Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill H.R. 400 and the Senate amendment thereto because the amendment contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate amendment to H.R. 400 would override current tax law by providing special tax treatment to Alaska Native Corporations receiving cash or property in certain circumstances and, therefore, contravenes this constitutional requirement. Section 204(a) of the Senate amendment achieves this result by providing that, for the purposes of section 21(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1620(c)), the receipt of consideration by a Native Corporation for the relinquishment to the United States of land selection rights granted to any Native Corporation shall be deemed to be an interest in land. Section 21 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act addresses the taxation of various actions pursuant to that Act. Subsection (c) of section 21 provides that in certain instances the receipt of land or any interest in land shall not be subject to Federal, State, or local taxation. Section 204 of the Senate amendment deems the receipt of any consideration (whether land, cash, or other property) to be ``an interest in land'' for purposes of section 21(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Senate amendment expands section 21 to make the receipt of cash and other property to be tax-free. Absent this provision, the receipt of cash and other property would be governed by the rules of the Internal Revenue Code which would generally treat their receipt as a taxable event. This would clearly supersede the Federal income tax rules relating to the taxation of the disposition of property. The provision would have a direct effect on tax revenues. The proposed change in our tax laws is a ``revenue affecting'' infringement on the House's prerogatives, which constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. Therefore, I am asked that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives. There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. In particular, on June 21, 1988, the House returned to the Senate S. 727, which dealt with the tax treatment of income derived from the exercise of Indian treaty fishing rights. I want to emphasize that this action does not constitute a rejection of the Senate amendment on its merits. Adoption of this privileged resolution to return the bill to the Senate should in no way prejudice its consideration in a constitutionally acceptable manner. The proposed action today is procedural in nature, and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue matters. It makes it clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill, and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, former Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao resigned as head of the Congress Party after he was indicted for defrauding an Indian businessman. The Congress Party is providing tacit support to the current government headed by H.D. Deve Gowda. According to the Washington Post, Mr. Rao has been ordered to face criminal charges because an Indian expatriate businessman named Lakhubhai Pathak alleges that Mr. Rao conspired with a Hindu guru to cheat him out of $100,000. He will be formally indicted on September 30. This took place in 1983, and Mr. Rao is just now facing charges for it. It has also been reported that he received $3.5 million from the Jain brothers, who have been charged with bribing a wide range of Indian politicians from all parties. He has apparently received large sums of money from other influence-seekers as well. It looks like Mr. Rao dipped into the well of corruption too many times. Mr. Rao's resignation proves that journalist Rajinder Puri of the Times of India was right when he wrote that India is ``a rotten, corrupt, repressive, and anti-people system.'' It is that system which the Sikhs of Khalistan, the Muslims of Kashmir, the Christians of Nagaland, and so many others are trying to escape. The corruption and the repression are tied together. The State Department reported that between 1991 and 1993, the regime paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. Justice Ajit Singh Bains reports that more than 50,000 Sikhs disappeared or were murdered from 1992 through 1995. These events occurred on Mr. Rao's watch. I am pleased that P.V. Narasimha Rao is finally facing the consequences of his corruption, but it is time that he also faced the consequences of his brutal terror campaign against the Sikh nation. As Home Minister in 1984, Mr. Rao was the person who organized the Delhi massacres that killed 20,000 Sikhs. When will he be indicted for these crimes? In addition to its repression and corruption, India is a country that never misses an opportunity to take a swipe at the United States. Although it is one of the largest recipients of United States aid, India has a virulently anti-American voting record at the United Nations, and it is the country that single-handedly blocked the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT]. It is in America's interest to support the freedom movements in the subcontinent. Unfortunately, the Sikhs and others continue to live under the brutal rule of a tyrannical regime. Recent events like the detention of American citizen Balbir Singh Dhillon and the savage beating of London- based Khalistani leader Jagjit Singh Chohan show that nothing has changed from Mr. Rao's brutal and corrupt rule. It is time for the United States to take a firm stand against these atrocities. We must institute an embargo against Indian companies and products. We must end United States aid to India. Finally, we must speak out for the freedom of Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland, and all the others seeking their freedom from India. Tyrants must know that America is on the side of freedom. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the September 22, 1996, Washington Post account of the Rao resignation. Indian Ex-Premier Quits Congress Party New Delhi--Former Indian prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao quit yesterday as head of the Congress party after a court upheld a summons ordering him to appear in a criminal case. Although his party suffered a defeat in general elections earlier this year, Rao has retained a say in the nation's politics by offering his party's crucial support to the center-left United Front coalition government. Rao, 75, said in a statement read at a news conference here by Congress general secretary Devendra Dwivedi that he was not guilty. Earlier yesterday, a Delhi judge upheld the summons ordering Rao to appear in court September 30. Formal charges would be framed on the same day. An Indian expatriate businessman, Lakhubhai Pathak, alleges Rao and a Hindu guru conspired conspired to cheat him of $100,000 in 1983.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, an old friend, Owen Frisby brought to my attention an August 19, 1996 article featured in The Detroit News, pertaining to the gold standard. I have contended for years that in order to revitalize our Nation's economy, we must remove from Government the temptation and the ability to produce chronic budget deficits. Restoration of a dependable monetary standard based on a commodity with fixed value would, by making monetization impossible, accomplish this. It is for this reason that I have introduced legislation in previous Congresses reestablishing the Gold Standard. The author of the article emphasizes that the Gold Standard has been tested, and proven over the centuries as the best mechanism to protect against destructive inflation and deflation. I commend to the attention of my colleagues, ``Gold Isn't a Wacko Idea.'' [The Detroit News, August 19, 1996] Gold Isn't a Wacko Idea Even before Jack Kemp had been named as Robert Dole's running partner, the Clinton White House was on the attack. In addition to bashing his tax-cutting ideas, aides to the president cited Mr. Kemp's affinity for a return to the gold standard as further proof that he's an economic wacko. Should he choose to pursue the issue, however, we have little doubt that's an argument Messrs. Dole and Kemp would win. The gold standard has pretty good history, after all. Alexander Hamilton placed America on a gold standard as part of his effort to refinance the young country's debt following the Revolution. The link with gold was broken temporarily during the Civil War and in the early 1930s, but it was soon reestablished in both cases. And for good reason: The gold standard proved a durable and politically potent means of ensuring the value of the dollar. After the remaining links to gold established under the postwar Bretton Woods agreement were finally broken by Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, inflation soared. The market price of gold itself vaulted