Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with so many of my colleagues today in reintroducing legislation intended to open a new era of trade and investment relations between the United States and the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. For more than three decades, the United States has supported a variety of foreign assistance programs designed to aid the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, traditional foreign aid alone will not lead 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 Sub-Saharan African countries to compete in the global marketplace, to become self- reliant, and to raise the standard of living for their people. At present, however, there is no initiative underway to engage the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa as business partners through trade and investment. I believe that we have an opportunity in the 105th Congress to fill this major gap in U.S. trade policy and in our relations with the region, which consists of a diverse set of 48 countries, many of which have undergone significant political and economic change in recent years. At this time, more than 30 Sub-Saharan African countries have taken steps, under the guidance of bilateral and multilateral donors such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to create the necessary environment to attract private sector investment. In addition, more than 25 nations in the region have held democratic elections since 1990. Given the changes that are taking place in Sub-Saharan Africa, I believe that it is appropriate for us to shift our policy toward the region. In particular, we must reach out to the Sub-Saharan African countries which have instituted programs to put their economies on the right track; we want them to succeed in charting a new course for their future. I also must note the reforms underway in Sub-Saharan Africa present many new trade and investment opportunities for United States exporters and workers, particularly in the area of infrastructure development. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to bring our private sectors together by providing the necessary framework to open a mutually beneficial trade and investment dialogue between the United States and Sub-Saharan African countries. The legislation being reintroduced today, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, calls for the negotiation of free-trade agreements with countries or regions in Sub-Saharan Africa that are taking appropriate steps to reform their economies. To help give momentum to these negotiations, and to focus greater attention on Sub-Saharan Africa by the United States 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 leaders and heads of state to meet to discuss issues of mutual interest and to keep the trade negotiations on track. In addition, the bill would extend the generalized system of preferences [GSP] program, which provides duty-free access to the United States market to imports of eligible items from developing countries, permanently for Sub-Saharan Africa. It also would allow the President to designate countries in the region as eligible for additional GSP benefits on products currently excluded from coverage by the program. Recognizing that textile and apparel products development could result in immediate job creation in Sub-Saharan Africa that would not threaten existing jobs in the United States, the bill also states that the administration should continue its ``no quota'' policy toward the region on these products. As I again offer this legislation, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize significant contributions made to this initiative by two of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Charlie Rangel and Congressman Jim McDermott, who worked with me throughout the past Congress to build a consensus. To initiate consideration of the issue by the 105th Congress, I have scheduled a hearing on this legislation in the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, which I chair, for Tuesday, April 29. I look forward to listening to the testimony that the subcommittee will receive that day and to continuing to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to move this legislation forward.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security system in the United States is headed toward bankruptcy. Neglecting to discuss fundamental reforms of this program, will only lead to last minute band-aid solutions, which means Congress will be back dealing with the issue again, sooner rather than later. Instead of deciding how best to extend Social Security's solvency, past arguments in Congress have sadly focused on blame shifting between political parties--more about who is trying to cut Social Security and less about how to save Social Security. I am inserting an article in the Record which was published in the Wall Street Journal, that includes several ideas for privatizing our Social Security System. While some may be unsure that privatization is the long-term solution to Social Security, I submit this article in the hope it will generate discussions on this issue. I hope my colleagues have a few minutes to review this article, and will look at fundamental reform of Social Security as the only way to truly address the issue at stake: [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 16, 1997] Social Security Privatization Is Here (By E.J. Myers) The report issued last week by President Clinton's Advisory Committee on Social Security has confused more than a few concerned citizens--not just because of its heavy dosage of technical jargon, but also because the committee itself was incapable of reaching a clear consensus on what to do about Social Security. And now there are serious questions about whether the technical jargon spun out by the committee is even worth the graph paper it's printed on. It appears that the old adage about a camel being a horse put together by a committee was right on target. And when that committee is based in Washington, the camel is likely to end up with three humps. While Washington may be incapable of putting together a solution for a problem of its own making, the rest of us don't have to give up on Social Security reform. In fact, from Thomas Jefferson to Howard Jarvis, Americans have a long tradition of trumping central government dictates with local solutions that work. And in south Texas, along the windswept Gulf