Phil Crane

Mr CRANE

Mr CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy with the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman form Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I have traditionally offered amendments to this appropriations bill to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I was considering offering an amendment again this year. However, I understand that the Committee on Appropriations set the funding level for the NEA in this bill at $99.5 million for fiscal year 1997. This funding level conforms to the understanding that was reached last year with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and your chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, regarding future funding levels for the NEA. Under that agreement, the House would fund the NEA at $99.5 million for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and then zero out funding for the NEA in fiscal year 1998. I have spoken to Chairman Livingston and he has indicated that he is committed to last year's agreement, and that it would be his intention next year to report out an Interior appropriations bill which would contain zero funding for the NEA in fiscal year 1998. I simply want to inquire of the gentleman whether this would be his intention as well as that of the chairman of the committee.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. CRANE. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment this year. Instead, I will simply commend the gentleman from Arizona and my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for his hard work on this bill, and for standing by last year's NEA agreement.

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to exclude tip income from the administrative and tax burdens of the Federal income tax. I have long objected to the taxation of tips and it was the recent tribulations of a constituent of mine which prompted me to once again introduce this legislation. Charlene Beyer from Round Lake Park, IL, recently sent to me copies of the forms and regulations covering the tax reporting requirements for tip income she receives as a restaurant employee. It is my understanding that hard working restaurant employees even take time out to attend classes to learn all the rules concerning tip reporting. While serving customers, they must keep track of their gratuities, then report them to the restaurant and the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. The restaurant is also held liable for tip income of their employees. Of course, tip income is received by cab drivers, bartenders, and individuals of other professions. The IRS is given the difficult task of policing all these activities. The whole process creates a bureaucratic mess for both the taxpayer and the Government. I believe that tip income should not be treated on par with earned income for tax purposes. Gratuities are, by definition, discretionary in both amount and practice, irrespective of the service provided. In fact, tips are more gifts than income and current law allows an annual tax exemption from income of gifts up to $10,000 from an individual. I feel this bill will be especially relevant to the current debate over reforming the Internal Revenue Code. As one of the common goals of the numerous tax reform plans is simplification, the exclusion of tip income will go a long way toward simplifying the compliance of taxpayers with the law. The current process of taxing tip income provides an economic incentive for tip earners to evade taxes by underreporting income. Employers, too, are burdened with paying payroll taxes on both reported and unreported tip income. Although Congress provided a credit to employers for FICA taxes on tip income, a much more efficient solution, again, is to eliminate the tip tax altogether. I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of this bill and to lend their names as sponsors to it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. That is my understanding. As I say, it would be an administration interpretation, but I do not think there would be a problem.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is if before July 15 this were to occur, that it would be in order, but that ultimately is an administration decision, and I have no input whatsoever that they would have any objections to that.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes for purposes of control to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2754, the Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act. This legislation would implement the OECD Agreement on Shipbuilding. H.R. 2754, and the agreement it implements, are the culmination of many years of effort to level the playing field worldwide for the shipbuilding industry. I sponsored H.R. 2754, along with my colleagues, Mr. Gibbons and Ms. Dunn, and Ways and Means favorably reported this legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 27 to 4. I strongly believe that this agreement will open up trade in shipbuilding for our industry by eliminating virtually all government subsidies and creating equitable terms of competition in the international shipbuilding market for U.S. shipbuilders. The agreement represents the best chance that our industry has to compete on a worldwide basis without having to contend with the huge subsidies offered by other governments to their shipbuilding industries. In addition, the agreement and implementing bill would provide a new remedy to U.S. shipyards that have been injured by unfair pricing. Unless this legislation is passed, our shipyards will not have access to this valuable remedy, which would force offending shipyards to pay a charge in the amount of injurious pricing or face significant trade restrictions. Of course, any international agreement must be fair and balanced, and I personally took care to assure that the agreement is truly symmetrical and that no special deals were cut to the detriment of the U.S. shipping industry. Any subsidies that are grandfathered under the agreement are limited and mainly in the form of worker assistance related to reducing capacity within these countries. Of course, capacity reduction benefits shipbuilding industries worldwide. You will hear debate today that we should not cut back our title XI loan guarantee program to conform to the agreement because it would take away the one subsidy that our shipyards have. Do not be misled by this argument. If we do not implement this agreement out of fear