from $35 an ounce to $850 an ounce. It's still selling for more than $380 an ounce-- more than 10 times its price only 25 years ago. If you wonder why the American middle class is still feeling ``anxious'' about its living standards, you need look little further than at the massive expropriation of wealth and income that this represents. Little wonder it is so tough to wean people from such ``middle-class entitlements'' as Medicare, Social Security benefits, day-care and college tuition subsidies. Many conservative ``monetarists'' share the belief of liberals that gold is ``a barbarous relic,'' in the words of the late, great British economist, John Maynard Keynes. They prefer allowing the dollar to ``float'' in value, letting its price be determined in world markets by supply and demand. And the Federal Reserve System, under Chairman Alan Greenspan, appears to be doing a credible job of wringing inflation out of the economy and keeping the dollar stable against other currencies. But it's no secret that one reason for Mr. Greenspan's success is that he keeps a close informal eye on gold prices. Before he became Fed chairman, he openly expressed support for a gold standard on grounds that gold is an excellent barometer of the supply and demand for paper money. But Mr. Greenspan may not be around forever. And interest rates remain stubbornly high by historical standards, imposing a huge cost not only on the federal budget but on the average American. These higher interest rates reflect the premium charged by lenders who must worry about the future course of the dollar. When gold was the standard, long-term rates seldom rose above 4-5 percent, compared with at least 6-8 percent today. Few ordinary citizens can comprehend the Federal Reserve's money-market manipulations. They must guess at what's going on behind the doors at the Fed. The result is they demand a premium as a hedge against future inflation. But even ordinary citizens can understand a gold standard. When the price of gold rises, they know that inflation may be in the offing. When it falls, they know it's time for the Fed to print more dollars in order to fend of deflation. A gold standard gives voters a practical reality check on the performance of the elites in Washington. In short, the gold standard is no wacko idea. It's been tested over centuries. It may not be perfect, but is has provided a better hedge against the ravages of inflation and deflation than most other systems. And it is a fundamentally democratic mechanism that enhances the ability of the ordinary citizen to control his or her destiny. What's wacko is the notion the folks in Washington have done such a swell job maintaining the value of the dollar.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, opponents of H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, justified their support of this form of infanticide by stating that the procedure was medically necessary in some cases. In fact, President Clinton, as he vetoed the bill, ensured that his photo- ops included women who had survived this gruesome procedure. As my distinguished colleague Henry Hyde mentioned in his closing remarks of the veto override debate, proabortion forces are disturbed by our attempt to outlaw these acts because the legislation shifts the focus from the woman's choice to the brutal and fatal act of the abortion procedure. In their attempt to justify all abortions, abortion advocates have fully exposed their agenda by lobbying to protect this form of baby murder. Apparently, they are ignoring the health risks to women who have been or could be subjected to the medically necessary procedure we seek to outlaw. In fact, supporters of H.R. 1833 included many trained in the medical profession. Our colleague, Dr. Tom Coburn, a practicing obstetrician, assisted in writing the bill. Other well-trained physicians, true to their Hippocratic oath, lent their support to outlaw partial-birth abortions and exposed the serious health dangers inherent in such a brutal procedure. Four physicians, all of whom are experts in obstetrics or fetal health, explained their support for H.R. 1833 in the September 19, 1996 Wall Street Journal article entitled, ``Partial-Birth Abortion Is Bad Medicine''. As our colleagues in the other body this week attempt to override the veto of this most humane legislation, I commend the article to their attention and urge them to follow the lead of the House, override the President's veto and make H.R. 1833 law. [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 1996] Partial-Birth Abortion Is Bad Medicine (By Nancy Romer, Pamela Smith, Curtis R. Cook, and Joseph L. DeCook) The House of Representatives will vote in the next few days on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The debate on the subject has been noisy and rancorous. You've heard from the activists. You've heard from the politicians. Now may we speak? We are the physicians who, on a daily basis, treat pregnant women and their babies. And we can no longer remain silent while abortion activists, the media and even the president of the United States continue to repeat false medical claims about partial-birth abortion. The appalling lack of medical credibility on the side of those defending this procedure has forced us--for the first time in our professional careers--to leave the sidelines in order to provide some sorely needed facts in a debate that has been dominated by anecdote, emotion and media stunts. Since the debate on this issue began, those whose real agenda is to keep all types of abortion legal--at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason--have waged what can only be called an orchestrated misinformation campaign. First the National Abortion Federation and other pro- abortion groups claimed the procedure didn't exist. When a paper written by the doctor who invented the procedure was produced, abortion proponents changed their story, claiming the procedure was only done when a woman's life was in danger. Then the same doctor, the nation's main practitioner of the technique, was caught--on tape--admitting that 80% of his partial-birth abortions were ``purely elective.'' Then there was the anesthesia myth. The American public was told that it wasn't the abortion that killed the baby, but the anesthesia administered to the mother before the procedure. This claim was immediately and thoroughly denounced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which called the claim ``entirely inaccurate.'' Yet Planned Parenthood and its allies continued to spread the myth, causing needless concern among our pregnant patients who heard the claims and were terrified that epidurals during labor, or anesthesia during needed surgeries, would kill their babies. The latest baseless statement was made by President Clinton himself when he said that if the mothers who opted for partial-birth abortions had delivered their children naturally, the women's bodies would have been ``eviscerated'' or ``ripped to shreds'' and they ``could never have another baby.'' That claim is totally and completely false. Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her fertility. It seems to have escaped anyone's attention that one of the five women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony had five miscarriages after her partial-birth abortion. Consider the dangers inherent in partial-birth abortion, which usually occurs after the fifth month of pregnancy. A woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over several days, which risks creating an ``incompetent cervix,'' the leading cause of premature deliveries. It is also an invitation to infection, a major cause of infertility. The abortionist then reaches into the womb to pull a child feet first out of the mother (internal podalic version), but leaves the head inside. Under normal circumstances, physicians avoid breech births whenever possible; in this case, the doctor intentionally causes one--and risks tearing the uterus in the process. He then forces scissors through the base of the baby's skull--which remains lodged just within the birth canal. This is a partially ``blind'' procedure, done by feel, risking direct scissor injury to the uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower uterine segment, resulting in immediate and massive bleeding and the threat of shock or even death to the mother. None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary. Not for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the head), not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid collecting in the women) and not for trisomy (genetic abnormalities characterized by an extra chromosome). Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head. And in some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, a doctor performs a Caesarean section. But in no case is it necessary to partially deliver an infant through the vagina and then kill the infant. How telling it is that although Mr. Clinton met with women who claimed to have needed partial-birth abortions on account of these conditions, he has flat-out refused to meet with women who delivered babies with these same conditions, with no damage whatsoever to their health or future fertility. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was recently asked whether he'd ever operated on children who had any of the disabilities described in this debate. Indeed he had. In fact, one of his patients--``with a huge omphalocele [a sac containing the baby's organs] much bigger than her head''-- went on to become the head nurse in his intensive care unit many years later. Mr. Koop's reaction to the president's veto? ``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction'' on the matter, he said. Such a procedure, he added, cannot truthfully be called medically necessary for either the mother or--he scarcely need point out--for the baby. Considering these medical realities, one can only conclude that the women who thought they underwent partial-birth- abortions for ``medical'' reasons were tragically misled. And those who purport to speak for women don't seem to care. So whom are you going to believe? The activist-extremists who refuse to allow a little truth to get in the way of their agenda? The politicians who benefit from the activists' political action committees? Or doctors who have the facts?

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] of 1996. Once again, the 104th Congress is on the verge of an accomplishment that eluded its predecessor, passage of a measure that authorizes and reauthorizes a number of important water-related projects in a fiscally responsible manner. One such project deserves particular mention by this Member, not just because it is in his congressional district, but due to the environmental and economic benefits it can provide to many places around the country in the future. I refer specifically to the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP] adjacent to Wadsworth in northern Illinois. Since its inception over a decade ago, this internationally recognized research effort has produced, and continues to produce, invaluable data that will facilitate the rehabilitation, restoration, maintenance and/or expansion of our nation's wetlands. In the process, information has been, and is being, developed that has significant and positive implications for habitat conservation, species enhancement and flood control efforts as well. In addition, the success of two wetlands mitigation banks at the DPRWDP is providing further evidence that environmental protection imperatives can, indeed, be reconciled with the manifestations of economic growth. But, for all these potential benefits to be fully realized, additional funds are needed to complete the research and to prepare a how to manual that will enable interested parties to put the findings to good use. To date, almost $9 million has been contributed to the research work at the DPRWDP, only $1.9 million of which has come from the Federal Government. However, another $2.2 million in Federal funds was authorized by the 1988 WRDA, only $125,000 of which has actually been expended. Enactment of this conference report would once again give the DPRWDP an equal chance to compete for the rest of those monies, which is all one can ask in this era of tight budget constraints. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to give this project, and the conference report in which it is reauthorized, their support. Both will redound to the future benefit of America.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues Congressman Jim McDermott and Congressman Charlie Rangel in introducing legislation that will fundamentally shift how the United States approaches our relations with the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For many years, the United States has supported a variety of foreign assistance programs that have sought to aid the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, traditional foreign aid has not led to the level of economic development that we would all like to see on the African continent. In the long run, private sector investment and development must serve as the catalyst for the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to compete in the global marketplace and to improve the standard of living for their people. Unfortunately, the region's immediate potential does not seem to be reflected either in the investment decisions of individual businesses or in the U.S. Government's export development priorities, including high-profile trade missions. In this context, I believe that it is time for us to reexamine the nature of our relationship with sub-Saharan Africa and to focus our attention on ways to facilitate private sector trade and investment in the region. In 1994, Congress took an initial step in this direction by asking the President to develop ``a comprehensive trade and development policy for the countries of sub-Saharan Africa'' as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The first of the five annual reports required under this provision was submitted by President Clinton earlier this year. The President's report, in turn, has generated a broader discussion among many of my colleagues, the business community, and the public on the future direction of U.S. economic relations with sub- Saharan Africa. Throughout this year, I have been pleased to work with Congressman Jim McDermott and Congressman Charlie Rangel toward developing a bipartisan proposal to facilitate the economic development of sub- Saharan Africa by expanding our trade relations with the region. On August 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Trade of the Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on this issue to look more closely at how we might elevate the priorities of business and government toward sub- Saharan Africa and pursue mutually beneficial trade expansion efforts. The legislation that we are introducing today is the culmination of our work on this issue in the 104th Congress and will serve as the basis for further action on this issue by the Ways and Means Committee next year. Among other things, the ``African Growth and Opportunity: The End of Dependency Act'' calls for the negotiation of a free-trade agreement with the countries of sub-Saharan Africa that take appropriate steps to reform their economies. Moreover, to put momentum behind these negotiations and to focus greater attention on the region in the private sector, the bill calls for the creation of a United States-sub- Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum. This forum will provide regular opportunities for policy leader and heads of state to meet to discuss issues of mutual interest and to keep the trade negotiations on track. Finally, our proposal will create privately managed equity and infrastructure funds to encourage private institutional investors in developed countries to pool their resources to make investments in established businesses and infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa. With a combined population of nearly 600 million people, sub-Saharan Africa can and should become a major export market for United States goods and services. In my view, the active participation of the global marketplace is essential to creating the economic and investment opportunities that will stimulate the conditions for developing countries to emerge as business partners, rather than aid recipients. By giving sub-Saharan African countries a trade and investment alternative to foreign aid, this important legislation will encourage the type of economic and political reforms in the region that will ultimately make traditional assistance unnecessary.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking minority member of our distinguished trade subcommittee for his comments and would remind colleagues that this already cleared theHouse on a bipartisan basis. The only thing that the Senate did was modify theHouse language in a specific way noting that Cambodia has made progress toward democratic rule and is striving to rebuild its economy. The amendment finds that expanding our bilateral trade relations may promote further progress by Cambodia on human rights and democracy and may assist that country in adopting regional and world trading principles. Given its progress already, I would urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1642) to extend nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the products of Cambodia, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1642.