Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, please, as we can see clearly, this is a bill that is noncontroversial. We enjoy good, strong bipartisan support. I ask all my colleagues to get on board and vote for H.R. 4868.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4868 would make miscellaneous and other technical and clerical corrections to the trade laws. The Committee on Ways and Means favorably reported the bill on July 19, 2000. This bill contains over 155 provisions temporarily suspending or reducing duties on a wide variety of chemicals, including drugs used in the battle against HIV/AIDS and anticancer drugs, environmentally friendly herbicides and insecticides, and many organic dyes. In each instance, there is either no domestic production of the product involved or the domestic producer supported the measure. By suspending or reducing these duties, we can enable U.S. companies that use these products to be more competitive and cost efficient. This would help create jobs for American workers as well as reduce costs for consumers. Also, the bill includes two other important provisions which I introduced earlier in this Congress. The first provision would reduce the duty rate, returning travellers pay to an amount more in line with the average duty rate of imported commercial merchandise. My second provision would provide duty free treatment to participants and individuals associated with all international athletic events held in the United States. The bill also contains a ban on the import of products made from dog and cat fur and provisions that would help simplify customs entry processing. This package of trade bills has been thoroughly evaluated and commented on by all concerned parties, including the U.S. Customs Service, the International Trade Commission, the United States Trade Representative, and firms which may be affected by tariff suspension on a product they produced domestically. The suspensions and duty reductions that remain on the bill are completely noncontroversial. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following exchange of letters: Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 18, 2000. Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding your Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4868, the ``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000.'' I acknowledge your Committee's jurisdiction over this legislation and appreciate your cooperation in moving the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I agree that your decision to forego further action on the bill will not prejudice the Commerce Committee with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation, and will support your request for conferees on those provisions within the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a House-Senate conference. I will also include a copy of your letter and this response in our report on the legislation and as part of the Congressional Record when the legislation is considered by the House. Thank you again for your cooperation. Sincerely, Bill Archer, Chairman.

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. 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.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision entitled Sec. 517 in title V of the bill on Treasury Postal Appropriations on the grounds that it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states that no provision changing existing law shall be reported in any general appropriation bill. However, this provision would prevent the use of appropriated funds to allow the placement of diamonds from certain countries into foreign or domestic commerce. Specifically, the provision imposes a new administrative burden on the U.S. Customs Service not authorized under existing law by requiring Customs to enforce a new certification requirement which would be based on the place of mining of the diamonds. Under current law, no certification at all is required. In addition, Customs never examines the place of mining but makes origin determination based on cutting and polishing. This certification requirement places an extensive burden on Customs both in terms of procedural documentation requirements and substantive origin determination. It clearly violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI, which prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. However, I would like to assure the gentlemen that have spoken this evening that I agree that the diamond trade in Africa is of grave concern to me. I plan to hold a hearing in the subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means in September to examine this issue. I hope to work with the gentlemen, as well as the administration, to find a viable means to deal with this issue. I do not support the use of trade sanctions, but recent action by the United Nations affirming the use of multilateral trade sanctions makes this an issue well worth considering. In the meantime, however, I must insist on my point of order, and I urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is a simple one. It is simply unconscionable that the federal government of the United States would impose a tax penalty on the holy state of matrimony. Of the many outrages contained in our federal tax system, and there are a great many such outrages, none is greater than that of imposing an extra tax burden on a man and a woman simply because they live together as man and wife. In my own 8th District outside of Chicago, over 70,000 families face the marriage tax penalty. Over 70,000 families could enact their very own tax relief by getting a divorce. Our tax code should at the least be neutral with respect to marriage and the marriage penalty relief bill before us would move us at least part way in that direction. And so I strongly support the conference agreement which will eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of American families and reduce it for millions more. Many of my colleagues may not know this, but a little over 20 years ago, I rose before the American