinson. In the late 1940's he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show 20 Times--more than any other performer. Retired and moved to Kerhonkson in 1951, Peg Leg Bates opened up his own country club and stayed active in its operation until the late 1980's. He is now active in the Senior Citizen Club of Napanoch, as well as involved in talking to public school kids about drugs and the importance of staying in school. He also visits with disabled and senior citizens and is a model of citizen involvement that stands as an encouragement to everyone in our community.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to invite you and my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 80th birthday of Bobby Johnson, Jr., a constituent and friend of mine who truly is ``beyond category''. Bobby is a trumpet player, vocalist, and band leader in the style of the great Louis Armstrong. He is a man who literally is a walking, talking history of that great indigenous American art, jazz. Bobby has been a member of the orchestras of Duke Ellington, Cab Calloway, Benny Carter, Claude Hopkins, and Erskine Hawkins. He has shared the limelight with Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holliday, Red Norvo, and Ray Coniff. Bobby Johnson has indeed walked with giants and in the process became one himself, a man of immense passion and humanity. Mr. Speaker, please join me in wishing Bobby Johnson, Jr., a very happy 80th birthday.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, during the Memorial Day recess, I had the privilege of visiting the Republic of China on Taiwan. I was especially pleased that my visit coincided with President Clinton's decision to grant President Lee a visa to visit our country on the occasion of his reunion at Carnell University in Ithaca, NY, in my district. President Lee was clearly very pleased and grateful to have the opportunity to return to his alma mater. New Yorkers were delighted to see him, and he received a warm welcome. His Olin lecture on June 9 conveyed his message and the message of his country exceptionally well--a story of hopes, expectations, and determination and Taiwan's every changing status in the global community. I would like to share it with the House in its entirety. Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask for your permission to print President Lee Teng-hui's Olin lecture, ``Always in My Heart,'' in its entirety in the Record for the enjoyment of my colleagues and others interested in Taiwan. Always in My Heart It is a great honor for me to be invited to deliver the Olin Lecture at my alma mater, Cornell University. It has been a long and challenging journey, with many bumps in the road, yet my wife and I are indeed very happy to return to this beloved campus. This trip has allowed both of us to relive our dearest Cornell experiences. The long, exhausting evenings in the libraries, the soothing and reflective hours at church, the hurried shuttling between classrooms, the evening strolls, hand in hand--so many memories of the past have come to mind, filling my heart with joy and gratitude. I want to thank you, President Rhodes, for your hospitality and for your unflagging support of my visit here to my alma mater. I thank you, my fellow alumni, for your understanding and support as I undertake this important sentimental journey. I thank the many, many friends in the United States who have been so supportive of my visit to your great country again. And I also want to thank the people of this academic community, my professors and classmates, for the deep and lasting influence that Cornell University has had on my life. The support each of you has given means a great deal to me. I deem this invitation to attend the reunion at Cornell not only a personal honor, but, more significantly, an honor for the 21 million people in the Republic of China on Taiwan. In fact, this invitation constitutes recognition of their remarkable achievements in developing their nation over the past several decades. And it is the people of my nation that I most want to talk about on this occasion. listening to the people My years at Cornell from 1965 to 1968 made an indelible impression on me. This was a time of social turbulence in the United States, with the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War protest. Yet, despite that [[Page E 1315]] turbulence, the American democratic system prevailed. It was also the time I first recognized that full democracy could engender ultimately peaceful change, and that lack of democracy must be confronted with democratic methods, and lack of freedom must be confronted by the idea of freedom before it would be possible to hasten the day of genuine democracy and freedom. I returned to my homeland determined to make my contribution toward achieving full democracy for our society. Ever since I became president of the Republic of China in 1988, I have sought to ascertain just what the people of my country want and to be always guided by their wishes. Ancient China's Book of History from over 2000 years ago, contains the phrase, ``Whatever the People desire, the realm must follow.'' My criterion for serving as president is that I do it with the people in my heart. And it is obvious to me that most of all they want democracy and development. Democracy entails respect for individual freedom, social justice, and a sense of directly participating in the destiny of their nation. Economic development goes beyond attaining prosperity, it also involves equitable distribution of wealth. Today we are entering a new post-Cold War era, where the world is full of many uncertainties. Communism is dead or dying, and the peoples of many nations are anxious to try new methods of governing their societies