Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 1109 because it contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. S. 1109 would create a new basis for applying import restrictions and, therefore, violates this constitutional requirement. S. 1109 prohibits the sale, import and export of bear viscera or any product, item, substance containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera. The legislation passed by the other body would have the effect of creating a new basis and mechanism for applying import restrictions. The provision would have a direct effect on tariff revenues. The proposed change in our import laws is a revenue-affecting infringement on the prerogatives of the House, which constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. Therefore, I am asking that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives. There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For example, on February 25, 1992, the House returned to the Senate S. 884, requiring the President to impose sanctions, including import restrictions, against countries that failed to eliminate large-scale driftnet fishing. On April 16, 1996, the House returned to the Senate S. 1463, amending the definition of industry under the Safeguard Law with respect to investigations involving the import of perishable agricultural products. Again on October 15, 1998, the House returned to the Senate S. 361, prohibiting the import of products containing, or labeled as containing, any substance derived from rhinoceros or tiger. I want to emphasize that this action does not constitute a rejection of the Senate bill on its merits. S. 1109, however, was passed by the other body as a free-standing bill in contravention to the constitutional requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the proposed action today is purely procedural in nature and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue matters. It makes 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. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Rep. Neal and Ms. Johnson, Ms. Dunn, and Mr. Johnson of the Committee on Ways and Means in introducing the ``Cellular Telecommunications Depreciation Clarification Act.'' This legislation will amend the Internal Revenue Code to clarify that cellular telecommunications equipment is ``qualified technological equipment'' as defined in section 168(i)(2). When an asset used in a trade or business or for the production of income has a useful life that extends beyond the taxable year, the costs of acquiring or producing the asset generally must be capitalized and recovered through depreciation or amortization deductions over the expected useful life of the property. The cost of most tangible depreciable property placed in service after 1986 is recovered on an accelerated basis using the modified accelerated cost recovery system, or MACRS. Under MACRS, assets are grouped into classes of personal property and real property, and each class is assigned a recovery period and depreciation method. For MACRS property, the class lives and recovery periods for various assets are prescribed by a table published by the Internal Revenue Service found in Rev. Proc. 87-56, 1987-2 C.B. 674. This table lists various Asset Classes, along with their respective class lives and recovery periods. Rev. Proc. 87-56 does not specifically address the treatment of cellular assets, but rather addresses assets used in traditional wireline telephone communications. These wireline class lives were created in 1977 and have remained basically unchanged since that time. In 1986, Congress added a category for computer-based telephone switching equipment, but there are no asset classes specifically for cellular communications equipment in Rev. Proc. 87-56. This is largely due to the fact that the commercial cellular industry was in its infancy in 1986 and 1987. Since the cellular industry was not specifically addressed in Rev. Proc. 87-56, the cellular industry has no clear, definitive guidance regarding the class lives and recovery periods of cellular assets. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Service and cellular companies have been left to resolve depreciation treatment on an ad hoc basis for these assets as the industry has rapidly progressed. The result is that both cellular telecommunications companies and the Internal Revenue Service are expending significant resources in auditing and settling disputes involving the depreciation of cellular telecommunications equipment. This process is obviously costly and inefficient for taxpayers and the Service, but it also leaves affected companies with a great deal of uncertainty as to the tax treatment, and therefore expected after-tax return, they can expect on their telecommunications investments. A standardized depreciation system for cellular telecommunications equipment would eliminate the excessive costs incurred by both industry and government through the audit and appeals process, and would eliminate an unnecessary degree of uncertainty that is slowing the expansion of our national telecommunications systems. The Treasury Department's recently released ``Report to the Congress on Depreciation Recovery Periods and Methods'' tacitly acknowledges this point. In its discussion about how to treat assets used in newly- emerging industries, such as the cellular telecommunications industry, the report states: [t]he IRS normally will attempt to identify those characteristics of the new activity that most nearly match the characteristics of existing asset classes. However, this practice may eventually become questionable in a system where asset classes are seldom, if ever, reviewed and revised. The cellular phone industry, which did not exist when the current asset classes were defined, is a case in point. This industry's assets differ in many respects from those used by wired telephone service, and may not fit well into the existing definitions for telephony-related classes. Rather than force cellular telecommunications equipment into wireline telephony ``transmission'' or ``distribution'' classes, a better solution would clarify that cellular telecommunications equipment is ``qualified technological equipment.'' The Internal Revenue Code currently defines qualified technological equipment as any computer or peripheral equipment and any high technology telephone station equipment installed on a customer's premises. The cellular telecommunications industry has been one of the fastest growing industries in the United States since the mid-1980s, as evidenced by the following statistics: The domestic subscriber population has grown from less than 350,000 in 1985 to 86 million by 1999, and is projected to grow to 175 million by 2007. The industry directly provided 4,334 jobs in 1986, which grew to over 155,000 directly provided jobs and one million indirectly created jobs by 1999. Capital expenditures on cellular assets exceeded $15 billion in 1999. The rapid technological progress exhibited by the cellular telecommunications industry illustrates how the tax code needs to be flexible to adapt to future technologies and technological changes. Continued rapid advancement is on the horizon, including wireless fax, high-speed data, video capability, and a multitude of wireless Internet services. It is impossible in 2000 to anticipate properly the new equipment that will support this growth even two years hence. For further information on this I refer my colleagues to the testimony of Ms. Molly Feldman, Vice-President-Tax of Verizon Wireless before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Oversight. Ms. Feldman's testimony provides an excellent overview of the industry, its history, and the reasons why this bill is so important. I urge my colleagues to support this important clarification to the tax law.