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bartlett amendment to the United States Armed Forces Protection Act, H.R. 3308. This amendment, which will prohibit U.S. military personnel from being forced to wear the uniform or any visible insignia of the United Nations unless authorized by Congress, was prompted by the Michael New case. Specialist Michael New is a two-time decorated veteran. While serving in Macedonia, Specialist New refused an order to wear the uniform of the United Nations. Specialist New refused to wear the U.N. uniform and insignia because he had taken an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic not the United Nations or its charter. As result of Specialist Michael New's actions he was court martialed, convicted, and dishonorably discharged. I support his decision not to wear the United Nations' uniform. Unfortunately, this amendment comes too late for Specialist Michael New. However, it will insure that no American will be put in Michael New's situation. Never should an American soldier be forced to choose allegiances between the United States and the United Nations. As to the broader issue regarding U.S. and U.N. troops serving together, for the past few years I have heard from many constituents concerned about U.S. troops serving under United Nations' control and command. Constituents back home in my district do not want the President to put U.S. troops under the command and control of the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this amendment and the underlying bill in order to ensure that the President does not place our troops in harms way in U.N. uniforms under U.N. control.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, due to delays of my flight from my district to Washington, I was unavoidably detained and missed the recorded votes of Wednesday, September 4, 1996. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 402 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 403. I ask unanimous consent that my explanation appear in the Record.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I regret that I must speak in opposition to H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job Protection Act. Despite the fact that as one of the conferees on this bill I worked to incorporate, and support, many of the tax provisions contained in the legislation, and despite the fact that as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee I support a key trade provision contained in the bill, I must oppose this bill because of the minimum-wage increase it contains. Increasing the minimum wage will not protect jobs as the title of this legislation implies, but will do just the opposite--it will destroy jobs. Although I do not intend to dwell entirely on this issue in my statement, as I do not intend to dwell entirely on this issue in my statement, as I do want to discuss the tax and trade portion of the bill as well, I do want to include in the Record following my statement, the testimony from someone who certainly knows something about the impact of the minimum wage on a business. Herman Cain, president of Godfather's Pizza testified before the Joint Economic Committee on the subject of a minimum-wage increase, and I must say that his inciteful comments are indicative of conversations I have had over the years on this subject with economists and employers. I would urge my colleagues to review his testimony because he makes clear that this feel good legislation is for people with blinders or rose colored glasses who do not care to acknowledge the real economic consequences or raising the minimum wage. Supporters of the minimum wage, while they might be well intentioned and might receive an award from the media establishment for being politically correct, are hurting the very people they purport to help-- the young, poor, unskilled individual who wants to work. Raising the minimum wage raises the costs for businesses that operate on a thin margin--such as those in the food industry--and leaves them with the choice of marginally raising prices in a highly competitive sector of our economy or cutting costs--i.e. jobs. All too many companies must choose the later, and estimates I have seen indicate that this minimum- wage increase will cost Americans 200,000 jobs. So how does increasing the minimum wage help the young, poor unskilled worker? Good question. While I oppose the minimum-wage increase, as vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and as one of five House conferees on the tax portion of this bill, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the tax provision of H.R. 3448. The tax provisions of the bill, for the most part, will make a positive economic contribution and will hopefully blunt, to some degree, the negative impact of the minimum wage. While this is by no means an all inclusive list, some of the highlights of the bill include the expansion of the expensing provisions for small businesses, the package of S corporation reforms, pension simplification items including critical spousal IRA provisions, the employer provided educational assistance exclusion, the extension of the research and experimentation credit, the clarification of worker classification language relating to independent contractors, and the 6- month delay of the IRS' electric payment system. Also included in the bill was an adoption credit which had passed the House of Representatives by a substantial margin earlier. As I indicated, there are many other positive tax proposals contained in this legislation too numerous to mention here. If signed into law, these provisions will help blunt to some degree the negative fallout from the minimum-wage increase. Although the overwhelming number of tax provisions in the bill are positive, I must also express my concern, as I did when the bill first passed the House, with regard to that portion of this bill which would phase to section 936 of the Tax Code over a 10-year period. Section 936 of the Tax Code provides tax incentives to companies that locate production facilities in Puerto Rico. I must say that it is most likely that the vast majority of members in this House do not fully appreciate the negative impact that eliminating section 936 will have with regard to the economic vitality of Puerto Rico and what the decline in that regard will mean to our Federal budget in the long run. Having served on the committee with jurisdiction over this issue for the past 20 years, the Ways and Means Committee, I can unequivocally state that section 936 has been one of the most successful provisions in our entire Tax Code. Section 936 has spurred economic development in Puerto Rico which has in turn created thousands of jobs--American jobs--dramatically reducing the unemployment rate in Puerto Rico. Sadly, all too many people view Puerto Rico as a foreign country rather than as the American territory that it is. Jobs created in Puerto Rico are U.S. jobs. Moreover contrary to what many critics contend, the majority of jobs created in Puerto Rico through section 936 would not have been created on the mainland absent section 936. The production facilities in Puerto Rico would likely have been located in a foreign country if not in Puerto Rico. In short, don't expect a wave of new production facilities opening on the mainland United States because section 936 is being phased out. By removing this incentive for companies to locate in Puerto Rico, an economic vacuum will be created which I do not see being filled any time soon. This void will bring on increased unemployment, and hope and opportunity, which has been on the rise over the last 20 years in Puerto Rico, will decline steadily. As the economy declines there will be an increased dependency--dependency on Uncle Sam to help those that no longer have jobs. Just what form this dependency will take, whether it be statehood or some other arrangement, remains to be seen, but mark my words, it will mean greater expenditures by the U.S. Treasury. So I would say to those that think they are saving taxpayers dollars when they vote to eliminate this socalled corporate welfare in the Tax Code, that you can either pay now by encouraging economic growth and opportunity, or you can pay later by increasing Federal outlays for welfare and creating a dependency which I don't think the American citizens--either on the mainland or in Puerto Rico--will appreciate. It is my urgent hope that the Ways and Means Committee will revisit this issue at a later date--and sooner rather than later. Having discussed the minimum-wage provisions and the tax provisions, I must finally comment on the lone trade provision contained in H.R. 3448. As chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I am very pleased to report that this conference report extends the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] Program through May 31, 1997. The extension of GSP is critical to our free trade efforts, and I have included a more detailed and separate statement on this