Coast, there are three history-filled counties-- Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda--that years ago put into effect Social Security privatization plans that Washington policy wonks still haven't even conceived of. Beautiful Simplicity Until the early 1980s, state and local governments had the right to opt out of Social Security and establish their own retirement systems for public employees. This option was provided by the Social Security Act, passed in the 1930s. Galveston County looked into this idea in 1979. Then-County Attorney Bill Decker asked Don Kebodeaux, president of First Financial Capital Corp. of Houston, to devise a plan for the county's employees to opt out of Social Security. Mr. Kebodeaux and First Financial's Rick Gornto designed a retirement plan that was many times better than Social Security program. In 1980 they presented their plan to former Galveston County Judge Ray Holbrook, County Attorney Bill Decker and the Commissioners Court, the county's administrative body. The first beauty of the plan was its simplicity. The 6.13% payroll tax that the federal government had been taking from county employees for Social Security would now go into the employees' pension fund and would be matched by the county with an additional 6.13%. The new plan included the same employee benefits Social Security did: pensions and life and disability insurance. In recent years the county has increased its participation to 7.65%, which covered the payments of all premiums for life and disability insurance. The life insurance benefit for those under age 70 is 300% of one's annual earnings; the minimum benefit is $50,000 and the maximum $150,000. The local unions fought the idea at first, and several Galveston County officials also opposed the action. Many spirited debates between Social Security representatives and the men from First Financial were held throughout the county; county employees listened carefully and made sure they got answers to all their questions. Voting on the question was held in 1981. By a resounding margin of 78% to 22%, the Galveston County employees endorsed the idea and the county opted out of Social Security. Years later, a retired Mr. Decker told the story of how a number of unionized county workers thanked him for his wisdom and guidance. They said that at first they had serious doubts about giving up Social Security's guarantee of fixed income, but that now that they were getting ready to retire with significantly higher benefits, they were very happy they did. ``Of all the things I accomplished while county judge, setting up this retirement system for Galveston County employees is one of my proudest achievements,'' says Judge Holbrook, who retired in 1994. He points out that after just 12 years of service under the alternate plan he is now receiving twice as much as he would have under Social Security. Seeing the tremendous potential in a plan like Galveston's, in 1982 Brazoria County opted out of Social Security in favor of a similar plan. A year later Matagorda County did, too. Both of these counties made their employees' contributions 6.7%, improving a great retirement plan by providing for even greater returns. Tolbert Newman, the First Financial fund manager who oversees the retirement plans for these three counties, cites the following example of the growth that can be achieved in such an alternate pension fund. If an individual begins working at 25 years old and makes a $2,000 annual contribution for just 10 years, assuming an 8% interest rate, he will have $314,870 when he retires at age 65. If an employee works continuously for 40 years, depending on contributions, his portion of the pension fund could be more than $1 million. Galveston's once-fledgling employee benefit plan has stood the test of time, showing that it can and does outperform Social Security. Today, with more than 5,000 employees from these three counties, First Financial has grown a very healthy and sizable portfolio. Those who retire after 20 years of service will receive three to four times the monthly benefit they would have under Social Security. This plan is not just an isolated act by a group of extraordinarily responsible and dedicated Texans. In 1937 the Houston Fire Department set up its own retirement system, which now has more than $1 billion in assets. Retired firefighters receive more than three times the amount Social Security pensioners do. There are countless other examples of other local and state governments showing the same responsibility and initiative. Five states have opted out of Social Security and have their own plans: California, Nevada, Maine, Ohio and Colorado. Congress knows that privatization will succeed--or it should know. In 1984 it set up the Thrift Savings Plan, for government employees only, whose ``C'' Fund is administered entirely by Wells Fargo Funds and has succeeded well beyond anyone's imagination. The plan's three funds today total more than $28 billion. Under the Thrift Savings Plan, if an employee making $35,000 per year invests 10% of his pay each year, after 30 years he will have more than $1.2 million in the retirement fund. In August 1996 Frost Bank of San Antonio published a survey on Social Security in which 40% of its respondents strongly supported retirement accounts consisting of stocks and bonds and 55% opposed raising payroll taxes. If Social Security were privatized for all Americans, those who work in the private sector, including the self-employed, would benefit as never before. Phasing out the employer's share of the Social Security tax would, over time, return to the business community more than $169.2 billion per year. Freedom from these payroll taxes would be a tremendous boon to the economy, allowing the creation of countless new jobs in every sector. a winner for decades ``We currently pay over $1.3 million in matching Social Security taxes annually,'' says Larry N. Forehand, president of the Texas Restaurant Association and founder of Casa Ole Mexican Restaurants, a fast growing Texas restaurant chain. ``If our company had that $1.3 million a year to invest in new locations, we could build six additional restaurants, employ an additional 450 people and add $7.2 million to the economy every year. It is estimated that all the restaurants in Texas will save $1.2 billion per year.'' Privatization has been a winner for decades for various government entities. It's time to extend the benefits to all.