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to give this tribute to my good friend and colleague John Porter. John has served with distinction and honor with me for nearly 22 years in the United States House of Representatives. John is retiring this year as a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and Chairman of the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Subcommittee. He also serves on the Military Construction Subcommittee. Like all Congressmen, he on occasion has had things happen to bring him back down to earth. Several years ago when flying into O'Hare he stopped to freshen up before leaving the airport. After washing his hands he went to dry them. The hand dryer had a note attached to it that read: ``Press here for a message from your Congressman.'' On a more serious note, John is founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, a voluntary bipartisan association of members of Congress working to identify, monitor and end human rights violations worldwide. John also has nearly as large a kennel of bulldogs called Watchdogs of the Treasury from the National Taxpayers Union as I have in my office. But John has a record we should all be envious of--in 1992, he was one of only six out of 435 House members named a ``Taxpayer Superhero'' by the Grace Commission's Citizens Against Government Waste. In 1994, he was one of only 35 members of the House to be cited by the Grace Commission for his votes against higher spending and taxes. In 1997, John had the best score of any House member in the bipartisan Concord Coalition's analysis of spending votes, earning him a place on the Coalition's ``Honor Roll'' of members with the strongest commitment to eliminating deficits and balancing the budget. The Concord Coalition placed him on its ``Honor Roll'' again for his 1998 voting record. John is regarded as one of the leaders of the ``Green Republicans'' in the House. A supporter of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, he has enacted landmark legislation to stop destruction of tropical rainforests, fought to prevent unregulated export of waste, and has advocated new standards for recycling and energy efficiency. A strong supporter of the arts and humanities, John was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 1999, one of only five House members to receive this honor. We all know John loves golf almost as much as politics. John will now have more time to spending working on his swing on the golf course. It is indeed an honor for me to salute Congressman John Porter.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the urgent attention of my colleagues an important article in the October 6, 2000, Wall Street Journal, entitled, ``South America Has Suffered From White House Neglect,'' by David Malpass, who is the Chief Economist at Bear Stearns. This must-read article spells out this administration's culpability in the disastrous role which U.S. policy gurus, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have played in the rapid decline in the economies of our Latin American neighbors. Malpass points out that the 1990s ``began with a vision of free trade across the Western Hemisphere launched with the completion of the North American Free Trade Agreement. . . .'' After NAFTA's implementation, he writes, there was ``reason to believe that the U.S. would lead the region toward trade liberalization.'' Unfortunately, as the decade progressed the U.S. role in the region ``turned destructive.'' Washington promoted weak currencies, high tax rates, IMF-style austerity, and big government, Malpass observes, ``ignoring the resulting poverty and political stress.'' Further, U.S. opposition to regional currency stability and its insistence on special labor and environmental standards resulted in inflation in Latin America and a sharp rise in poverty. The writer observes that the Clinton-Gore administration has ``wasted a decade of U.S. prosperity, making no real effort to share the U.S. techniques of prosperity with our neighbors.'' He concludes that ``the coming U.S. election offers Latin America the chance for an end to the eight-year vacuum in U.S. policy.'' I urge my colleagues to read this important article carefully. [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6, 2000] South America Has Suffered From White House Neglect (By David Malpass) As Latin America prepares for a new president of the United States, it is right to hope for an improvement in U.S. policies toward the region. Chief among these would be a serious free trade agenda and an end to force- feeding the region International Monetary Fund austerity programs. The 1990s began with a vision of free trade across the Western Hemisphere, launched with the completion of the North American Free Trade Agreement at the end of the Bush administration and President Clinton's signature on the 1993 enabling legislation. Hemispheric free trade offered a chance to expand the economic pie dramatically during the decade. With U.S. unemployment falling toward 4% and Nafta a notable success, there was reason to believe that the U.S. would lead the region toward trade liberalization. International trade was at the core of the U.S. economic breakout of the 1980s, and Latin America hoped to become a partner. But beyond rhetoric and a summit full of promises, the U.S. basically lost its interest in Latin America. The Clinton administration offered no follow-though on the free trade vision, no substitute vision, and barely an apology. The free-trade vision morphed into fair trade, code language for maintaining the status quo. U.S. demands for special labor and environmental standards as conditions for an agreement effectively ruled out U.S.-led trade liberalization. Latin America's disappointment at U.S. indifference deepened, as U.S. promises of trade and engagement proved hollow. As the decade progressed, the U.S. role in the region turned destructive. Washington's policy gurus promoted weak currencies, high tax rates and big government, ignoring the resulting poverty and political stress. A cycle of damage, financial crises and flat-footed U.S. responses ensued. The U.S. dragged its feet on IMF/World Bank reform and proposed no pro-growth model for international development. Colombia's civil war worsened, fed by bad economic policies, high inflation and U.S. disinterest. Through its own efforts, Latin America has had some important successes in the last decade, including Mexico's 2000 election and Brazil's quick return to a stable currency after its 1999 devaluation. But the 1990s should have been much better for the region given the strength of the U.S. economy and the high hopes of 1992 and 1993. Latin America's growth is now well short of its potential, leaving millions unemployed and impoverished. Worse yet, because many of these countries defended their anti-market policies in IMF-speak and Washington's ``no-pain, no-gain'' view that capitalism should hurt, disillusioned populations are now blaming free-markets for their declining circumstances. Rather than free trade, the administration championed IMF- style austerity