that will better meet the basic needs that every human has. There are many pitfalls in this search for a new rationale, and Man must strive to make the right choices with all the wisdom and diligence he can command. Czech President Vaclav Havel said, ``The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else but in the human heart.'' In my heart, I believe that the Taiwan Experience has something unique to offer the world in this search for a new direction. This is not to say that our experience can be transplanted entirely to fit the situation faced by other nations, but I believe that, without a doubt, there are certain aspects of this experience that offer new hope for the new age. the taiwan experience By the term Taiwan Experience I mean what the people of Taiwan have accumulated in recent years through successful political reform and economic development. This experience has already gained widespread recognition by international society and is being taken by many developing nations as a model to emulate. Essentially, the Taiwan Experience constitutes the economic, political and social transformation of my nation over the years, a transformation which I believe has profound implications for the future development of the Asia-Pacific region and world peace. It is worth remembering what we in the Republic of China on Taiwan have had to work with in achieving all that we now have: a land area of only 14,000 square miles (slightly less than 1/3 the area of New York State) and a population of 21 million. My country's natural resources are meager and its population density is high. However, its international trade totaled US$180 billion in 1994 and its per capital income stands at US $12,000. Its foreign exchange reserves now exceed US$99 billion, more than those of any other nation in the world except Japan. The Taiwan Experience bases peaceful political change on a foundation of stable and continuous economic development. Taiwan, under Presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching- kuo, experienced phenomenal economic growth. Currently, aside from economic development, Taiwan has been undergoing a peaceful political transformation to full democracy. For many developing nations, the process of moving to a democratic system has been marked by a coup d'etat, or by the kind of ``political decay'' suggested by Professor Samuel P. Huntington. In short, it is not unusual for such a process of transformation to be accompanied by violence and chaos. However, the case of the Republic of China on Taiwan is a notable exception. Non-existent is the vicious cycle of expansive political participation, class confrontation, military coup and political suppression, which have occurred in many developing countries. The process of reform in Taiwan is remarkably peaceful indeed, and as such is virtually unique. In addition to the ``economic miracle,'' we have wrought a ``political miracle,'' so to speak. The Taiwan Experience has regional and international dimensions as well. In 1994, the indirect trade between Taiwan and mainland China reached US$9.8 billion. Taiwan's indirect investment in southern mainland China, made through Hong Kong, amounted to nearly US$4 billion, according to estimates from various quarters. Taiwan's trade and investment have also been extended to members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Vietnam, Russia, U.S. and countries in Central America and Africa. Although the Republic of China on Taiwan has been excluded from the United Nations, it has accelerated the formation of an international network with economic ties as the key link. Recently, it has even begun to launch a project to build Taiwan into an Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center, aiming at further liberalization and globalization of our economy. I never allow myself to ever forget for a moment that Taiwan's achievements have been realized only through the painstaking effort and immense political wisdom of the people. However, success comes from difficulty, and the fruits of the Taiwan Experience are all the sweeter today from a recognition of the arduousness of the process. popular sovereignty We in the Republic of China on Taiwan have found that peaceful transformation must take place gradually, and with careful planning. Five years ago, on my inauguration day, I pledged to initiate constitutional reform in the shortest possible period of time. My goal was to provide the Chinese nation with a legal framework that is in accord with the times, and to establish a comprehensive model for democracy. These goals have since been realized with the support of the people. Our constitutional reform was conducted in two stages. First, all the senior parliamentarians last elected in 1948 were retired. Then, in the second stage, comprehensive elections for the National Assembly and the Legislature were held in 1991 and 1992 respectively. This enabled our representative organs at the central government level to better represent the people. Last year, the governor of Taiwan province, and the mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung, the two largest cities in Taiwan which used to be directly administered by the central government as special municipalities, were directly elected by the people for the first time. Next spring, the president and vice president of the Republic will also be directly elected by the people for the first time. With the completion of constitutional reform, we have established a multiparty system and have realized the ideal of popular sovereignty. This has led to full respect for individual freedom, ushering in the most free and liberal era in Chinese history. I must reiterate that this remarkable achievement is the result of the