Mr. CRANE

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]. (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 5 in the nomination of Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky to serve as U.S. Trade Representative. I have had the pleasure of working with Ambassador Barshefsky over the last few years. I cannot say enough about her toughness, her tenacity and her aggressive advocacy on behalf of U.S. interests. I know Ambassador Barshefsky is tough because the companies in my district have benefited from her toughness. The Eighth Congressional District of Illinois, my district, is home to some of the leading high- technology companies in the country, and they have gained market share, increased their export sales, and hired new workers in part due to Ambassador Barshefsky's tenacity. It is because of her toughness that the cellular phone market in Japan is now more open than ever, that China has signed a rigorous agreement protecting intellectual property rights, and that Motorola, to take just one example from my district, has gained greater access to the Chinese market. I have seen her in action. A year ago Ambassador Barshefsky started building support among the Quad nations for a landmark information technology agreement. At the WTO ministerial meeting in Singapore last December, I watched her work around the clock to hold together an alliance and put in place an unprecedented market-opening agreement. It was an honor and a pleasure to see her rolling up her sleeves, getting the nitty-gritty detail and coming out with a superior deal. She does not give up and she does not give in. I am very hopeful that under her leadership at USTR we would be able to pass fast-track legislation that would permit the negotiation of further market-opening initiatives. It has been a real pleasure to work with Ambassador Barshefsky in large part because of her rare ability to reach across party lines and work with Members from both sides of the aisle to craft good deals that best serve our companies and our workers. Good jobs and a strong economy are American goals, not Republican or Democrat goals. Ambassador Barshefsky helps us reach those goals together by putting aside politics and hammering out good policy that opens markets, increases exports, creates jobs and strengthens the American economy so that we can remain the world's most competitive Nation into the next century and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, that we should not be forced to consider a waiver today because the underlining provision that we seek to waive is ill-advised and should not be in place. I would like to place in the Record a resolution and report recently adopted by the American Bar Association which clearly and cogently set forth the arguments in opposition to the preemployment restrictions imposed by the underlying provision. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the nomination of Ambassador Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative and urge my colleagues to vote for the waiver on Senate Joint Resolution 5. American Bar Association Section of International Law and Practice Recommendation to the House of Delegates recommendation Be it resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the Government of the United States to proceed as follows: I. Congress should avoid statutory provisions that disqualify senior executive or judicial appointees on the basis of clients they have previously represented. II. Congress and the Administration should continue to utilize traditional mechanisms (including the Senate's power of confirmation), rather than special pre- or post-employment rules, to ensure that senior executive and judicial positions are filled only by highly qualified persons who will fulfill the responsibilities of their positions with complete integrity. III. Ethics-in-government rules, whether addressed to pre- or post-government employment activities, should not single out foreign policy or trade functions for special, restrictive treatment. Congress should repeal the 1995 amendments to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 207 and 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2171(b), whose effect is to restrict the pre- and post-employment activities of U.S. Trade Representatives (``USTRs'') and Deputy USTRs on behalf of foreign interests, and should not extend those provisions to cover other senior government positions.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to let my distinguished colleague on the minority side take precedence over me.