subject later in the Record. Mr. Chairman, again I would say that I am disappointed with the minimum-wage portion of this bill. And while I am extremely pleased with the extension of GSP and the long overdue tax provisions contained therein, I must still oppose this bill because of the loss of jobs that will result from the minimum wage provision. [From the American Enterprise, July/Aug. 1996] Bad Solution for the Wrong Problem--How Forcing up the Minimum Wage Hurts Those Who Need Help Most My name is Herman Cain. I am President of Godfather's Pizza, Inc., a 525-unit pizza restaurant chain headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. I am also President of the National Restaurant Association. There are nearly 740,000 food service units in this country, including everything from fast-food chains to fine- dining restaurants. We are an industry dominated by small businesses, and we employ a diverse workforce of over nine million people. Our employees are white, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and more. We expect to employ 12.5 million by the year 2005, with the fastest growth coming in the category of food service managers. More than 30 percent of Americans under age 35 had their first job in the restaurant industry. Restaurants offer an important boost into the job market for millions, as well as a clearly defined career path for those willing to work hard and stay in the business. There are numerous reasons why I firmly believe a minimum- wage increase is attacking the wrong problem. Allow me to list the three reasons I believe to be most important. First, mandated wage increases reduce entry-level job opportunities. A few weeks ago, a colleague in Oregon told me about a homeless 17-year-old he hired in the mid-1980s. He gave the teenager a job chopping lettuce, deveining shrimp, and sweeping floors. That 17-year-old has worked his way up: He's now the executive chef at the restaurant. But the job that brought him into the business no longer exists. When Oregon raised its minimum wage a few years ago and the restaurant owner looked for ways to cut costs, this job was one of the first to go. Now, my colleague buys lettuce already chopped from a nearby automated facility. It's a good example of the split personality of the minimum wage. When you make it more expensive to hire people who lack basic work skills and experience, you risk shutting them out of the workforce. My second point: A minimum-wage increase jeopardizes existing jobs by threatening businesses that may be marginally profitable. In my case, for example, Godfather's Pizza, Inc., has nearly 150 company owned and operated units, and a few of them are either marginally profitable or not profitable at all. If you raise costs for the many thousands of enterprises like these, you risk shutting their doors permanently. When you're running a restaurant that's on the edge, you're scrutinizing every penny. Can ninety cents an hour put me under? It could. Maybe not by itself--but when labor accounts for about 30 percent of my expenses, second only to my food costs, a mandated wage increase is one more factor tipping the balance. A mandated wage increase triggers wage inflation by rippling up through the entire wage spectrum and by causing increases in payroll-related expenses like FICA taxes. Some people would say ``Just raise your prices.'' It doesn't work that way. In a competitive market, that's the fastest way to drive away customers with limited discretionary income. That can close a business fast. My third point: A minimum-wage increase is an ineffective way to raise someone out of poverty. Most minimum-wage earners are part-time workers under age 25--mostly first-time workers, students, people holding down second jobs or supplementing the income of their household's primary earner. In my restaurants, for example, nine out of ten of my hourly employees choose to work less than 35 hours a week--even though fulltime work is available. These are not the poor people policymakers most want to help. By shooting wide and hoping to hit the right target, you're taking a gamble with harmful side effects. The best way to lift a family out of poverty is to get people into the job market and give them a chance to acquire skills. I think of my father, who worked three jobs until he was skilled enough to cut back to two jobs, and who kept going until his skills were good enough that he could support us on one hourly job. There are other dangers with a minimum-wage increase. Like the fact that a federal mandate prescribes the same wage for a mom-and-pop restaurant in rural Nebraska as it does for a restaurant located in a high-cost-of-living metro area. It's not a good idea to try to overrule the laws of supply and demand that do a pretty good job of setting local wages according to the specific conditions of specific markets. Congress has recently been playing close attention to the state and local officials--Democrats and Republicans alike-- who say ``enough is enough'' when it comes to picking up the tab for unfunded federal mandates. Please give businesses the same hearing: An increase in the minimum wage is also an unfunded federal mandate. Someone has to pay--and it's usually the entry-level employee. I urge you to look deeper for solutions. Some people lack the skills to make them competitive for entry-level employment. This is why we have tax credits to encourage businesses to hire employees who typically have a hard time gaining a foothold in the job market. This is why politicians are setting up empowerment zones to help businesses hire in impoverished areas. These programs rightly recognize that some workers may be overlooked if it gets too expensive for a business to hire them. Congress should be looking for ways to encourage people to work, and businesses to hire, instead of making it more expensive for employers to give the low- skilled a job. You're getting a good dose of information lately on the theories behind successful welfare reform. In businesses like ours, real life crowds out theory. While our main expertise is in getting out good meals at good prices, as entry-level employers we've also become fairly expert at finding ways to help millions of troubled teens and troubled adults get beyond some daunting barriers to employment. We see that real entry-level jobs provide training in the fundamentals-- reliability and teamwork, to name just two--and thereby field long-term social payoffs that don't come in any other way. Right now we have more than four million people earning the minimum wage in this country, 7\1/2\ million unemployed persons, and nine million adults receiving welfare payments. Tackle the right problems first. Focus on creating more jobs, not on raising the cost of entry-level employment and eliminating existing jobs. A minimum-wage increase doesn't attack the right problem. I urge you to reject it. Fact and Fiction on the Minimum Wage Minimum-wage workers are the most vulnerable Americans, right? Actually, more adults who earn the minimum wage live in families with over $30,000 in annual income than live in families making under $10,000. Over all, 22 percent of minimum wage earners are poor. The majority of poor Americans don't work at all, at any wage. Minimum-wage work is undignified. Fifty-five percent of minimum-wage workers are youths age 16-24. Many of these live with their parents. Only 2 percent of workers age 25 or older are paid the minimum wage. You can't raise a family on the minimum wage. Few have to: 89 percent of all workers now making less than the proposed minimum have no spouse or child depending on them as sole breadwinner. Of these, 44 percent are single individuals living with their parents or other family member, 22 percent are single individuals living alone, and 23 percent have a spouse with a paying job. Minimum-wage jobs are a dead end. Sixty-three percent of minimum-wage workers earn higher wages within 12 months. Seventy percent of the restaurant managers at McDonald's, plus a majority of the firm's middle and senior management, began in hourly positions. (This includes CEO Ed Rensi, who started at 85 cents an hour in 1965.) Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment Policy Foundation; Wall Street Journal; Industrial Relations and Labor Review.