concerted efforts of the 21 million people in the Taiwan area. Today, the institutions of democracy are in place in the Republic of China; human rights are respected and protected to a very high degree. Democracy is thriving in my country. No speech or act allowed by law will be subject to any restriction or interference. Different and opposing views are heard every day in the news media, including harsh criticism of the President. The freedom of speech enjoyed by our people is in no way different from that enjoyed by people in the United States. I believe that the precept of democracy and the benchmark of human rights should never vary anywhere in the world, regardless of race or region. In fact, the Confucian belief that only the ruler who provides for the needs of his people is given the mandate to rule is consistent with the modern concept of democracy. This is also the basis for my philosophy of respect for individual free will and popular sovereignty. Thus, the needs and wishes of my people have been my guiding light every step of the way. I only hope that the leaders in the mainland are able one day to be similarly guided, since then our achievements in Taiwan can most certainly help the process of economic liberalization and the cause of democracy in mainland China. I have repeatedly called on the mainland authorities to end ideological confrontation and to open up a new era of peaceful competition across the Taiwan Straits and reunification. Only by following a ``win-win'' strategy will the best interests of all the Chinese people be served. We believe that mutual respect will gradually lead to the peaceful reunification of China under a system of democracy, freedom and equitable distribution of wealth. To demonstrate our sincerity and goodwill, I have already indicated on other occasions that I would welcome an opportunity for leaders from the mainland to meet their counterparts from Taiwan during the occasion of some international event, and I would not even rule out the possibility of a meeting between Mr. Jiang Zemin and myself. Yearning to Play a Positive role When a president carefully listens to his people, the hardest things to bear are the unfulfilled yearnings he hears. Taiwan has peacefully transformed itself into a democracy. At the same time, its international economic activities have exerted a significant influence on its relations with nations with which it has no diplomatic ties. These are no minor accomplishments for any nation, yet, the Republic of China on Taiwan does not enjoy the diplomatic recognition that is due from the international community. This has caused many to underestimate the international dimension of the Taiwan Experience. Frankly, our people are not happy with the status accorded our nation by the international community. We believe that international relations should not be solely seen in terms of formal operations regulated by international law and international organizations. We say so because there also are semi-official and unofficial rules that bind the international activities of nations. This being so, we submit that a nation's substantive contribution to the international community has to be appreciated in light of such non-official activities as well. During last year's commencement, President Rhodes brought up the old saying, ``Be realistic. Demand the Impossible!'' Well, over the last four decades, we have been extremely realistic while always trying to look forward, not backward, and to work, not complain. Accordingly, we have created the very fact of our existence and economic prosperity. We sincerely hope that all nations [[Page E 1316]] can treat us fairly and reasonably, and not overlook the significance, value and functions we represent. Some say that it is impossible for us to break out of the diplomatic isolation we face, but we will do our utmost to ``demand the impossible.'' Ultimately, I know that the world will come to realize that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a friendly and capable partner for progress! If we view the recent economic, political and social developments in the ROC in this light, we have a basis for defining the status of my country in the post-Cold War and post Communist era. Only in this way can we propose a new direction for the new world order as we enter the 21st century. close traditional ties I want to once again express how grateful I am to be with you. My gratitude extends not only to Cornell but also to the United States as a whole. When we look back in history, we can immediately realize how close the traditional ties between our two countries are. Indeed, our shared ideals for human dignity, and peace with justice have united our two peoples in the closest of bonds. The United States was extremely helpful in the early stages of Taiwan's economic development. We have never forgotten America's helping hand in our hour of adversity, so your nation occupies a special place in our hearts. Today, as the 6th largest trading partner of the United States, the Republic of China imports and exports US$42.4 billion worth of goods through our bilateral trade. We also are the number two buyer of US treasury notes. About thirty-eight thousand students from Taiwan are studying in the United States. Students who have returned have made important contributions to our society. The Republic of China's development has been partly influenced by the experiences of its people while studying abroad. I gained substantial know-how in the mechanics of national growth and development from the faculty and students I worked with here in America at both schools where I studied. I had the chance to see democracy at its best in the United States, and to observe its shortcomings as well. We in Taiwan believe