people to decry the tax penalty on marriage when I ran for the highest office in the land. Then, in 1981, we addressed the marriage penalty in part through the Economic Recovery and Tax Act by slashing tax rates and by including in the tax law a provision reducing the taxable income of the second earner in a two-earner family. Over the past 20 years, however, the severity of the marriage penalty has intensified as the Congress raised tax rates and introduced new complexities in the law such as refundable tax credits. And so it is now critical that we pass this bill and give American families some relief from the marriage tax penalty. I understand President Clinton may oppose this bill, as do some Members of the House, on the grounds that it reduces taxes too far. This is very disappointing because Republicans have tried to meet the President halfway on this issue, to compromise, to pare back our hopes for more significant marriage penalty relief. To be honest, I thought the original bill was too conservative. Especially when projections of the federal budget surplus grow by a trillion dollars in just a few months, there can be no better way to apply some of these surpluses than by eliminating an unfair tax penalty on one of America's bedrock institutions--marriage. But, in the interest of compromise, I am willing to support this bill as it has come out of conference. I understand some of my Democratic colleagues oppose this bill on tax distribution grounds. Apparently, they believe it is appropriate for some families to continue to face a marriage tax penalty. I strongly disagree. No American family, irrespective of their level of income, should face a tax penalty for being married. This is a matter of principle, and on this matter I come down on the side of American families. The one shortcoming of this bill is that it still leaves millions of American families paying thousands of dollars a year in marriage tax penalty. I would also point out to opponents of this bill that the federal income tax is today heavily skewed to taxing upper-income families. If this bill somehow finds favor in the President's eyes and becomes law, the federal income tax will still be heavily skewed to taxing upper- income families. Opposition on distributional grounds compels me to ask my colleagues if there is any level of progressivity in our tax system that they deem to be too steep. Finally, I would like to address an argument opponents have made against this bill, and against other tax cuts Republicans have advanced in recent weeks. Opponents of the Republican tax cut initiatives like to point out that the sum of the total relief provided through bi- partisan pension reform, bi-partisan marriage penalty relief, cutting the excessive tax burden on Social Security benefits, the bi-partisan repeal of the death tax, and other measures rises to a very large figure. They accuse Republicans of being fiscally irresponsible in proposing so much tax relief. They also like to point out, however, that the President has threatened to veto each and every one of these bills. Their claim of fiscal irresponsibility is, therefore, an empty one. Republicans are looking, and will continue, to look for ways to provide tax relief to the overtaxed American people that can escape President Clinton's veto pen. If the President changes his mind and begins to sign some of these bills, perhaps then we can consider whether the amount of cumulative tax relief is something to be concerned about. And so I urge my colleagues, and I urge the President, when put to the question of whether you support comprehensive marriage penalty relief--just say, I do!

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend our two colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for their work on this bill. This bill proves that Republicans and Democrats can work together in a bipartisan way to achieve worthwhile reforms. I note that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means often urges us to work together in a bipartisan way, and I appreciate that input from him. I am hopeful that he, too, will strongly support this bill. This bill also proves that it can sometimes take more than one try to get important legislation passed. Members may have a sense of deja vu because we enacted this bill last year, only to have the President veto it. I hope this year he is able to sign this bill when it comes to his desk. This is important legislation, Mr. Speaker, for at least two other reasons. The first is that we must do everything we can to encourage savings in America. The figures say our private savings rate is very low. I suspect it is lower than it should be. But I am sure we would be better off saving more than we do. One way to do that is through fundamental tax reform, and that is just not in the cards right now. I hope we can focus on fundamental reform before long, perhaps with a change in administration. In the meantime, by rationalizing the laws relating to pensions, by making it easier for businesses, and especially small businesses to establish and maintain pension plans for their workers, this bill will encourage more businesses to establish pension plans and it will encourage more workers to participate. In the end, I believe private saving will result as a consequence. I also believe private saving will increase through the increase in the contribution limits on individual retirement accounts to $5,000. For individuals who do not have the benefit of an employer-based pension system this is terribly important. It is also, I would point out, a baby step towards tax reform. Why is that so important? Why is it so important that individuals save more? First, savings is the key to acquiring wealth. It is the key to financial security to us as individuals. Financial security enhances our sense of personal freedom. Second, the level of saving in America also goes a long way towards determining who owns the Nation's capital stock: the land, buildings, the plant, and equipment. We have a very high rate of investment right now that has contributed