for Latins. No tax rate was too high, as witnessed by President Clinton's outspoken support of Argentina's failing experiment with tax hikes and a broad- based 21% value-added tax. In places like Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia, the U.S. and IMF have encouraged financial transaction taxes, one of the most harmful types of taxes for the development of sound financial markets. While Europe is turning to tax cuts to bolster its competitiveness, the Washington elite has pushed Latin America forcefully into higher tax rates and militant revenue extraction. The U.S. policy failure toward Latin The vacuum in U.S. international policy is equally apparent in energy issues. By 2000, Mr. Chavez became OPEC's cheerleader for expensive oil, joining Saddam Hussein in Bagdad to discuss strategy. It is inexplicable that Mexico, a Nafta partner, participated actively in OPEC quotas in 1999. The U.S. and Mexico should work closely together to develop new North American energy resources, an undertaking that would be hugely profitable for Mexico and would lessen U.S. dependence on OPEC. The 1990s began auspiciously for Latin American currencies with the establishment of Argentina's currency board. Inflation fell, and both the economy and financial markets surged. The brain drain that had plagued Argentina for years reversed as business school graduates headed back home to build companies. Soon, however, the U.S. administration's opposition to regional currency stability asserted itself, leaving Argentina the odd country out. The Clinton administration and the IMF, working closely together, declined to work for currency stability in Russia, Venezeula, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, or Southeast Asia. This culminated in their outright rejection of a currency board in Indonesia in early 1998 and the Russian default later that year. The U.S. intoned that ``a strong dollar is in our national interest,'' but did nothing to share this approach abroad. Ecuador has recently dollarized, embracing a foreign currency in the hope that its grinding fall into poverty will stop. But in Ecuador's words, the IMF's only role in this progress was to do no further harm. The result of the weak-currency policies of the 1990s was predictable. The poor could not protect themselves from the ensuing inflation and the middle class fell backward, undoing years of hard work. Latin American poverty grew sharply. The World Bank found ``no clear evidence of progress in reducing poverty'' in the 1990s, counting 183 million people living on less than $2 per day in 1998, up from 162 million in 1993. A United Nations study found that 51% of rural Latin households lived in poverty in 1997. In Colombia, where civil war threatened, the currency sank and rural poverty rose to 54% in 1997 from 45% in 1980. The coming U.S. election offers Latin America the chance for an end to the eight-year vacuum in U.S. policy. The Clinton-Gore administration has wasted a decade of U.S. prosperity, making no real effort to share the U.S. techniques of prosperity with our neighbors. The policy vacuum has hurt both the U.S. and Latin America and deserves to be corrected. A U.S. policy built on free trade, stable currencies, lower tax rates, smaller government, more economic freedom and a genuine interest in Latin America's success would begin to undo the damage.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate all those responsible for bringing to the House Floor a transportation appropriations measure that will be of great benefit to this country. I know a lot of hard work went into the crafting of this conference report and I want everyone who contributed to it to know that they have my thanks. Assuming this legislation is signed into law, as I surely hope it will be, Americans will benefit in a number of ways. First, they will be able to travel more quickly and easily thanks to the multitude of highway, rail, airport and mass transit projects that are funded by this measure. With traffic congestion growing on our existing roads and at our airports, that is very important. Second, they will know that the taxes they have paid to finance highway and airport improvements are being spent for those purposes. In this day and age, when cynicism about government is all too prevalent, it is equally important that money raised for a particular purpose be spent as intended. And last but not least, they will have reason to believe that the foundation is being laid for a transportation network that will meet people's needs for decades to come. Given the increase in commuting times in many of our metropolitan areas, that is reassuring. A good example of why people should derive reassurance from this legislation can be found in the transportation infrastructure investments it makes in the Chicago area. Not only does it provide funding for three METRA commuter rail projects in the region, including one in the district I am privileged to represent, but it also funds a pair of Chicago Transit Authority route rehabilitation projects. In addition, and this is very reassuring, the language and the explanation of the conference report pave the way for Full Funding Grant Agreements for all five of those projects, which greatly improves the prospects that they will be completed on schedule. In addition, the conference report makes several investments in the development of several future-oriented intelligent transportation systems in the Chicagoland, including one for Lake County, Illinois, much of which I am privileged to represent. Also, it funds a study of the possibility of extending METRA's commuter rail service from Chicago all the way to Milwaukee, plus it provides money for bus routes and numerous other transportation improvements. All of these things bode well for the residents of my district, the people of the Chicago area and all of those who come to the Chicagoland on vacation or to conduct business. On their behalf, I would like to reiterate my thanks to all those responsible and to urge enactment of this legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 10th, the Republic of China on Taiwan will celebrate its national holiday that commemorates the founding of the Republic of China by Dr. Sun Yat-sen in 1911. Throughout my 31 years in Congress I have continually drawn attention to what has been achieved in Taiwan. It is one of the most dramatic examples in modern history of the power of freedom--that a small island, only slightly larger than the state of Maryland and with relatively few resources of its own, could rise to such a position of prominence in the global marketplace. But a free market economy--the free exchange of goods and services-- is not the only key to Taiwan's great success. The free exchange of ideas has also had a profound impact. And I know I speak for the entire House of Representatives when I say that the evolution of Taiwan's political system into a full-fledged democracy has been a source of great satisfaction to the American people and their representatives in Congress. On the occasion of this year's R.O.C. National Day we are also pleased to welcome back to Washington a man many of us have known and admired through the years. Chien-jen-Chen--known to his many friends simply as ``C.J.''