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from New York. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to speak out of order for 1 minute.) Announcement of Amendment Process for H.R. 1, The Working Families Flexibility Act

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation repealing a defect in current Medicare law which often causes beneficiaries seeking chiropractic treatment under the Medicare Program to be subjected to unnecessary x rays exposure. The heart of the problem, which my legislation seeks to correct, arises from current law which requires a diagnostic x ray to be taken before a beneficiary can be provided with chiropractic manual manipulation benefits under Medicare. Frequently, x rays are a useful and valid diagnostic tool properly utilized by doctors of chiropractic. However, the existing statutory requirement that, in every instance, a diagnostic x ray be taken before chiropractic services can be provided as a benefit under Medicare is clearly arbitrary and unnecessary. According to the American Chiropractic Association [ACA] and ACA College of Radiology, there is no medical justification for a blanket requirement that all beneficiaries seeking chiropractic care under Medicare must first undergo a diagnostic x ray. While in many instances x rays are clinically justified, all responsible health authorities agree, that diagnostic x rays are warranted only when, in the assessment of the treating health provider, they provide a direct clinical benefit to the patient. I for one, find it totally unacceptable that we, as responsible Members of Congress, would allow the continuance of an artificial statutory requirement that results in the continued unnecessary x ray exposure of Medicare patients. I am confident, that any of my colleagues that examine this issue will conclude, as have I, that requiring an x ray as a prerequisite to reimbursement is bad public policy for which there is no real justification. This is not just my opinion, but it is also the opinion of senior officials in the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] and the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] who have studied this issue in detail. As many of my colleagues know, the ACA and various Members of Congress have, over the past 2 years in particular, talked with the Administration regarding a variety of chiropractic-related issues. As a result of those discussions and inquiries, the mandatory x ray requirement issue has been closely examined by HCFA and HHS, I am pleased to say that as part of this fiscal year 1998 budget proposal, President Clinton has included a specific legislative provision which would abolish this requirement. Specifically, the proposal I am introducing today, would strike for the physician definition portion of the existing statute describing the chiropractic Medicare benefit [Section 1861(r)(5), Social Security Act], the words ``demonstrated by x-ray to exist''. Also, I would note, the existing x ray requirement is a barrier to beneficiary access to chiropractic care which places an undue financial burden on beneficiaries who must often pay for the required x ray out- of-pocket. Chiropractic care is a proven and effective treatment for spinal related maladies including low-back pain. It is a nonsurgical and nondrug form of health care which often substitutes for more expensive forms of care, including surgery. It only makes sense to encourage access to chiropractic care and remove those barriers which exist in current law. In conclusion, I am confident this proposal, which is first and foremost a matter of public health and safety, will enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to act quickly to ensure the incorporation of this long overdue proposal into Medicare reform legislation which may be approved in this Congress.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, continuing a tradition begun in the 98th Congress, today I once again introduce legislation which reaffirms the commitment of this body to protect the second amendment to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized the right of men to defend themselves, and guaranteed Americans that this right would be preserved by the second amendment. At the time of our Nation's founding, guaranteeing this right was an idea foreign to the monarchies that ruled most of the world. James Madison noted this when he wrote that the right to keep and bear arms was an advantage which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. The 104th Congress did not bring the type of assault on the second amendment as we saw in the 103d Congress. However, unfortunately, the 104th Congress was unable to reverse or repeal some of the more egregious errors made in this area by past Congresses. Indeed, only the House succeeded in passing legislation to repeal one such law, the so- called Federal assault weapon ban. Gun control laws have never worked to reduce crime in America. Washington, DC, has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in America, yet leads the Nation in per capita murders. My own State of Illinois has some very tough standards before its citizens can legally possess firearms, yet since those laws went into effect, the crime and murder rates have dramatically increased. I find it necessary, therefore, to remind my colleagues that our Nation's crime problems cannot be solved by infringing upon the rights of peaceful law-abiding Americans to own arms. Instead of an attack on guns, our laws should focus on keeping behind bars the small percentage of criminals who are responsible for committing the vast majority of crimes in the United States. Law abiding gun owners are not a threat to peace in America, rather criminals threaten the peace and security of our families. We must demonstrate to Americans that we are resolved to protecting this right by supporting this resolution to reaffirm the second amendment and the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this resolution.