of having to scale back on our title XI and other programs, we will permit our trading partners to increase the level of subsidies that they provide to their industries to a level far beyond any U.S. subsidies-- and the U.S. industry will not be able to compete under those circumstances. The simple fact is that it is highly unlikely that Congress will vote to increase subsidies for the U.S. shipbuilding industry to make it more competitive with highly subsidized foreign shipyards. As a result, the only way our industry can be competitive is to force its competitors to give up their subsidies and their ability to engage in unfair pricing practices. That is precisely what this agreement does. You will also hear debate today that we should simply reject the agreement we have and return to the negotiating table in an attempt to cut an even better deal for our industry. This argument is misguided as well. The agreement took 5 years to conclude and was the product of hard bargaining and concessions on all sides. Our trading partners are giving up billions of dollars in subsidies. The biggest change that we have to make is to change the terms of our loan guarantee program. Our trading partners have told us that if we do not implement this agreement in a timely manner, support for the agreement in their countries will erode and vanish. In fact, I have letters from the European Community, Japan, Norway, and the OECD itself stating that renegotiating the agreement is simply impossible. If we fail, we will return to the days when the foreign industries are heavily subsidized but the U.S. industry is not. You will also hear that this bill forces us to eliminate our title XI program in order to comply with the agreement. That is not the case. We are able to retain title XI, although we have to scale it back to meet the agreement requirements, just as every other signatory must do. We can even maintain the same funding levels as we currently have. Opponents to the agreement are raising the specter that our national defense is somehow at risk unless we adopt the amendment. That is simply untrue. The agreement itself contains an exception that allows a government to back away if it believes its national security interests are at stake. The Department of Defense has also sent us a letter stating, and I quote, that ``the agreement will not adversely affect our national security.'' Mr. Chairman, if our own Defense Department can make such a bold statement, it is powerful evidence that the agreement does not threaten our national security. Mr. Chairman, the shipbuilding agreement represents a good deal. In an effort to save our shipbuilding industry and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2754. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am adamantly opposed to this amendment. If implemented, it would cause the agreement to disintegrate, leaving us with nothing but many wasted years. Make no mistake: the amendment violates the agreement in a fatal way. We have received letters from a number of our trading partners telling us that if this amendment is adopted, we will not have implemented the agreement and that they will not renegotiate the agreement. We cannot afford to have them walk away. Let me rebut the arguments raised by the supporters of this amendment. First, we do not need to eliminate our title XI program in order to comply with the agreement. We merely have to scale it back to meet the agreement requirements, just as our trading partners must. We will achieve balance instead of a war of escalation that we cannot and will not win. Second, our national security is completely protected under the agreement. The agreement contains an exception that allows a government to back away if it believes its national security interests are at stake. The Department of defense has also sent us a letter stating, and I quote, that ``the Agreement will not adversely affect our national security.'' This statement is powerful evidence that the agreement does not threaten our national security. Third, our negotiators were able to achieve an exception for the Jones Act, something no other country was able to achieve. Although I agree that the Jones Act is not affected, I do not believe that we need specific statutory language that says so. But more importantly, I believe that this amendment goes too far. I am concerned that we could potentially violate a whole series of agreements, let alone the Shipbuilding Agreement, by prohibiting such measures from taking effect. There is no need to put us at such risk. As the Defense Department stated in the letter I quoted earlier, the agreement ``does not change cabotage laws, that are clearly vital to our national security.'' We have heard some discussion that the amendment represents a compromise position because there are some members that wanted even tougher language. Mr. Chairman, a serious violation is still a serious violation. Merely because the amendment keeps the current title XI program in effect for 30 months as opposed to a longer period of time does not change the fact that any extension of the current title XI program violates the agreement. Nor can it be said that the amendment merely extends the transition period. Let us not be naive. We would be asking for more benefits than we currently have but, at the same time, would be requiring our trading partners to implement all of the terms of the agreement immediately. But trade agreements do not work that way. We have to give up something, too. But the reality is that our shipyards will feel the pinch considerably less than our trading partners: Our $50 million in title XI loan guarantees compared to billions of dollars in foreign subsidies. And we do not even have to give up our $50 million. Instead, we just have to make sure that we do not make guarantees in a manner that violates the agreement. Let me read what our administration and some of our trading partners have said about the amendment. U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky has stated: I want to make clear that the substitute amendment to H.R. 2754 approved by the National Security Committee * * * modifies the legislation in ways that are clearly incompatible with the agreement and unacceptable to the other signatories. The EU Ambassador to the United States has stated: This amendment clearly is inconsistent with the terms of the agreement as negotiated between the parties. * * * This significant amendment would not be acceptable to the European