that we have much to learn from an advanced democracy such as the United States; however, we also believe we should develop our own model. The success of our democratic evolution has provided tremendous hope for other developing nations, and we wish to share our experience with them. Our efforts to help others through agricultural development have been well received, and we are eager to expand our technical assistance programs to friendly nations in the developing world. Taiwan has grown from an agricultural exporting economy to a leading producer of electronics, computers and other industrial goods. We are ``paving the information highway'' with disk drives, computer screens, laptop computers and modems. We are poised to become a major regional operations center as well as to buy more American products and services to develop our infrastructure. We stand ready to enhance the mutually beneficial relations between our two nations. It is my sincere hope that this visit will open up new opportunities for cooperation between our two countries. It is for this reason that I want to publicly express my appreciation and admiration to President Clinton for his statesman-like decision. We are equally grateful to others in the administration, to the bipartisan leadership in Congress, and to the American people. always in my heart Whatever I have done as president of my nation, I have done with the people in my heart. I have thought long and hard about what my people want, and it is clear that most of all, they desire democracy and development. These wishes are no different than those of any other people on this planet, and represent the direction in which world trends will certainly continue. As I have spoken to you today, I have done so with the people in my heart. I know that what my people would like to say to you now can be expressed by this simple message: The people of the Republic of China on Taiwan are determined to play a peaceful and constructive role among the family of nations. We say to friends in this country and around the world: We are here to stay; We stand ready to help; And we look forward to sharing the fruits of our democratic triumph. The people are in my heart every moment of the day. I know that they would like me to say to you, that on behalf of the 21 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan, we are eternally grateful for the support--spiritual, intellectual and material--that each of you has given to sustain our efforts to build a better tomorrow for our nation and the world. In closing, I say God bless you, God bless Cornell University, God bless the United States of America, and God bless the Republic of China. Thank you very much.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleaques to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the Mid-Hudson Consortium for the Advancement of Education for the Health Professions, which is now commemorating its 20th anniversary. For the past two decades, the consortium has promoted invaluable training programs for health care professionals that respond to the needs of the mid-Hudson community. Vital to the success of this organization have been the tremendous efforts of my good friend, Dr. David N. Mesches. Dr. Mesches was a strong advocate of managed care even before managed care was an established system of health care delivery. In the hopes of attracting physicians to our area who would provide affordable, quality care, Dr. Mesches and his colleagues have paved the way toward improved care by the formation of the consortium as well as other programs they have created such as the Mid-Hudson Rural Family Practice Resident Training program. Through the continued efforts of Dr. Mesches, the resident program annually attracts a considerable number of physicians and medical students through an affiliation with the New York Medical College and the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine. These health care providers are being trained to respond to the specific needs of the community in which they live and work and the program proudly boasts that 75 percent of its graduates not only remain in New York State but also in the community in which they were trained. This is an astounding success rate and it has benefitted the people of the mid-Hudson Valley immeasurably. We are indeed grateful for it as well. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in commending Dr. David N. Mesches for his very generous hard work and devotion to our community.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, Speaker Gingrich and the House Republicans are pulling a fast one on senior citizens by drastically cutting Medicare and using savings to fund a $350 billion tax cut for the wealthy. The Gingrich-Kasich budget plan will cut health care services for 37 million seniors receiving Medicare benefits. Under this plan, Medicare growth will not keep pace with the rising cost of health care, the growth in the number of beneficiaries and the inflation rate. The result of these cuts will be an additional cost to Medicare recipients of $1,000 a year--out of their own pocket--by 2002. To inflict these costs on seniors living on fixed incomes is inhumane. Where I come from, a person is only as good as their word. The U.S. Government has made a covenant with senior citizens and I implore my colleagues to make sure the Congress honors Medicare promises. By breaking this promise of a healthier life for tax cuts for the wealthy will mean turning our back on senior citizens and working American families. By slashing Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, Speaker Gingrich is ensuring that the wealthy get a gold mine while senior citizens get the shaft.