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, throughout the budget process, funding for Medicaid programs will be a frequent topic of passionate debate. This is a matter of grave importance--both to the American taxpayers and to their duly elected representatives in this constitutional body. It deserves careful consideration by all members. As we debate possible increases or decreases in the funding of various programs included in Medicaid, we must be certain the funding is used wisely and as intended. A recent issue of the Washington Times included an article by nationally syndicated and widely respected columnist Phyllis Schlafly which suggests that we may not always know the final destination of the money we appropriate to Medicaid. I believe it raises a serious question as to the actual usage of taxpayer money--a question worthy of consideration by the members of this body. I represent Barrington, IL which is referenced in the column, and I am concerned about the information Mrs. Schlafly has shared with the public. It is for that reason I thought it important to share this with the members of the House and have included a copy of the article in the Record. [From the Washington Times, Jan. 18, 1997] Smoking Gun in the Medicaid Mystery (By Phyllis Schlafly) Medicaid, the federal program that provides health care to people on welfare, is one of the biggest problems that the 105th Congress will have to tackle if it is serious about balancing the budget in the foreseeable future. Medicaid costs more than $100 billion a year and is rising far more rapidly than inflation, demographics or poverty can justify. The smoking gun, which proves why this dramatic increase is taking place, has just surfaced in an amazing letter sent by the Illinois State Board of Education to school district superintendents. Signed by the board's ``Medicaid Consultant,'' this letter describes in detail how public schools can exploit Medicaid to funnel a fresh flow of taxpayers' money into public schools that bypasses all traditional funding sources and accountability. The letter's enthusiasm for spending this new money on virtually anything the bureaucracy desires is matched only by its arrogance in explaining the deviousness of acquiring it. Stating that ``the potential for the dollars is limitless,'' the letter boasts that ``Medicaid dollars have been used for purchases ranging from audiometers to minibuses, from a closed-captioned television for a classroom to an entire computer system, from contracting with substitutes to employment of new special education staff, from expanding existing special education programs to implementing totally new programs.'' Most Americans think Medicaid is just fulfilling its original purpose of providing health care to people on welfare. They should think again, because this letter reveals how politicians and bureaucrats, after taxing us for ``entitlements'' for needy people, then conspire to increase the cost by loading on any projects their avaricious hearts desire. This Illinois State Board of Education letter ``encourages'' local public schools to use the experienced State School Board staff in order to ``maximize federal reimbursement'' of Medicaid dollars and use the ``opportunity'' to bill Medicaid for money already spent in 1994, '95 and '96. The letter describes two ways public schools ``have found Medicaid to be a viable funding source.'' The first initiative provides Medicaid funding through school-based health services. Schools may bill Medicaid not just for therapies, but also for ``social work and psychological services, nursing and audiological services, hearing/vision screenings, and transportation.'' The second initiative allows all schools to claim Medicaid dollars for early and periodic screenings, diagnosis and treatment. The letter states that such services include ``public awareness, i.e., government propaganda, identification and referral, i.e., putting private medical information on a government computer, initial health review and evaluation, initial health review and evaluation, i.e., such as the shocking, unauthorized genital exams given without parental consent to 59 sixth-grade girls in East Stroudsburg, Pa., health provider networking with Planned Parenthood?, and family planning referral to abortion clinics without parental consent?'' In fiscal 1996, $31.7 million in federal funds were paid to Illinois schools for the first initiative and $40.8 million for the second. Medicaid was set up to cover only people on some form of welfare: either Aid to Families with Dependent Children or Supplemental Security Income (a program for seniors). Medicaid is a federal-state matching program, at a ratio of about 60-to-40. In 1986, Congress inserted into the law permission for the states to expand Medicaid to cover children in families whose incomes were below the poverty line, whether their parents took welfare or not. That expansion slipped by without the taxpayers discovering it, so in 1990 Congress required states to provide Medicaid coverage to all poor children by the year 2002, and allowed states to extend Medicaid even further to the nonpoor. This is one reason why Medicaid costs are going through the roof. In 1986, Medicaid cost about $27 million. This year, Medicaid will cost about $105 billion. By 2002, when the mandate is in full swing, Medicaid will cost at least $133 billion. Many people were puzzled when President Clinton bragged during last fall's campaign that ``he'' had provided health care for an additional 1 million children. Medicaid is how he did it. No way have Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Ira Magaziner abandoned their goal of forcing America to adopt federal health care; they are just bringing it in through the schoolhouse door. When health care is provided by and in the public schools, there is no separating welfare kids from the others. They are all eligible. The Illinois State Board of Education letter, signed by Jean Rowe, Medicaid consultant, was dated Oct. 8, 1996, but was not made public and has just been discovered. The copy that came into my hands was addressed to the Barrington, Illinois District, which is one of the wealthiest districts in the United States and proves that Medicaid is no longer a program for the ``poor,'' but is the vehicle to saddle us with the federal medical system that the American people have rejected.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to two articles on United States/Caribbean relations that have appeared in the New York Times over the past few months. The articles document a gradual erosion of the United States/ Caribbean economic and trade partnership. Over the past few years, in focusing our attention on domestic issues and on other foreign policy matters, we have inadvertently neglected an area of the world that remains critically important to our own strategic and commercial interests. The Caribbean Basin is our 10th largest export market and one of the few regions in the world where our firms consistently post a trade surplus. As home to the Panama Canal and to the major access routes for ships entering the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean is a vital gateway for many agricultural and manufactured goods. Finally, sitting astride the major transit routes of illicit narcotics from South America to our shores, the Caribbean serves as the front line in our defense against drug traffickers. As we have seen too many times--even in the last decade--destabilization and economic loss in the Caribbean often echoes loudly in the United States. In recognition of the strategic importance of this region, I expect to reintroduce legislation that will aim to restore the vital United States/Caribbean economic partnership that was fostered through the Caribbean Basin initiative. That legislation will ensure that the United States/Caribbean economic relationship is not inadvertently diminished by the relationship we are now fostering with Mexico under the NAFTA. Moreover, the legislation will provide a roadmap to help prepare our Caribbean partners for the challenges in the next century, including membership in the planned Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). In the meantime, I would ask my colleagues to take a few moments to read these articles to gain a better appreciation of the current state of United States/Caribbean relations and a more thorough understanding of a substantial problem that the United States must address. [From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 1997] Backlash From Nafta Batters Economies of the Carribbean (By Larry Rohter) Kingston, Jamaica.