Community since it would be contrary to the basic objectives and balance of mutual concessions contained in the agreement. I cannot envisage the circumstances under which signatories of the OECD agreement would be willing to reopen negotiations. The adoption of the amendment would put the agreement in serious jeopardy. The OECD has stated: If this amendment is attached to H.R. 2754 and passed by the House of Representatives, the United States is putting in jeopardy the entry into force of the Agreement. For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, let me be clear that a vote for the amendment is a vote against the agreement. Contrary to what the supporters are arguing, this amendment would not improve the agreement; it would destroy it. I urge my colleagues to join together in a bipartisan effort to support our shipbuilding industry and to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include the following information for the Record: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, June 4, 1996. Hon. Herbert H. Bateman, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: I understand that the mark-up by the House National Security Committee of HR 2754, a bill to approve and implement the provisions of the 1994 ``Agreement Respecting Normal Competitive Conditions in the Commercial Shipbuilding and Repair Industry'' has led to an amendment by yourself, among others, that would extend the provisions of the present Title XI Loan Guarantee Program until January 1999, with the vessels constructed using these terms being required to be delivered by January 1, 2002. It is clear that this proposal will be in contradiction to the Agreement and a breach of its provisions. As you know, the essential approach to shipbuilding subsidization in the Agreement and a guarantee of its effectiveness is equal treatment of all Parties and quick elimination, i.e. by entry into force, of all existing support measures. Let me therefore express my great concern that if this amendment is attached to HR 2754 and passed by the House of Representatives, the United States is putting in jeopardy the entry into force of the Agreement. Failure to bring the Agreement into effect, though possibly of some advantage for the US shipbuilding industry in the very short-term, will be of great harm to it in the longer- term. Failure will, inter alia, prompt a resurgence of shipbuilding subsidies in the other countries--which as you know have severely affected the competitiveness of US yards in the past. Furthermore, it would deprive the United States shipbuilding industry of the tool to act against dumping in the world shipbuilding market. I therefore urge you to reconsider your amendment as the legislation makes its progress on the floor of the House of Representatives. Strict and immediate implementation of the Agreement seems to me to be the way of ensuring the long-term viability of the shipbuilding industries in the United States, as well as those of the other Parties to the Agreement. Sincerely, P.M. Olberg, Ambassador.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Florida, Sam Gibbons, our distinguished ranking minority member for closing remarks, and I want to pay tribute to him again as the man who served for so long as chairman of the trade subcommittee on which I served in my ranking minority position. We have worked collegially for years together and I pay tribute to this great man from Florida.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On the question of whether the agreement unfairly disadvantages the United States, let me reassure colleagues that other countries are not permitted to transition, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] had earlier suggested. The agreement does provide for some existing shipbuilding restructuring programs to be phased out in Spain, Portugal, and Belgium; however, these programs are primarily for the express purpose of reducing capacity in the respective shipbuilding industries of these nations, not for expanding the industry or supporting specific ship construction activities. The precise terms of these programs, the amounts of funding, the purpose and deadlines for completion of these programs are spelled out in the agreement. The downsizing of European shipbuilding capacity is in the best interest of this Nation and the United States shipbuilding industry and should be encouraged. The special provisions result in an advantage, not a disadvantage to United States shipbuilders that wish to compete in the world shipbuilding marketplace. No other countries have received special deals. Without the OECD agreement there would be no way to monitor or control these programs. They could continue indefinitely at any level of funding for whatever purpose they chose. The Bateman amendment would not provide us with transition; it would completely and unequivocally kill the agreement and all we have achieved. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] stated earlier that because the USTR is reopening the agreement to add 6 months to the delivery date, that it can renegotiate to permit us to retain title XI. And I want to explain to colleagues that is not correct. It will be impossible to reopen the agreement, as Mr. Bateman suggests. The agreement currently provides that no subsidies may be awarded under the agreement after the effective date of the agreement, July 15. Subsidies may be granted before that point as long as the vessel is constructed by December 31, 1998. The signatories had originally agreed that the agreement would take effect on February 1, 1996. That date had to be delayed 6 months because the United States was not ready to implement. However, the December 31, 1998, delivery date remained in place. The administration is merely seeking a change applicable to all countries that would extend the delivery date 6 months to match the delayed starting date. The administration is not renegotiating the agreement. This change can be made merely through an understanding. Our trading partners appear to be willing to discuss this limited change that applies to all countries equally. However, our trading partners have told us that they will not renegotiate the agreement under the terms set forth in the Bateman amendment because it would destroy the balance in the agreement and give the United States an undue advantage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, a recent study revealed that the members of the Washington press corps are predominantly