--is back in town as Taiwan's official representative and director of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. C.J. Chen served in Washington from 1971 to 1980 as a political secretary in what for most of those years was the R.O.C. Embassy. He was back between 1982 and 1989 as Taiwan's deputy representative in the United States. For us old hands here in Congress, C.J. Chen is a well- known figure and a great friend. It's good to have him back. And I might add that during his years back in Taipei in the 1990s, C.J. Chen served in several high-level posts, including that of Minister of Foreign Affairs over the past year. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome C.J. Chen back to Washington. And may I also extend the congratulations of Congress and the American people to the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of this year's National Day celebration. May the close ties of friendship and solidarity between our two peoples continue to flourish in the years ahead.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as the Congress continues to debate the question on how to provide seniors with affordable prescription drugs, I wanted to bring to my colleagues attention the article ``Prescription Drug Costs: Has Canada Found the Answer?'' by William McArthur, M.D. Dr. McArthur is a palliative care physician, writer and health policy analyst in Vancouver B.C. Some of our colleagues have been touting the affordability of prescription drugs in Canada and in some cases sponsoring bus trips for seniors across the border to obtain these drugs. We should be skeptical of this approach because, in reality, the Canadian government drug mandates harm patients and increase the costs in other sectors of the health care system. The Canadian bureaucracies cause significant delays in access to new and innovative drugs. First, at the federal level, Canadians wait up to a year longer than Americans do for approval of new drugs. Then the delays continue at the provincial level where various government ``gatekeepers'' review the ``therapeutic value'' of prescription drugs before they are included in the formulary. The length of the delays varies widely. The government officials in Nova Scotia approve drugs for its formulary in 250 days, while the wait in Ontario is nearly 500 days. Canadian patients are often forced to use the medicines selected by the government solely for cost reasons. Patients who would respond better to the second, third, or fourth drug developed for a specific condition are often denied the preferred drug, and are stuck with the government-approved ``one size fits all'' drug. I urge my Colleagues to read this article and keep in mind that while prescription drugs appear to cost less in Canada than in the United States, there is a costly price associated with the Canadian system that ultimately translates into a lack of quality care for patients. [From the National Journal's Congress Daily, Oct. 2, 2000] Prescription Drug Costs: Has Canada Found the Answer? (By William McArthur, M.D.) Some Americans faced with the rising costs of prescription drugs look longingly at Canada, where prescription drugs appear to cost less than in the United States. The fact is that, while some drugs do cost less in Canada, others don't. Furthermore, many drugs are not available at any cost in Canada. The effect of Canadian policies is to restrict the overall availability of prescription drugs through a combination of a lengthy drug approval process and oppressive price controls. First of all, Canada's federal drug approval process takes much longer than that of the U.S., resulting in delayed access for Canadians to new drugs. For example, Canadian acceptance of the drug Viagra came a whole year after it had been available in the U.S. For 12 months Canadians who needed Viagra, or another of the many drugs delayed or denied approval, had to go to the U.S. to get their medication. Even if a drug wins federal approval, it faces 10 more hurdles to become widely accessible--the 10 provinces. Each province has a review committee that must approve the drug for reimbursement under the public healthcare system. For example, in British Columbia, neither the new anti-arthritic drugs Celebrex and Vioxx, nor the Alzheimer's treatment Aricept, have been approved for reimbursement, severely limiting their availability. Further, the provincial approval times vary greatly from province to province, creating further inequities. Price controls imposed by a government agency, the Patented Medicines Price Review Board (PMPRB), are the reason some prescription drugs cost less in Canada than in the United States. However, while keeping some prescription drug prices down through price controls, Canada has been unable to control overall drug spending. OECD statistics reveal that when the PMPRB was created in 1988, per capita expenditure on prescription drugs was $106; by 1996 that had doubled to $211 per person. One study of international drug price comparisons by Prof. Patricia Danzon of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania concluded that, on the average, drug prices in Canada were higher than those in the United States. Some individual drugs, particularly generics, cost far more in Canada. For example, the anti-hypertensive drug atenolol is four times more expensive in Canada than in the United States. And a University of Toronto study found that the main effect of price controls on prescription drugs was to limit patients' access to newer medicines so that they had to rely more on hospitals and surgery. All provinces require that chemically identical and cheaper generic drugs be substituted for more expensive brand-name drugs when they are available. However, British Columbia has gone farther with a ``reference price system.'' Under this system, the government can require that a patient receiving a drug subsidy be treated with whichever costs the least: (a) a generic substitute, (b) a drug with similar but not identical active ingredients or (c) a completely different compound deemed to have the same therapeutic effect. Patients are often forced to switch medicines, sometimes in mid-treatment, when the reference price system mandates a change. Twenty- seven percent of physicians in British Columbia report that they have had to admit patients to the emergency room or hospital as a result of the mandated switching of medicines. Sixty-eight percent report confusion or uncertainty by cardiovascular or hypertension patients, and 60 percent have seen patients' conditions worsen or their symptoms accelerate due to mandated switching. Through limiting the availability of prescription drugs and controlling the prices of those that are available, Canada has succeeded only in preventing Canadians from obtaining drugs that might have reduced hospital stays and expensive medical procedures. The end result of this is that Canadians are getting a lower standard of health care at a higher cost than patients and taxpayers have a right to expect. One lesson that Americans should learn from the Canadian experience is that when government pays for drugs, government controls the supply. As soon as government has to pay the bill, efforts are made to restrict the availability of newer and more effective drugs. The inevitable result is that other health expenditures like surgery and emergency visits increase, and patients suffer.