--Three years after the United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to become a single market as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, their exports to each other are booming. But here in the Carribbean, the economies of America's much smaller neighbors are reeling from the impact of that success and finding it nearly impossible to compete. From the apparel plants of Jamaica to the sugar-cane fields of Trinidad, Nafta has already resulted in the loss of jobs, markets and income for the vulnerable island nations of the region. The capital and investment projects that are vitally needed for future growth, officials say, are increasingly flowing out of the Caribbean Basin and into Mexico. ``The stark reality is that Mexico can now export its products to the United states free of duty, which makes it more profitable for producers to operate from there,'' Seymour Mullings, Jamaica's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, said in an interview here. ``Putting it very simply, if that is not stemmed, it could do untold damage to our manufacturing sector and economy as a whole.'' Nafta's devastating effect on the Caribbean was widely forecast before the treaty's passage in 1993 and Washington suggested it would cushion the blow by extending similar trade preferences to the island nations. However, the Clinton Administration's proposals to give the Caribbean ``Nafta parity'' have twice foundered in Congress in election years and now face an uncertain future in a new Congress that has decidedly mixed feelings about the benefits of free-trade agreements. The Caribbean now exports more than $12.5 billion worth of goods to the United States annually, and a recent study by the World Bank estimates that more than one-third of that total could be shifted to Mexico if the existing trade rules remain in effect. The region's once-flourishing apparel sector has been hard hit, officials say. In the last two years, more than 150 apparel plants closed in the Caribbean and 123,000 jobs have been lost ``as a direct result of trade and investment diversion to Mexico,'' according to the Caribbean Textile and Apparel Institute, which is located here. Textile manufacturing had been one of the Caribbean's few economic bright spots. Between 1980 and 1995, Jamaica's garment exports, primarily underwear and hosiery, rose from less than $10 million a year to nearly $600 million annually, an average annual growth rate of 28 percent. Since Nafta took effect in 1994, Mexican textile exports have grown at a rate three times those of the Caribbean as a whole. In 1996, the Caribbean Textile and Apparel Institute estimates, Jamaica's garment exports fell by 7 percent, with 7,000 jobs eliminated. Simnilar or even larger decreases were recorded in Guyana, Belize and tiny St. Lucia. More than 600 people, about 95 percent of them women, felt the effects of Nafta when the Youngone Garment factory on Marcus Garvey Drive here closed just before Christmas. The plant had been making T-shirts for export to the United States. But a Mexican factory took the business away with a lower bid, prompting the Korean company to shut down operations in Jamaica and send its employees home. The company then shipped its equipment off to Bangladesh. ``I lost my job back in '95 and haven't been able to find another one since,'' said Beryl Davidson, 26, a former textile worker and single mother of three small children. ``I couldn't pay my rent, and I couldn't feed my kids, so I've had to move back in with my parents to survive.'' ``But my cousin in Brooklyn tells me there's plenty of work there, so maybe I will join her,'' she said. Since Nafta went in effect, the creation of new jobs in this nation of 2.3 million people has stopped altogether and overall unemployment has risen to 16 percent from 9.5 percent, according to the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. Among women working in the apparel sector, the unemployment rate is now more than 33 percent. Worse yet, the loss of jobs and American support occurs as the pro-American Government here, with an election due sometime in the next year, is completing an economic retrenchment that had been strongly urged by Washington. Over the past decade, Jamaica has sold off state companies, reduced the budget deficit and increased foreign reserves, but at a high social cost. ``We have no safety net here, no welfare, no Medicare,'' said Anthony Gomes, director of a large trading company. ``So when people go to the street, it has a serious ripple effect. The way things are going, jobs are very difficult to get, and that is not helping our crime rate. American officials, however, argue that Jamaica and other Caribbean nations are blaming Nafta for deeper-rooted economic difficulties that will remain even if trade rules are eventually eased. In the case of Jamaica, they maintain, those include a revaluation of the currency that increased its value by 12.5 percent last year, making the country's products more expensive, and a host of regulatory obstacles. ``The main problem here is government bureaucracy,'' one official said. ``It is darn near impossible to collect the licenses and approvals you need to get a business off the ground.'' Ironically, Jamaica's initial export surge was the result of another American program, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which the Reagan Administration put in place 15 years ago. A package of aid, trade and investment incentives aimed at the private sector, the program was intended to introduce the Caribbean to what Mr. Reagan called ``the magic of the marketplace,'' and had Jamaica as its centerpiece. But that arrangement has also benefited the United States. American exports to the region rose 160 percent in the decade ending in 1995, to more than $15 billion a year. The Caribbean is the only part of the world where Washington recorded a favorable balance of trade every year during that time. The Caribbean Basin Initiative still exists, but places either duties or quotas on those products in which Caribbean nations enjoy a competitive advantage, such as sugar, textiles and footwear. ``All we are asking is to be put on a level playing field with Mexico,'' said Paul Robertson, this country's Minister of Industry, Investment and Commerce. ``We are not seeking a handout, but only the opportunity not to be prevented from taking full advantage of the North American market.''