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I have enjoyed the discussion, and thank you very much, particularly the last part. I think it is very important for us to recognize that although most of the attention has been focused on the budget deficit, and that is a serious problem, it is one we have to deal with, but there are least two other major deficits we have to address. And those two other deficits are more directly linked to the economic prosperity of the American people, particularly the average wageearner, the average worker, the average family, and those other two deficits are the ones being discussed about a moment ago by our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the trade deficit principally because that trade deficit is responsible for loss of a substantial number of manufacturing jobs. We have lost 1.4 million manufacturing jobs in this country over the course of the last decade and much of that can be attributed to our lack of a trade policy that focuses on the needs of the people in this country rather than other interests that may be within this country or abroad. And the other deficit is the investment deficit. We are failing to invest in our own future, and the infrastructure of this country, and simple things like roads and bridges. Half of the bridges in the United States are now below standard. Our surface transportation systems are in bad need of repair, in many cases falling apart. We have not had a major investment since the 1950's with the Interstate Highway System. Major deficits in mass transit, major deficit in educational investment, major deficit in training, major deficit in research and development, for the creation of new jobs and new industries, and connected with these two is the exportation of important American technologies, technology that is developed in this country which could be producing the jobs of the future, and we are exporting those technologies. We have exported the jobs, and now we are exporting technologies to other countries.

Mr. HINCHEY. I would like to follow up with what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] said about our trade policies and just observe that we are following a trade policy which essentially is described as free trade, open markets, the global marketplace, et cetera, et cetera, on and on, but when you look closely at what is happening, you find that while we, this country, is practicing those principles to a large extent, we are not finding reciprocal practices in many other countries. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] points very correctly to the situation with Japan where they are very clever in the way that they hide the--their techniques of freezing out American goods and American products while we import as much as they can manufacture into this country, and we have been doing it for decades at the cost of American jobs and at the cost of the American standard of living. What we want to do, what we are all about here, four of us and many other people who share our particular opinions, is simply this. We want attention paid to the American economy. We want jobs created here in the United States, but not low wage jobs. We want jobs created here in the United States that are going to be paying good living wages, and that is why we are for an increase in the minimum wage, and we ought to make it clear that by enacting a minimum wage--and by the way, if the minimum wage, which is now at $4.25 an hour had kept pace with its historical level, it would at this moment be more than $6 an hour, so we are far behind where we ought to be. Not only does the minimum wage, and this is, I think, a very important point, affect those people who are working at the minimum wage, but when you push up the minimum wage, you push up the next lowest, and then the second lowest, and the third and the fourth, et cetera. It has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy, increasing wages and increasing incomes for all Americans. The Speaker of this House said just recently that the price of labor in the world is set in south China. If we ever buy into that idea, if this House, if this country, ever buys into the idea that the price of labor in the United States of America is set in south China, then we are on the road to destruction. The price of labor in the United States is no more set in south China than the principles and policies of this democratic republic are set in south China or everything else that we believe in is set in south China. It is high time that we divorced ourselves from these crazy notions that the American labor force has labor countries around the world and get back to the idea that we can pay our people a good decent living wage so they could provide for their families, send their kids to school and improve their standard of living.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, these United States of America almost uniquely in the world, provide both economic opportunity and security. You can make money here and you can keep it. That is good, and we want to keep it that way. There are a lot of people here who are successful. Now we have a loophole in the tax law that allows some few people, the most successful, billionaires, people who have $1.2 million in capital gains or more, the opportunity to escape their tax obligations by renouncing their citizenship. The Senate in its wisdom fixed that. They provided that in this bill that loophole would be closed. Those reckless Socialists over in the Senate were wise enough to fix that loophole, but the Gingrich crowd in this House took that fix out; $3.6 billion worth of tax cheating over the course of 10 years. You can buy a lot of school lunches and a lot of health care with $3.6 billion. Let me tell the Members, they had better fix this.