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, former assistant Senate Republican Leader, Alan Simpson, has recalled for Americans the serious debate that went on in the Senate during the period leading up to the Gulf War. He tells us in a recent article, ``The seriousness of the situation called for open, honest debate. No deal-making. No cajoling. No politics. Just an honest discussion, followed by an honest vote of conscience by each senator.'' Mr. Speaker, Senator Simpson reports in the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the night before the floor debate, he and Senator Dole were sitting in the Republican cloakroom somberly contemplating the vote which could mean sending our troops to war. He recalls that suddenly Tennessee Senator Al Gore came in and asked, ``How much time will you give me if I support the President?'' After hearing that the Democrats had offered Senator Gore only seven minutes of camera time on the floor, the two Republican senators promised him twenty minutes--prime time, if possible. Senator Simpson reports that later, after being told by GOP Senate Secretary Howard Greene that the time had not yet been finalized, Senator Gore exploded with the remark, ``Damn it, Howard, if I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way.'' Senator Simpson says that it brings him no joy to recount the events leading up to the Gulf War, but feels he has to set the record straight because the Gore campaign is now proclaiming that the Vice President ``broke with his own party to support the Gulf War.'' The former Senator from Nevada ruefully concludes that ``it's much closer to the truth to say he broke for the cameras to support the Gulf War.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit the article by Senator Simpson, entitled ``Political Calculations and Gore's Gulf War Vote,'' which appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal for September 1, 2000 for the Congressional Record. Political Calculations and Gore's Gulf War Vote Al Gore's running a new campaign ad across the country now, saying he is ``fighting for us.'' But the true story of his Gulf War vote says he is usually fighting for Al. Here is the inside story of what happened. The Gulf War vote was pretty serious business. I can't think of anyone who didn't have a lump in his or her throat as they weighed the situation--50,000 American troops were deployed; Saddam Hussein promising the ``mother of all battles;'' most ``experts'' predicting heavy American losses. The choice was not an easy one. Senators with combat experience on both sides of the aisle were on both sides of the issue. Some Democrats openly supported the measure; some Republicans openly opposed it. And vice versa. The seriousness of the situation called for open, honest debate. No deal-making. No cajoling. No politics. Just an honest discussion, followed by an honest vote of conscience by each senator. As Republican whip, I worked with the Republican leader, Bob Dole, and the Democratic leaders, George Mitchell and Sam Nunn, to schedule the debate. As Republicans, Bob and I were responsible for scheduling time to speak for senators who supported the war. As Democrats, George and Sam were responsible for scheduling time to speak for those who opposed the war. The night before this monumental debate, I sat in the Republican cloakroom with Sen. Dole. The mood was somber. The tension was palpable. We were on the verge of sending troops to war. Our national credibility was on the line. Would America stand up to tyranny and aggression in the Middle East? This was not some issue to be taken lightly. As Bob and I discussed the debate schedule for the next day, a senator walked into our cloakroom and asked to speak to us. The senator's appearance and request surprised Bob and me. It surprised us because the senator was a Democrat, coming to ask for a favor. Who was that man? It as Tennessee Sen. Al Gore Jr. Sen. Gore got right to the point: ``How much time will you give me if I support the president?'' In layman's terms, Gore was asking how much debate time we would be willing to give him to speak on the floor if he voted with us. ``How much time will the Democrats give you?'' Sen. Dole asked in response. ``Seven minutes,'' came the droning response. ``I'll give you 15 minutes,'' Dole said. ``And I'll give you five of mine, so you can have 20 minutes,'' I offered. Gore seemed pleased, but made no final commitment, promising only to think it over. Gore played hard to get. He had received his time. But now he wanted prime time. And Dole and I knew it, After Gore left, Dole asked Howard Greene, the Republican Senate secretary, to call Gore's office and promise that he would try to schedule Gore's 20 minutes during prime time, thus ensuring plenty of coverage in the news cycle. Later that night, Sen. Gore called Greene and asked if Dole had him a prime time speaking slot. When Greene said nothing had been finalized yet, Gore erupted. ``Damn it, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way.'' The following day, Gore arrived on the Senate floor with, I always thought, two speeches in hand. Gore was still waiting to see which side--Republicans or Democrats--would offer him the most and the best speaking time. Sen. Dole immediately asked the Senate to increase the amount of speaking time for both sides. I believe only then, after Gore realized we were asking for more time to make room for him on our side, that he finally decided to support the resolution authorizing the use of force to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. It brings me no joy to recount the events leading up to the Gulf War vote. It isn't something I wanted to do. But it is something I have to do. I was there. I have to set the record straight because the Gore campaign is now running an ad proclaiming that Al Gore, ``broke with his own party to support the Gulf War.'' In reality, it's much closer to the truth to say he broke for the cameras to support the Gulf War. And I have to set the record straight because the Gulf War vote was far too important an issue to fall victim to politics and repulsive revising. It was a moment of challenge. And sadly, Al Gore was not up to it. As a member of the U.S. Senate for 18 years, I saw many senators show their stuff when times got tough. And, sadly, I saw some who failed to rise to the occasion. In January of 1991, Al Gore put politics over principle.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bill McArthur is a practicing physician, research scientist and writer in Vancouver, B.C. In a recent issue of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, he criticizes some U.S. politicians for promising they can offer Americans much cheaper drugs simply by copying the Canadian pharmaceutical system. For one thing, he argues, the reason some drugs are 23 percent cheaper in Canada is that individual incomes there are 24 percent lower than in the United States, and therefore manufacturers there are able to make and sell drugs at a lower price. The doctor stresses, however, that up to 50 percent of any Canada- United States price-differential is due to the cost of legal liability in the United States. Americans, he says, ``sue more often, win their cases more often, and get much larger settlements than Canadians''--and those extra costs must be added to the price of United States drugs. In addition, he argues, much of the cost-differential is the result of the expensive continuous research and development effort in U.S. companies, where most of the world's new drugs and new cures are created. In contrast to the significant progress of American medical technology, Dr. McArthur observes that Canada ranks ``right in there with Poland, Mexico, and Turkey near the bottom of the 29 OECD countries.'' He concludes that any suggestion by politicians that pharmaceuticals are much cheaper in Canada ``is just plain wrong.