mightily to our rapid rate of economic growth. If Americans do not save enough to fund this capital expansion, then our open economy and advanced capital markets permit us to lure foreign savings to make up the difference. That is the good news. We can import the capital, the foreign savings necessary to keep our rate of investment high. The bad news is that that means that foreign savers reap the lion's share of the benefits from that investment. If Members want a sense of the magnitude of this effect, just look at our persistent and high trade deficit. Our trade deficit represents the flip side in the balance of payments to all of the capital we are importing from abroad. As we find ways to increase our rate of savings at home, at the very least we help Americans to own a greater share of the capital stock driving our economy. The second reason this bill is so important is because it strengthens the private pension leg of our national pension system at a time when the public leg of that system, social security, is under a cloud. We have heard about the troubled financial State of social security many times in the Committee on Ways and Means. Fortunately, we have the lockbox in place to keep the Congress from its former practice of spending the American workers' payroll taxes on anything but paying social security benefits. The lockbox performs a function very much like the medical profession's dictum: First, do no harm. The first step towards restoring social security's financial soundness is to keep Washington from spending payroll taxes on other programs. The lockbox achieves that goal. But beyond that, once again, it appears we must wait for the next administration to take on social security reform. Until then, and even after we have enacted social security reform, we must do everything we can to strengthen the private pension and savings system. That means eliminating unnecessary rules and regulations and other accumulated barnacles that have attached themselves to this part of the tax law. I want to thank our two colleagues for undertaking the hard work necessary to bring this to the floor, and urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), our distinguished colleague. (Mr. BEREUTER 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 strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 103, which would terminate normal trade relations with China 60 days after enactment. By raising tariffs to the prohibitive levels that applied before 1980, and thereby prompting mirror retaliation on the part of the Chinese against $14 billion in U.S. exports, this bill would effectively extinguish trade relations between our two countries. House Joint Resolution 103 is an annual resolution of disapproval of the President's recommendation to extend normal trade relations status to China under the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. In light of our action earlier this year on H.R. 4444, rejecting House Joint Resolution 103 should be pro forma. On May 24, after a vigorous debate which considered the opportunities that will be possible for the United States and the Chinese people when China accedes to the World Trade Organization, the House voted 237 to 197 to eliminate this annual review of China's NTR status upon China's accession to the WTO. Unfortunately, H.R. 4444 is still pending in the other body, and I hope that H.R. 4444 will go as quickly as possible to the President without amendment. As the historic debate and the strong vote on H.R. 4444 documents, there is overwhelming support in this body for bringing China into the rules-based trading system of the WTO. It is the right thing to do for Americans and for the Chinese people. Under the WTO deal, in exchange for applying tariffs on Chinese imports identical to those in effect now, United States exporters will have unprecedented access to 1.2 billion consumers in China. Tariffs on our exports to China will be steeply reduced, and the Chinese trade regime subject to the whole scale of reforms. For example, under the agreement, average tariffs on agricultural goods would drop from 40 percent to 17 percent, Chinese tariffs on American-made automobiles would fall 75 percent, while quotas on U.S. auto exports to China would be eliminated entirely. The opportunity we have to impose an enforceable system of fair trade rules on a nation of 1.2 billion people, as it emerges from the iron grip of communism and state planning, is one that cannot be lost. In my estimation, the revolutionary change WTO rules will bring to China dwarfs any other avenue of influence available to the United States. Maintaining normal trade relations supports the continued presence of Americans throughout Chinese society, whether they be entrepreneurs, teachers, religious leaders, or missionaries. It is these individual contacts that are bringing our ideals of freedom to the Chinese people. These contacts would be lost if we revoked NTR. The Reverend Pat Robertson has urged Congress ``to keep the door to the message of freedom and God's love'' open, not shut. ``Leaving a billion people in spiritual darkness punishes not the Chinese government but the Chinese people,'' he wrote. ``The only way to pursue morality is to engage China fully and openly as a friend.'' Motorola, my corporate constituent, directly promotes the exchange of ideas through its activities in China. For example, Motorola sends hundreds of Chinese employees to its United States facilities each year to attend technology, engineering, and management seminars. In a country where only 10 to 15 percent of the people have access to a college education, this is precious training that allows for eye- opening exposure to the American way of life. H.R. 4444 has the active bipartisan support of more former presidents and cabinet officials, more distinguished Americans, more small businessmen and farmers, more Governors, more religious and human rights leaders, both here and in China, more of our allies, such as Taiwan and Great Britain, than any foreign policy or trade legislation in recent memory. H.R. 4444 even has the support of a past president of the United Auto Workers, Leonard Woodcock. Denying normal trade relations with China means severing ties that would take years to repair. For the interests of all Americans and for the Chinese people, I urge a no vote on House Joint Resolution 103.