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a constitutional amendment to establish congressional term limits. I have been a long- time advocate for term limits, in fact, long before the movement became popular. I would also like to mention a word of appreciation for perhaps the most effective voice for term limits in this Chamber, my friend from Florida, Bill McCollum. Bill has been a leader of the modern-day effort to limit terms of service for Members of Congress. In 1985, I introduced my first proposed amendment to limit congressional service to 6 years in the House and 6 years in the Senate and I reintroduced that proposal biennially through the 104th Congress. I know that some other popular term limit proposals promote a 6-year limit, but I believe that it is important to maintain an equal number of years of service in both Houses of Congress, lest the other body gain an inordinate amount of power. However, during consideration of term limits in the last Congress, my version was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. Given that fact, and the number of proposals by members of the committee with jurisdiction, I decided not to reintroduce my term limits proposal this year. The proliferation of term limit constitutional amendment proposals, combined with the many State initiatives, has certainly not made for a uniformly-applied term limits proposal. We can end the debate on the best way to enact term limits by marshaling all of our resources to pass a constitutional amendment. I appreciate that honest men will have legitimate differences on this issue. Some of our colleagues oppose term limits. However, the lack of success of term limits is not the result of the battle with term limit opponents. Instead, the fratricidal battles among term limit supporters have prevented the success of the cause. Sadly, it has been the actions of one term limits group in particular, US Term Limits, which, through their stubborn and often irrational attacks on term limit supporters, have done significant harm to the movement. Indeed, given the fact that we could not gain a two-thirds majority in the last Congress, it made no sense for this group to vilify term limits supporters, when it was more important to gain more supporters. While I have preferred the 6 and 6 proposal, I voted for many different versions of term limits last year. I believe that the goal should be to gain the necessary majority in support of some form of term limits whether it is the one I prefer or not. The consensus version may not be the favorite of all supporters, however, even a 12- year limit is obviously better than current law. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 2 so that the States may debate and ratify this proposed amendment.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Investment Competitiveness Act along with my colleagues, Ms. Dunn and Mr. McDermott. In a nutshell, this legislation is designed to encourage additional foreign investment in the United States by eliminating a tax that we impose on foreigners only when they invest in the United States through a U.S. mutual fund. As chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I view this tax issue from the trade perspective--we ought not be setting up artificial barriers to trade or investment, particularly when others do not require the same of us. Such a policy is not only contrary to basic free market principles, but leaves us with a tax policy that discourages foreign investment in the United States through mutual funds--meaning the money goes elsewhere. Our ability to encourage foreign investment in U.S. securities will help lower capital costs and interest rates here at home. That means that money will be more easily available for entrepreneurs to create and expand business opportunities, meaning more job creation in the United States. Under present law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital gains received directly by a foreign investor or received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30 percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and short-term capital gain income, when received through a U.S. mutual fund, are subject to the withholding tax. Without getting into too much detail on the technical aspects of the bill at this time, I would simply say that this legislation would modify the tax treatment of income received by a foreign investor through a U.S. mutual fund so as to make it generally comparable to the tax treatment of the same income when received directly or through a foreign mutual fund. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation makes good sense both from a tax and trade policy perspective, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation designed to end an inequity that currently exists in our Tax Code. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act [FUTA] exempts certain churches and religious organizations operated by churches from having to pay State unemployment taxes. This exemption extends to schools directly operated by churches. Although church-operated schools are exempt, there is one class of religious schools which is presently not exempt--schools which, in equity and fairness, and for constitutional reasons, deserve this exemption. The schools in this nonexempt class are religious schools which are not operated by churches, but are instead operated by lay boards of believers. Such schools are as pervasively religious as the church- operated schools. Indeed, nonchurch religious schools would not exist except for their religious mission and are, in every way except church affiliation, religiously indistinguishable from exempt schools. It is my understanding that these schools constitute about 20 percent of the membership of the Protestant evangelical schools in the country, and that, in addition, Catholic, Jewish, and other Protestant schools fall into this category. Quite simply, these schools should not have to bear the burden of the FUTA tax. The