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit Dr. McArthur's article, ``What's So Great about Canada's Medical System?'' as printed in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on September 1, 2000, in the Congressional Record to enable all Americans to compare the real status of medical costs and services between our two countries. [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept. 1, 2000] What's So Great About Canada's Medical System? Patients pay more for drugs; many come to U.S. for treatment (By Bill McArthur) Vancouver, B.C.--Some politicians are promising they can deliver cheap drugs for Americans by copying the Canadian system. Beware--the silly season lasts until Nov. 7. The claim that pharmaceuticals are hugely cheaper in Canada is just plain wrong. Many drugs are much more expensive in Canada and generic prices are consistently higher. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that prices for brand name drugs are overall 23 percent lower in Canada. However, individual incomes of Canadians are 24 percent lower and the standard of living is lower. That is what happens when an economy is badly managed-- wages and standard of living decline and manufacturers are able to make and sell drugs and other products at a lower price. The politicians promoting Canadian drug pricing should quit loading the buses bound for Canada and consider loading up 747's heading to Southeast Asia. Drugs and other products are really cheap there. However, per capita income, standard of living and prices are inseparable and I doubt Americans want a Southeast Asian standard of living. Dr. Richard Manning, when at Brigham Young University in 1997, demonstrated that up to 50 percent of any Canada-U.S. price differential was due to the cost of legal liability in the United States. Americans sue more often, win their cases more often and get much larger settlements than Canadians. These costs have to be added to the price of drugs and artificially jack up the cost to consumers. I'll bet the folks clambering on the buses to Canada haven't been told they have very little hope of collecting anything if they suffer serious complications from drugs prescribed and purchased in Canada. The bulk of the world's new drugs are developed in the United States. Canada and many other countries do not do their share of pharmaceutical R&D. So if all the really cheap drugs for Americans are bought from Third World countries, who will do the R&D? The drug companies will be fine because they will have switched to making largely unregulated veterinary drugs or more likely, nonpharmaceutical products. But who is going to do the R&D to develop the cures for diabetes, osteoporosis, coronary artery disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and all the other diseases that affect the elderly? No one--that's who! And with those over 65 doubling to 25 percent of the population by 2025, what lies ahead for those now under 40, when they reach their golden years--ill health and poverty--that's what. I am a practicing physician in the pharmaceutical nirvana lauded by some U.S. politicians. Every day I see my patients suffering in the collapsing health-care system that we have in Canada. In terms of medical technology we rank right in there with Poland, Mexico and Turkey near the bottom of the 29 OECD countries. Patients wait months for a simple CT scan or an MRI. Recently I had to tell a lady she had cancer and also that she had to wait 10 weeks for the appointment to be assessed for treatment. In Ontario in one year, 121 people were permanently removed from the coronary artery bypass graft list because they had waited so long, they were now too ill to withstand the surgery. One hundred twenty-one, souls condemned to a slow, unpleasant and very expensive death because of the lack of timely care. Every day I see patients suffering because government regulations prevent me from prescribing frontline drugs, or because our system of price controls and delays in approval mean that they are not available at any cost. Just three years ago, I personally needed to drive periodically to Washington state to get medication that was not available in Canada. This is the system that some politicians say they would impose on the United States. Provision of pharmaceuticals for the elderly, the poor and the chronically ill is an important objective in all civilized societies, but Canada does not provide an example to emulate. Americans deserve something far better than Canada's ramshackle health-care system. Come to think of it, so do Canadians.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to my colleagues a letter that I received just yesterday from a constituent of mine in Barrington, Illinois. ``Dear Congressman Crane: I urge you to override President Clinton's veto of H.R. 8 (death tax elimination). ``I personally have a friend whose grandfather owns a farm which has been in his family since 1732. When he passes away, his family will have no choice but to sell the farm in order to pay the death tax. ``Every person who owns such a property or business started up with money which was saved after paying regular income taxes earlier. It just doesn't seem fair to force them to sell or pay again. ``Sincerely, Roger Hedberg, Sr.'' The death tax means an end to a family's heritage. That farm has been in the family for 268 years. If someday they sell the family farm it should be their own choice. They should never be compelled to do so to pay a tax that should never have been enacted. The death tax is an immoral, obscene tax. It is a tax belonging to a philosophy of envy, fear and greed. That is the wrong philosophy for America in the 21st century. The death tax should be repealed immediately, and I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote to override the President's ill-advised veto of this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation to relieve some of the tax burden on our seniors by reversing the mistake made in 1993 by the Clinton/Gore Administration and the Democratic-led Congress. The 1993 Clinton/Gore tax increase, raising the percentage of some senior's Social Security benefits subject to income tax from 85 percent to 50 percent, was not only unfair to seniors, but it was also just plain bad tax policy. Under current law, when an employer collects his half of the Social Security tax, the employer is allowed to deduct that amount from gross income as an expense. The individual paying payroll tax, however, is subject to individual income tax on the amount of payroll tax directly subtracted from his paycheck. In other words, half of the individual's total payroll tax contribution is subject to tax and half is not. The correct policy then, when considering taxing Social Security benefits, is to tax half the benefits. That assures that we achieve a basic goal of sound tax policy--tax all income once, but only once. The bill before us would once again lower the percentage of income subject to tax back down to 50 percent, where it belongs. The 1993 tax did much more than raise taxes on the elderly. It effectively reduced seniors' Social Security benefits. Of course, Clinton/Gore and the Democratic Congress didn't cut seniors' benefits by changing the benefit formula. But raising the tax on seniors' benefits certainly had the same effect. Every month, millions of seniors who rely on Social Security benefits had less money to spend. It makes no difference to them whether they have less money because their benefits are cut or because the tax on the benefits is higher. The bottom line--they have less money. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is quoted as saying yesterday, ``I say to Congress: Stop passing tax bills you know I'll veto.'' I say to President Clinton, stop vetoing the tax cut bills we are sending you. You threaten to veto a bill to relieve the patently unfair marriage penalty. You threaten to veto a bill to repeal the grossly unfair and immoral death tax. Now you threaten to veto a bill to relieve an unfair burden on seniors. Mr. President, this is not your money. Let us return it to the people who earned it. The Administration likes to talk about all the total cost of the bills we have sent to him or plan to send. That is a little like adding up the total cost of all the items on a restaurant's menu. Mr. President, we are hoping that a couple of these tax cut bills at least will look good enough for you to sign them. Then we can start talking bout the total cost. Until you do, we will continue sending up dishes for your approval. Until you do start signing them, it is the height of folly to talk about their total cost as though you had signed them.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield further blocks of time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 99.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 99 and in support of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. Over the past decade, the United States has taken gradual steps to normalize our bilateral relations with Vietnam. This process has borne tangible results on the full range of issues on our bilateral agenda including increased accounting of our missing in action, MIAs; substantial progress on remaining immigration cases; and increased trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms and workers. The paramount issue in our bilateral relationship with Vietnam remains the fullest possible accounting of MIAs. Since 1993, 288 sets of remains of U.S. servicemen have been repatriated and fate has been determined for all but 41 of 196 persons associated with last known- alive cases. Future progress in terms of the ability of U.S. personnel to conduct excavations, interview eye witnesses and examine archival items is dependent upon continued cooperation by the Vietnamese. On immigration, the central issue to the Jackson-Vanik waiver, more than 500,000 Vietnamese citizens have entered the United States under the orderly departure program in the past 10 to 15 years. As a result of steps taken by Vietnam to streamline its immigration process, more than 98 percent of cases in the resettlement opportunity for Vietnamese returnees have been cleared for interview. Currently, Vietnam has agreed to help us reinstate a refugee program for former U.S. Government employees. Earlier this month, the administration concluded a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam that will serve as the basis for a reciprocal extension of normal trade relations once it is transmitted and approved by Congress. The trade agreement contains provisions on market access in goods, trade in services, intellectual property protection and investment which are necessary for U.S. firms to compete in the Vietnamese market, the 13th most populous in the world. Because Congress has not yet approved a bilateral agreement, the effect of the Jackson-Vanik waiver at this time is quite limited, enabling U.S. exporters doing business in Vietnam to have access to U.S. trade financing programs, provided that Vietnam meets the relevant program criteria. At this time, I would insert into the Record a letter I received from over 40 trade associations supporting Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver as an important step in the ability of the U.S. business community to compete in the Vietnamese market. July 19, 2000. Hon. Philip Crane, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Crane: As members of the American business and agricultural community, we strongly support action to normalize trade relations with Vietnam. Renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is a key step in this process. We oppose H.J. Resolution 99, which would overturn the waiver, and urge you to vote against the resolution when it comes to the floor Wednesday, July 26, 2000. Renewal of the Jackson- Vanik waiver will ensure that U.S. companies and farmers exporting to Vietnam will maintain access to critical U.S. export promotion programs, such as those of the U.S. Export- Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and agricultural and maritime credit programs. Ultimately, the Jackson-Vanik waiver, plus the bilateral trade agreement, will lead the way for normal trade relations, enabling American companies and products to compete effectively with European and Asian companies and products in the Vietnamese market. Important progress in the bilateral relationship has been made this year. The agreement on trade relations between the U.S. and Vietnam has just been successfully concluded, paving the way to full normalization of trade relations. The bilateral trade agreement, which addresses issues relating to trade in goods and farm products, trade in services, intellectual property rights and foreign investment, creates more open market access, greater transparency and lower tariffs for U.S. exporters and investors in Vietnam. Also this year, the Ex-Im Bank framework agreements, which allow Ex-Im to open operations in Vietnam, were concluded and OPIC made its first loan to a U.S. company in Vietnam. In March Secretary of Defense William Cohen became the first U.S. Defense Secretary to visit Vietnam in 25 years. The American business and agricultural community believes that a policy of economic normalization with Vietnam is in our national interest. Last year, the House defeated the resolution of disapproval on Jackson-Vanik by a vote of 297 to 130. We urge you to support the renewal of the Jackson- Vanik waiver this July as an important step in the normalization process. We stand ready to work with Congress towards renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam, which will help American businesses and farmers reach this important market. Sincerely, American Apparel Manufacturers Association, American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi, American Chamber of Commerce in Ho Chi Minh City, American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore, American Chemistry Council, American Electronics Association, American Feed Industry Association, American Council of Life Insurers, American Meat Institute, American Potato Trade Alliance, AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology, Asia Pacific Council of American Chambers, Coalition for Employment Through Exports, Emergency Committee for American Trade, The Fertilizer Institute, Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, The Grocery Manufacturers of America, and Information Technology Industry Council. International Association of Drilling Contractors, International Mass Retail Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Potato Council, National Retail Federation, New Orleans Regional Chamber of Commerce, National Foreign Trade Council, North American Export Grain Association, North American Millers' Association, Oregon Potato Commission, Pacific Basin Economic Council--U.S. Committee, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, U.S.