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I want to highlight that the conference report on H.R. 3448, the Small Business Jobs Protection Act, contains provisions that extend the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] Program, through May 31, 1997. The GSP Program promotes three broad policy goals: First, to help maintain U.S. international competitiveness by lowering costs for U.S. businesses, as well as lowering prices for American consumers; second, to foster economic development in developing countries and economies in transition through increased trade, rather than foreign aid; and third, to promote U.S. Trade interests by encouraging beneficiaries to open their markets and comply more fully with international trading rules. This important legislation will help American businesses across the country, both small and large, by eliminating unnecessary tariffs on certain imported products. Extension of GSP will expand trade and prevent job losses in a wide variety of U.S. industries currently suffering increased tariff costs as a result of the expiration of GSP. Reauthorization of GSP, in this difficult budget environment, should be viewed by our trading partners as indicative of our continued commitment to the expansion of international trade and economic opportunity. H.R. 3448 is important trade legislation, which, I believe, will be followed next year by an extension of fast-track trade negotiating authority, and legislation to expand trade with Caribbean Basin region. H.R., 3448 makes modest reforms and technical changes to title V of the Trade Act of 1974, which are intended to simplify and improve the administration of the GSP Program. For example, the bill recodifies a 3-year rule whereby specific products may only be considered for addition to the GSP Program every third year. The bill would exclude high-income countries from GSP, and would have the effect of reducing the per capita gross-national-product [GNP] limit from $11,800 to $8,600, a number which would be indexed. Beneficiary countries that exceed the per capita GNP limit will be removed form the GSP Program. The bill would reduce the competitive need limit [CNL] in the expired law from about $108 million to $75 million, to be increased by $5 million annually, but would retain the competitive need waiver authority. Also, a beneficiary country that exceeds the CNL on a particular product would lose GSP on that product. Under certain circumstances, however, the President could waive the CNL and restore the product to GSP status for that country. The bill also contains new authority, which was requested by the Administration, to designate any article from a least developed developing country [LDDC], if the President determines that the article is not import-sensitive in the context of imports from LDDC's. Designed to promote economic development through increased trade, rather than foreign aid, GSP is a valuable program, both for beneficiary countries, and for U.S. businesses and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support its inclusion in H.R. 3448.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, President Clinton set out to reform health care by taking decision making power away from the individual and placing it in the hands of a centralized bureaucracy. As a member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, I am proud to be a part of the Congress that today is taking important steps towards reforming our health care system by taking power away from the bureaucrats and giving it back to individuals. For example, the creation of Medical Savings Accounts [MSA's] will give individuals more rights and more responsibilities regarding their health care. I have been a strong supporter of MSA's, and I am pleased that Senate Democrats have agreed with the House and included MSA's in the conference report. It should be noted that this is not a perfect bill by any means. I find it unfortunate that malpractice reform was dropped, I believe the MSA experiment is too restrictive, and I am concerned about the impact that guaranteed issue will have on the market as a whole. While there are unquestionably further improvements that can be made in our system and even in this bill, we are taking a major step forward. When coupled with preexisting condition and portability reform, I believe MSA's and other provisions in this compromise represent a dramatic, but carefully measured reform of our health care delivery system. It is one that should be approved by Congress, applauded by pundits, welcomed by the American public, and signed by the President.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2823. This is a unique opportunity to approve legislation that would put us in compliance with our international obligations, use multilateral standards for the imposition of sanctions instead of unilateral standards that violate the GATT, and meet our environmental concerns over dolphin mortality. This bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee to address its trade aspects. We reported it out as approved by the Resources Committee, without further amendment. I support the bill because it would replace the current use of United States unilateral standards as a trigger for an import ban of tuna caught with purse seine nets with multilateral standards agreed to as part of the Panama Declaration. If countries are in compliance with the multilateral standard for the fishing of yellowfin tuna, then the import ban would not apply. Any use of unilateral standards for the imposition of sanctions is troubling. In fact, a GATT panel has found our current law to violate our international obligations. Instead, enforcement actions are most effective when they are based on international consensus, as this bill would establish. Such consensus is more constructive to effective management of the ETP tuna fishery by all countries concerned. I believe that these standards will serve as a positive incentive to reduce dolphin mortality, while, at the same time, putting the United States in compliance with international agreements. The Studds amendment, however, would put the Panama Declaration at risk and would threaten all we have achieved. Adoption of this language would invite a serious challenge under the WTO and would discourage our trading partners from adopting more environmentally sound fishing methods. Far from achieving increased protection for dolphins, the amendment would undo the progress we have already made. Proof of the benefits of H.R. 2823, without the Studds amendment, is the fact that this legislation is supported by the administration and key environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund. In addition, our tuna fishing industry supports the bill, and our trading partners have indicated that they believe implementation of the bill would put us in compliance with our international obligations. With such a strong and diverse coalition behind this bill, we should strongly support this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3815.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3815) to make technical corrections and miscellaneous amendments to trade laws, as amended.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3815, a bill to make technical corrections and miscellaneous amendments to trade laws. H.R. 3815 is a package of miscellaneous trade provisions and other technical and clerical corrections that were introduced originally as separate bills. The provisions in H.R. 3815 fall into four broad categories of miscellaneous trade proposals. The Committee on Ways and Means and the House already have approved the first group of proposals, which were included in last year's Balanced Budget Act, which was vetoed. The second group of miscellaneous trade proposals was favorably reported by the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade on May 9 and by the full committee on July 26. The third group includes two additional individual provisions, both of which received public comment. These two provisions also were favorably reported by the full committee on July 26. The final group of provisions is a collection of purely technical and clerical corrections submitted by the Office of Law Revision. These items also were favorably reported by the subcommittee on May 9 and by the full committee on July 26. During its consideration of the bill, the Ways and Means Committee approved an amendment to H.R. 3815, involving a 1-year moratorium on changes in regulations or administrative rulings relating to the importation of metal forgings for hand tools. The amendment also includes a 60-day consultation and layover provision for any significant policy changes with regard to rules of origin or country of origin marking requirements for all products. The amendment and additional changes incorporated here today, represent a bipartisan compromise on this matter. An additional amendment which clarifies that the moratorium applies only to hand tools and metal forgings covered by preexisting rulings rather than new products was included as part of H.R. 3815 subsequent to the filing of the committee report. I support this final compromise and applaud my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, especially Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Kennelly, and Mr. Neal, for working closely with me on this issue. Let me add that collecting these highly technical miscellaneous bills into a single legislative package is an enormous task undertaken in each Congress. H.R. 3815 groups roughly half the total number of miscellaneous trade bills introduced during the 104th Congress. An effort has been made to include only those bills which are noncontroversial and revenue neutral. On average, it takes a continuous effort over two or three Congresses to pass such a bill, even those which make purely technical and clerical corrections. Given these difficulties, it is my hope that we might be able to develop a set of transparent ground rules for handling miscellaneous trade proposals in the future. In my view, any bill which has the approval of the Congress and the administration, is unopposed by business and industry, and is revenue neutral, should move forward under expedited procedures. Business and industry often rely on the ability of Congress to update the trade laws to conform with commercial reality. I think we should be responsive to the needs of the trade community by developing some transparent, expedited procedures. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to establish such rules and procedures. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3815. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] of 1996. Not only is this bill a fiscally responsible approach to America's need for inland waterway and flood control projects, but it will be of substantial benefit to the environment as well. As a matter of fact, almost one quarter of the entire bill is devoted to programs and projects of an environmentally sensitive nature. An excellent case in point is the 550 acre Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP] in northern Illinois which would be reauthorized by section 502 of this bill. Originated in 1983 as a cooperative Federal, State, local, and private venture, the purpose of this project was to produce significant research information on the creation, maintenance, and restoration of wetlands. Since then, almost $9 million has been spent--$1.9 million by the Federal Government, another $1.8 million by the State of Illinois, nearly $1.7 million by local government entities, and $3.4 million by the private sector--in pursuit of that objective. The results speak for themselves, and for the reauthorization of this project so that the $2.2 million in Federal money authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 can be fully appropriated. Since its inception 13 years ago, the DPRWDP has become an internationally recognized wetlands research effort that not only features 6 experimental wetlands cells but also a pair of wetlands mitigation banks that are demonstrating just how effectively the pressures of economic development can be reconciled with the need for environmental protection. Land that was once devoted to farming and gravel mining operations has been converted into a carefully monitored and controlled wetlands laboratory in which no less than 12 research teams from 14 different organizations, including 9 universities, have conducted, and continue to conduct, investigations into the way in which wetlands work and how they can affect such things as flooding, water quality, and habitat preservation. As a result of all this work, over 150 articles, reports, proceedings, book chapters, abstracts, technical papers, theses, and dissertations have been published, not to mention the 50 plus newspaper, magazine, and newsletter articles that have written on the DPRWDP's research and its implications for such important public policy matters as flood control, species preservation, and water quality enhancement. For example, the August 25, 1995 New York Times carried a 2 page feature article on the DPRWDP, and a similar project in St. Charles, IL, which focused on the extent to which the existence of wetlands could prevent flooding. So that the significance of these findings is not lost upon my colleagues, let me mention several of them specifically. One, based on the determination that a wetland can trap more than 80 percent of the sediments and nutrients contained in incoming river water, concluded that water quality in a given watershed could be improved if as little as 2 to 4 percent of that watershed were converted to wetlands. Another, evidenced by the return of flora, fauna, and four State- endangered birds to the DRPWDP site, speaks to the potential of wetlands for accommodating endangered or threatened species. And then there is the matter of flooding, the indication being that only 2 to 6 percent of a watershed need be devoted to wetlands in order to accommodate floodwaters. However, more work needs to be done before the full benefit of these and other findings can be realized. If we are to understand more fully how wetlands may best be restored and if a detailed ``how-to'' manual is to become available by the end of the century, then the Federal Government needs to invest more money in this project in the near future. To achieve those objectives within that timeframe, another $7 million and perhaps more will be needed, sooner rather than later. Revenues realized from the wetlands mitigation banks at the DPRWDP site will account for some of that money and private sources may provide additional financial support. But the funds generated from those sources alone is unlikely to be sufficient to get the job done by the year 2000 unless the remainder of the $2.2 million authorized by the 1988 WRDA is actually appropriated. To date, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose good works are authorized by WRDA legislation, has only invested a small portion of either the $1.9 million spent by the Federal Government on the DPRWDP or the $1 million earmarked for the project in the 1992 Energy and Water appropriations measure. Not only that, but of the $125,000 or so the Corps has invested to date, none has been devoted to construction work. Due to that combination of circumstances, the DPRWDP was deauthorized in 1993, even though it had been the recipient of nearly $2 million in Federal money over the years and it had received an appropriation as late as 1992. As a consequence, statutory language reauthorizing the project became necessary, otherwise it would not be in a position to compete effectively for subsequent Federal appropriation. WRDA legislation being the proper place for such language, I was pleased with, and gratified by, its inclusion in the committee-reported version of H.R. 3592. My thanks go to the chairman and members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and especially to the chairman and members of its Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, for their consideration in that regard. In closing, let me just say that enactment of this reauthorization language will pay big dividends in the future. Not only will the research data, instruction manuals, and mitigation banks generated by the DPRWDP enable Americans to conserve, construct, and restore valuable wetlands, but the insights provided will be of great benefit to those interested in controlling flooding or in accommodating necessary economic growth without compromising important environmental values. In short, the DPRWDP is a winner in every sense of the word and I urge my colleagues to give it their support by passing the legislation that contains its statutory reauthorization.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, a report issued earlier this month by the Human Rights Wing--Shiromani Akali Dal--proves that the charges filed against Balbir Singh Dhillon are false. Mr. Dhillon is the 43-year-old American citizen who was arrested about a month ago while visiting Sikh temples and his family village in Punjab, Khalistan. I am inserting a copy of the Human Rights Wing report into the Record. In the report, the Human Rights Wing states: The HRW investigation team is satisfied that Balbir Singh is innocent and all charges against him should be dropped immediately. He should be allowed to return to his country. The HRW is satisfied that the Punjab Police wants to keep the spectre of Sikh militancy alive so that it can continue to enjoy the extraconstitutional powers vested with it. According to the report, a police party led by the local chief visited Mr. Dhillon's native village of Salala on May 17 and inquired about Balbir Singh Dhillon. He had recently returned from a visit to Gudwaras in Pakistan. On May 18 Mr. Dhillion went to the police station with his father and the local MLA, state legislator, and the police chief told him that there were no charges against him and he should go home. The chief also denied having visited Salala. On May 20 Mr. Dhillion was arrested and charged with carrying RDX explosives and plotting to kill Sikh political leaders. He was forced to sign blank papers. He was not allowed to talk to his family. The political leaders