liberal. In fact, over 90 percent of them voted Democrat in the last election. Despite these leanings, the media have defended themselves by claiming to be able to separate those opinions from their news coverage. Quite to the contrary, U.S. News & World Report, of June 10, 1996, takes issue with that argument and provides a case study of how the media's left-leaning perspective often colors the manner in which stories are covered or not covered. The article explains how the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all overlooked Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's statement that the procedure of partial birth abortions was too close to infanticide, and would vote to override the President's veto. I would like to submit this article for the Record and note that it ends by challenging reporters and the media to do some hard investigating. I also challenge the media to do so and hope that the American public recognizes the liberal filter through which they receive their news. [From U.S. News & World Report, June 10, 1996] All the News That Fits Our Biases (By John Leo) In a videotaped interview on May 2, Billy Graham told columnist Cal Thomas that he had privately met with President Clinton and criticized him for vetoing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This story poked into a few newspapers. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times gave it a line or two deep in round-up articles. A computer search failed to turn up any mention of it in the New York Times and the Boston Glove. The same day, Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York told New York Post reporter Deborah Orin he would vote to override the abortion veto because partial-birth abortions are ``too close to infanticide.'' All four of the above-mentioned newspapers skipped this story. Three weeks later, the New York Times quoted Bob Dole as agreeing with Moynihan--which must have mystified Times readers who don't also read the New York Post, since they hadn't yet been informed about Moynihan's stance. Even an editorial barb in the Wall Street Journal about the nonreporting of Moynihan's comment had no effect. It's particularly strange for the Times to ignore an anti- veto stance by a hometown senator who has a prominent abortion-rights record. This is like Jesse Helms attacking the tobacco industry and getting no ink in North Carolina papers. Of course, in the daily rush of breaking news, many stories fall by the wayside. But some stories are stronger candidates for the wayside than others. Among the sure-fire wayside candidates are reports that some hospitals have limited second-trimester abortions because nurses refused to attend the procedures; all stories about health violations at abortion clinics or the large number of antiabortion Democrats; and most stories about savage treatment of abortion protesters. Deep sentiments Elizabeth Fox-Genovese of Emory University charges that the American press has underrepresented the depth of antiabortion sentiment in America. This is happening again with the partial-birth issue. Though the media keep representing opposition as essentially religious and Republican, a Gallup Poll shows that a majority of Americans support the ban (57 percent for it, 39 percent against). A more partisan poll conducted by the Tarrance Group for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops found that 55 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of those identifying themselves as pro choice supported the ban. On the broader issue of abortion, Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School has charged that by misrepresenting the sweeping character of Roe v. Wade for so long (despite its famous trimester divisions, it actually allows women to abort at any time during the nine months of gestation), the media have effectively drained away a lot of potential reform sentiment. And David Shaw, the Pulitzer-winning media critic of the Los Angeles Times, in his long, four-part 1990 series on media coverage of the abortion issue, concluded that reportage on this touchy subject has been uniquely biased across the board toward abortion rights. This was a very serious indictment, one that the media should have felt some obligation to address but didn't. Shaw's series was photocopied and passed around widely, but the media essentially gave it the silent treatment. Neither of the nation's two leading journalism reviews has ever written about Shaw's findings or taken up the bias issue on its own. If he wished to return to the subject, Shaw would have a field day with coverage of the partial-birth issue. Much of it has stayed remarkably close to the arguments and position papers put out by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Many have accepted at face value Kate Michelman's claim that anesthesia kills the fetus before the procedure begins. Few reporters bothered to add that the head of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Norig Ellison, says it isn't so--``very little of the anesthetic given the mother ever reaches the fetus.'' Honest reporting would also say flatly that abortion opponents are right to say that a ban on partial-birth abortions with an exception for ``health'' of the mother is no ban at all. The language is right there in Doe v. Bolton (1973), the case in which the Supreme Court defined health as any physical or emotional problem. Is this procedure confined to serious genetic defects or cases of serious risk to the mother, as Clinton thinks? Well, no. Some news reports seem to take Michelman's argument at face value (``it's a lie'' that the procedure is used when a mother's ``depression'' or an infant's potential cleft palate is cited as justification). The rest leave Michelman's claim unexamined and add a line like, ``Foes of the procedure argue it is used to perform elective abortions.'' But two leading practitioners of this procedure have said elective use is not unusual. Dr. Martin Haskell told an interviewer from American Medical News: ``I'll be quite frank: Most of my abortions are elective in that 20-to-24- week range. . . . 80 percent are purely elective.'' And James McMahon said he had performed partial-birth abortions for an array of reasons, including depression and cleft palate. If antiabortion activists were making the sort of dubious and clearly false claims that are coming out of NARAL, the media would do some hard investigating. Why can't more reporters bring themselves to do it now?