-ASEAN Business Council, U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council, Washington State Potato Commission, and Wheat Export Trade Education Commission. Although the practical effect of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver is small at this time, its significance is that it permits us to stay engaged with Vietnam and to pursue further reforms on the full range of issues on the bilateral agenda. Terminating Vietnam's waiver will give Vietnam an excuse to halt further reforms. I ask my colleagues not to take away our ability to pressure the Vietnamese for progress on issues of importance to the United States and I urge a no vote on H.J. Res. 99. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 99) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our colleagues should have received a letter yesterday, in fact, and it was initiated by our distinguished colleague on the minority side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on ours; and in it it explains something, and there is one paragraph I would like to read to my colleagues: ``At this time, Vietnam's waiver only allows that country to be reviewed for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs, such as those administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC; the Export-Import Bank, Exim; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. Vietnam is not automatically covered by these programs as a result of its Jackson-Vanik waiver.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that OPIC and Ex-Im Bank help businesses in a majority of countries around the globe; it is not confined to Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague, Ambassador Pete Peterson, was here a moment ago. He is over here on the floor. I would like to recognize him. He spent 6 years with us here in the House. He spent 6\1/2\ years in the Hanoi Hilton, and he is doing an outstanding job as our Ambassador in Vietnam. He assures me that he has the records from the prison in which he was held for 6\1/2\ years. These records are now publicly available. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to just make one brief concluding remark, and it has to do with the events in Vietnam that all of us have recollections of. My two kid brothers served over there. I know that we all had a concern not just for the welfare of our friends, neighbors and relatives, but we had a concern about the Vietnamese people, too. I think it is important for us to recognize that since the Vietnam War ended that there is a whole new Vietnam that has come into existence. Sixty-five percent of the people in Vietnam were not alive at the end of the Vietnam War. As this new population has taken over the country, I think it is important for us to lend our efforts in advancing the Vietnamese country and people toward those civilized values that we cherish. For that reason, I think the Jackson-Vanik waiver is a very tiny but incremental and important step in that direction. And for that reason, with all due respect to my colleagues who are supporting H.J. Res. 99, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 99 and keep us moving in the right direction.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4868) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 4868.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you, Chairman Archer and Representatives Watts and Talent for the hard work and excellent result represented by the legislation before us here today. This bill applies Republican principles of economic growth and opportunity to those communities that have not fully participated in the strong economic growth experienced by much of our nation in the last several years. Having said this, however, I need to mention one important issue that has not yet been addressed. This legislation, while helping many American communities, does little or nothing for the American citizens of Puerto Rico, citizens whose island is in dire need of economic development. I have introduced legislation in this Congress, H.R. 2138, that will apply the job creation incentives of section 30A of the tax code to U.S. companies doing business in Puerto Rico for new and expanded activities. My legislation applies to Puerto Rico the same objectives of the Community Renewal legislation to encourage private sector investment and job growth in areas which need it the most. While I certainly support the legislation before us here today, I hope that we will be able to address as expeditiously as possible, the concerns I am raising with regard to Puerto Rico. I believe it is only fair that the opportunities for economic development and economic prosperity are extended to our American citizens in Puerto Rico as well. I submit for the Record a copy of a letter sent to Ways and Means Chairman Archer from a number of my colleagues expressing the very concerns I have articulated here. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 18, 2000. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In the coming months we will consider exciting new initiatives to encourage private sector community economic development and job growth in areas that have not fully kept up with the economic expansion of the past decade. We are also considering tax proposals that will help business offset the impact of another increase in the minimum wage. These initiatives are an important part of the economic agenda that you have been fighting for as Chairman, to encourage the growth of a vibrant private sector as the foundation for continued economic prosperity in all American communities. Toward that goal, we urge you to include incentives for job creation in Puerto Rico in these programs. As you know, the minimum wage increase will apply in Puerto Rico. This increase will have the greatest impact on business there, because approximately 57% of workers are within $1.00 of the current minimum wage, far in excess of any other U.S. jurisdiction. Moreover, unemployment in Puerto Rico, despite massive infrastructure development and local tax incentives, stubbornly remains approximately 11 percent; per capita incomes remain less than \1/2\ of any state; a very substantial number of the American citizens in Puerto Rico have incomes below the poverty line. The job creation incentives of H.R. 2138 could alleviate these economic hardships. That bill would provide the incentives of section 30A to new companies and new lines of businesses and it would extend the section 30A program beyond 2005, when it is currently scheduled to terminate. These are essential components of an efficient job creations incentive uniquely tailored to the needs of Puerto Rico. We urge you to consider the principles in H.R. 2138 as you craft community revitalization tax incentives. This bill recognizes that the economic strength of this country is in the private sector. Enactment of this legislation will help keep Puerto Rico on the road to economic growth through principles in which we all believe. Sincerely, Charles B. Rangel, Xavier Becerra, Patrick J. Kennedy, Richard Neal, Robert T. Matsui, E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Phil English, Mark Foley, Michael R. McNulty, Philip M. Crane, Nancy Johnson, Dave Camp, Jim Ramstad, Jennifer Dunn, Tom Davis, J.D. Hayworth, Amo Houghton, Members of Congress.