Mr. Dhillon was charged with plotting to assassinate are affiliated with the Akali Dal, the largest Sikh political party. The Human Rights Wing is also affiliated with the Akali Dal. The Human Rights Wing is also the organization of Jaswat Singh Khalra, who was kidnapped by the Punjab police on September 6. His whereabouts remain unknown. These actions prove that even under the new regime, India is not the democracy that it claims to be, but an authoritarian police state described by Indian Journalist Rajinder Puri of the Times of India as ``a rotten, corrupt, repressive, and anti-people system.'' The recent report from India's Central Bureau of Investigation confirming the mass cremations of Sikh in Punjab, Khalistan supports this also. This policy was described by the Indian Supreme Court as worse than a genocide. The United States cannot allow this to happen to an American citizen. I call upon Secretary of State Christopher and Ambassador Frank Wisner to intervene with the Indian regime to see to it that Mr. Dhillon is released immediately. If India is not willing to release him, then we should impose tough sanctions on this tyrannical regime. America cannot stand idly by while an American citizen has his rights violated on the basis of trumped-up accusations. We must do everything to secure freedom for this American citizen as soon as possible so that Balbir Singh Dhillon can return to his wife and children. Arrest of Balbir Singh Dhillon The Panjab Police issued a press release to the newspapers on 22nd May, 1996, about the arrest of Mr. Balbir Singh Dhillon. Mr. Dinkar Gupta SSP Jalandhar, claimed that Mr. Balbir Singh a U.S. Citizen, who was visiting India, was apprehended at a Police `Naka' near his native village Salala, on the outskirts of Jalandhar. Mr. Balbir Singh was allegedly carrying one kilo of black RDX in his car. Family sources and friends of Mr. Balbir Singh refuted the police version, and approached the Human Rights Wing to investigate the matter. A 3 member team of the Human Rights Wing consisting of Mr. Harshinder Singh (Advocate), Mr. Amrik Singh and Mr. Jaspal Singh, visited Jalandhar, and apart from Mr. Balbir Singh, also met, other persons concerned with this case. The report is as follows: Mr. Balbir Singh Dhillon, aged 44 years, married, father of two, immigrated to the U.S.A. in 1980. Mr. Dhillon is engineer by profession. He is an active member of youth of America, and is the treasurer of the organization. Youth of America is one of the representative organisation of the Sikhs in the U.S.A. It is a democratic and peaceful organisation, advocates the creation of Khalistan, and every year organises rallies and demonstrations before the Indian Embassy and U.N. Headquarters during the operation ``Blue Star'' week and visits by Indian dignitries. Mr. Balbir Singh and his father Mr. Dilbagh Singh arrived in India on the 4th of April '96, to visit their relatives, friends and their native village. On 8th April, '96, Mr. Balbir Singh joined the Sikh pilgrims going to Pakistan to visit the historical gurudwaras on the occassion of Baisakhi. The ``Jatha'' of pilgrims returned to India on the 18th April, 96. On 22nd April, 96 Balbir Singh went off to visit other historical gurudwaras in India, Nanded (Maharashtra) and in U.P. etc., he also used this opportunity to visit tourist sites. Mr. Balbir Singh returned home on the 16th May, 96. On 17th May, 96 a police party headed by DSP Rajinder Singh (Jalandhar) and SHO Bhogpur visited village Salala and made enquires about Mr. Balbir Singh from the villagers. On learning about these enquiries being made Mr. Balbir Singh, his father Mr. Dilbagh Singh accompanied by Mr. Amarjeet Singh Samra, MLA (Nakodar) went to DSP Rajinder Singh's Office on 18th May, 96. D.S.P. Rajinder Singh told them that there was nothing against Mr. Balbir Singh and he should not worry at all and should go home, however to be doubly sure he would check with the department and Mr. Balbir Singh should check with him, again, the next day. The D.S.P. completely denied having visited Salala village and making any enquiries. On 19th May, 96 about 5:30 p.m. Mr. Balbir Singh drove down to the DSP's office in his car to meet the D.S.P. He was asked to wait outside, Mr. Balbir Singh sat in his car. At about 7:30 p.m. the D.S.P. came out and asked Mr. Balbir Singh to accompany him. They drove down to the SSP Mr. Dinkar Gupta's office in the police jeep. While Mr. Balbir Singh was made to wait outside, DSP Rajinder Singh met with the SSP for half an hour. Emerging from the SSP's office DSP Rajinder Singh asked Mr. Balbir Singh to come with him. They drove down to the Sadar Police Station within the city where Mr. Balbir Singh was told that he was being arrested. He was not informed of the charges against him. The time was about 9:00 p.m. Mr. Balbir Singh managed to have a telephone message sent to advocate Hardayal Singh, a relative, at village Garha. At about 11:00 p.m. advocate Hardayal Singh and Mr. Puran Singh came to the Sadar Police Station and met Balbir Singh. They left after assuring them that they would return in the morning. They were back at 6:00 a.m. on 20th May, 96 and arranged for some tea etc. for Balbir Singh, as no senior officers would be available at this early hour they left promising to come back around 9:00 a.m., they were informed that Balbir Singh had been shifted to the C.I.A. staff office for interrogation. At the C.I.A. staff he was interrogated by D.S.F. Rajinder Singh and several other officers whom he was unable to identify. He was asked to provide information about any militants he knew, or help in recovering arms and also about the motive of his visit to Pakistan. Balbir Singh denied any contact or knowledge about militants. He also told them that if he had any covert intentions for visiting Pakistan he would not have gone so openly nor returned to India. During his interrogation Balbir Singh was man handled and beaten. He was forced to make a written statement that he was allowed to return home on the 19th May, 96 night after being questioned. He was also forced to append his signature on some blank papers by DSP Rajinder Singh. He was then handed over to the Adampur Police Station, and charged with carrying one kilo of black RDX in his car, and booked under section 3/4 official secret Act 1923. (Provide information of defense and other vital information to Pakistan) 4/5 Explosives Act (RDX) 25/ 54/59 Arm Act and 120-B I.P.C. While in Jalandhar, Balbir Singh met Bhai Jasbir Singh Rode former Jathedar of the Akal Thakt, and handed over some clothes sent by his relatives in the USA. Bhai Jasbir Singh Rode told the HRW team that the Jalandhar Police questioned him about his meeting with Balbir Singh. Bhai Jasbir Singh admitted that Balbir Singh had come to meet him but do not know him from before. Balbir Singh has also asked Bhai Jasbir Singh to introduce and arrange meetings with Bhai Manjit Singh and Mr. Simranjeet Singh Mann. He told Balbir Singh that it would not be possible to meet these leaders as they were busy with the Lok Sabha election results just out. From the time of his interrogation at the C.I.A. staff till his production before the duty magistrate at Jalandhar on 21st May, 96. Balbir Singh was not allowed to meet any relative or lawyer, nor informed about the reasons of his arrest or charges leveled against him. The magistrate remanded Balbir Singh to Police Custody till May 22nd '96. On 22nd May '96 when he was again produced in court Balbir Singh was able to meet his father and relatives. The police remand was extended 'til 26th May '96. On 26th May 96 Balbir Singh was sent to Jalandhar jail under judicial custody. A UNI date lined story from Jalandhr of 25th May 96, quoting police interrogation reports that Balbir Singh was part of a larger militant conspiracy to indulge in disruptive activity and also to eliminate moderate Akali leaders. The HRW investigation team is satisfied that Balbir Singh is innocent and all charges against him be dropped immediately. He should be allowed to return to his country. The HRW is satisfied that the Panjab Police wants to keep the spectre of Sikh militancy alive so that it can continue to enjoy the extra constitutional powers vested with it. The Police force also would like the community to stay divided, and so. The continuous uncovering of plots, of militants out to assassinate Akali Leaders. For a rallying together of all sections of Sikhs is seen as a development that would culminate in a drastic reduction of extra constitutional powers. Harshinder Singh Advocate Amrik Singh Vice Chairman J.S. Dhillon Chairman

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3161) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment-- most-favored-nation treatement--to the products of Romania.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)