intent and purpose of these schools are the same as those operated by churches. Not exempting such schools raises serious constitutional questions with respect to the free exercise and establishments clauses of the first amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Although an effort was made to bring this issue before the Supreme Court, the Court did not reach the merits and dismissed the case on other grounds. Recognizing the constitutional issues involved, the U.S. Department of Labor deferred the initiation of conformity proceedings for roughly 2 years against States which exempt these schools from State unemployment tax ``until the constitutional issue is definitively resolved.'' The constitutional issue has yet to be resolved and the Department of Labor has since started enforcing its interpretation of the law. My legislation will clarify this issue once and for all by simply amending the Internal Revenue Code to provide that service performed for an elementary or secondary school operated primarily for religious purposes is exempt from the Federal unemployment tax. Many Members of Congress will find religious schools in their district that fall into this nonexempt category, and, moreover, will find that these schools merit equitable and constitutional treatment. I would ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to bring equity to this section of the Tax Code.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, January 26 has been designated by the World Customs Organization [WCO] as International Customs Day, a time to give recognition to customs services around the world for the role they play in generating revenue and protecting national borders from unauthorized imports. The U.S. Customs Service represents the United States in the World Customs Organization which, since 1953, has grown into a 142-member international organization. The WCO's purpose is to facilitate international trade, promote cooperation between governments on customs matters, and standardize and simplify customs procedures internationally. It also offers technical assistance in the areas of customs valuation, nomenclature, and law enforcement. The organization's objective is to obtain the highest possible level of uniformity among the customs systems of its member countries. The involvement of the U.S. Customs Service in the WCO reflects the recognition that our country and its trading partners benefit when international trade is facilitated by simple, unambiguous customs operations around the world. I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the World Customs Organization on its past accomplishments and wish it well in its ambitious efforts to further harmonize and simplify customs regulations. I also congratulate the U.S. Customs Service for its many years of fine work both domestically and internationally.

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 on H.R. 3815.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I would like to take advantage of this opportunity on our final day of this session of this term to pay tribute, great tribute to a gentleman that I have looked up to for many years on the Committee on Ways and Means, our ranking minority member now who is going into retirement, but will not retire from his involvement I am sure, in these key issues of concern to all of us citizens here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H.Res. 554) returning to the Senate the bill H.R. 400 and the Senate amendment thereto, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3815) to make technical corrections and miscellaneous amendments to trade laws, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and would like to elaborate that H.R. 3815 makes miscellaneous amendments to trade laws with further amendments adopted during Senate consideration of the bill. The Senate added amendment is similar to those in the House passed bill which make technical and miscellaneous corrections to U.S. trade laws. These provisions have bipartisan support and the support of the industries involved and I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am pleased to explain to my colleagues in the House the provisions of H.R. 3815, which makes miscellaneous amendments to trade laws, with further amendments adopted during Senate consideration of the bill. On July 30, 1996, the House passed H.R. 3815 under suspension of the rules. The Senate added amendments similar to those in the House-passed bill which are aimed at streamlining and facilitating the administration of U.S. trade laws. The Senate also added some noncontroversial duty reductions and suspensions, reliquidations, and refunds for acknowledged errors by the Customs Service. These provisions have bipartisan support and the support of the industries involved, and are of similar character to provisions already included in the House bill. One item in the House-passed version of H.R. 3815 was removed by the Senate. This provision would have established a general consultation and layover requirement for any changes in Administration policy with respect to rules of origin or country-of-origin marking determinations, and a specific moratorium for changes in policy with respect to marking requirements for hand-tool forgings. I still support the bill, however, because it is the expectation of the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee that the administration will heed the substance of this provision even without specific legislation. The committees plan to address the issues of rules of origin and would be especially averse to any action by the administration in the meantime that would jeopardize the ability of the committees of jurisdiction to approach these issues in a considered and orderly manner at that time. I believe that H.R. 3815 strikes a blow for good government by streamlining our trade laws and taking care of noncontroversial tariff matters. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation with the Senate-passed changes.