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn observance of the 12th anniversary of the Indian Government's military assault on the Golden Temple, the holiest shrine of the Sikh religion, which took place from June 3-6, 1984. Thirty-eight other gurdwaras, Sikh temples were also attacked during the same operation. In all over 20,000 Sikhs were murdered during June 1984. It is important to remember the particulars of this horrifying event because they help us to understand the complete disregard the Indian Government holds for the value of Sikh life. India planned the attack on the Golden Temple on the day of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev, the fifth Sikh Guru. India knew that the temple complex would be filled with pilgrims who were gathered there to observe this auspicious occasion. Before laying siege to the temple, the Indian Government took pains to remove all foreigners from the Punjab. A complete press block was implemented. Traffic in and out of Punjab was halted. Those caught in the Golden Temple had no means of getting information in or out. Three wings of the Indian military were used: The army, the navy and the air force. These forces practiced well planned mock attacks at a model of the Golden Temple in Chakrata for months before the attack. It is clear from the carnage inside the temple after the attack that soldiers were instructed to kill as many Sikhs as possible in the most ruthless manner. In one instance, it was reported by survivors that 100 children between the ages of 8 to 12 were lined up on the grounds of the Golden Temple and asked if they supported Sikh freedom from India. As each one answered in the affirmative, Indian security forces shot them dead at point blank range. The Akal Takht, a separate building on the Golden Temple complex which represents the highest seat of spiritual and temporal authority for the Sikhs, was also attacked. Blasted with heavy mountain guns and tank artillery, the Akal Takht was set ablaze. Original, irreplaceable documents written in the hands of the Sikhs Gurus were destroyed. A library containing other priceless, original religious documents was also set ablaze. The attack on the Golden Temple was no ordinary police action. It was an all-out military assault. How would Muslims feel if an army attacked Mecca? How would Christians feel if an army attacked the Vatican? Make no mistake about it, India's attack on the Golden Temple was an attempt to symbolically reinforce the Government total domination over the Sikhs. To put it another way, India simply wanted to show the Sikhs who was the boss. But, India is now beginning to see the folly of its attack on the Golden Temple. Instead of submitting to the tyranny of the Indian Government, the Sikh nation is bravely waging a struggle for complete independence from India. Since the attack on the Golden Temple, Indian forces have killed over 150,000 Sikhs. Instructed by their religion to stand up against tyranny wherever it exists, Sikhs refuse to submit to the tyranny of the Indian Government. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh nation formally severed ties with India and declared themselves independent forming the separate country of Khalistan. As we reflect on the horrible massacre of Sikhs, which took place in the Golden Temple complex 12 years ago, let us also look forward to the eventual freedom of the Sikh people. Throughout their history, Sikhs have faced grave injustice at the hands of tyrants. Sikhs possess an interminable spirit and cling tenaciously to the belief that out of the ashes of cataclysmic episodes like that of the Golden Temple attack they will emerge only stronger and more determined to fight the wrongs visited upon them. Sikhs earnestly want their freedom and they have sought our support. I support the independence of Khalistan and I urge my colleagues to support the independence of Khalistan as well.