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time, for purposes of control, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard expressions here on the floor today as we have heard in the past during our debates on this issue of persecution of Christians, Muslims and other groups in China which is a legitimate and serious concern. However, the U.S. can be most effective in advancing religious freedom by expanding our engagement with the Chinese people and by continuing to press Beijing to respect the rights of Chinese believers. World religious leaders, including the Reverend Billy Graham, the Reverend Pat Robertson, the Dalai Lama, the American Friends Committee, Father Robert Drinan, the National Council of Churches, Rabbi Arthur Schneier and Reverend Don Argue with the National Association of Evangelicals see continued U.S. engagement with China as key to promoting religious freedom. Two years ago, the Chinese Service Coordinating Committee, an umbrella group for U.S. religious agencies working in China, said ``a public Christian stance against MFN status for China is not in the interest of the church in China, and will seriously hamper the efforts of Christians from outside China who have spent years seeking to establish an effective Christian witness among the Chinese people.'' Religious activity of all types is flourishing as ordinary Chinese reach out for new forms of belief. Unofficially, it is estimated that there are now 30 to 60 million Chinese Protestants, 6 million Catholics, 17 million Muslims, and 100 million Buddhists. The present situation stands in stark contrast to the post-Communist revolution China of the 1950s when religious activity was harshly suppressed. The situation worsened even further during the Cultural Revolution when many churches were closed and church properties were seized. Engagement with China has made it possible to disseminate Bibles and religious literature to Chinese citizens. World Pulse, a publication of the Billy Graham Center, has 250,000 readers in China. East Gates International, a Christian organization, publishes and distributes religious materials in China and reports that ``expanding U.S. economic ties with China and especially China's admittance to the World Trade Organization will continue to benefit religious organizations working in China.'' While some, indeed, believe the annual Normal Trade Relation votes can be used as leverage, U.S. religious groups who are actively engaged in evangelical work in China believe such threats are highly counterproductive. Threatening U.S. economic sanctions in the name of religion creates an impression that religion is being used as a tool of U.S. foreign policy and undermines their work in China. Recently pastors of key house churches in China, many of whom have served time in prison for their beliefs, urged Congress to approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations. We in the House have already taken that action as everyone knows, and it is the absence of completion of that work still that causes us to go through this annual renewal procedure, but the annual renewal procedure is consistent with what we did recently when the House overwhelmingly supported granting mainland China Permanent Normal Trade Relations, and we should. In this instance, on today's resolution, all vote no to reject it overwhelmingly and be insistent with what we have done thus far.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues my strong support for this legislation, H.R. 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act. Medicare was facing insolvency in the year 2002 when Republicans took control of the House in January 1995. As a result of our hard work, and despite false charges from those on the other side of the aisle about our intent, the Medicare Trust Fund is now solvent until 2025. Nearly every Member on our side of the aisle voted for the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution that set aside $40 billion over the next 5 years for a Medicare prescription drug benefit because we recognized the need to modernize and strengthen Medicare for the 21st century. Speaker Hastert then formed a working group to write a Medicare prescription drug plan within the budget guidelines. To the credit of Subcommittee on Health chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); Committee on Commerce chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley); and other Members of the working group, a market-based approach was drafted to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is voluntary, affordable and available to all senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, the plan is so well drafted it has gained bipartisan support. Unfortunately, many of my friends in the minority are supporting a government-run, take it or leave it, one-size fits all program that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That plan would also force millions of seniors to give up the private coverage they now have. This bipartisan legislation provides seniors with a voluntary program, under which they would have several options and could choose which plan fits their individual needs best. This legislation also provides for coverage for seniors with unusually high drug costs. For seniors with unusually high drug costs, the plan provides security by covering 100 percent of out-of-pocket costs beyond $6,000. I strongly urge you to support the Medicare Rx 2000 Act. I am well aware that some may think another approach might work better and others are concerned about the budget impact of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. As a member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, I can assure you these are questions I have answered to my own satisfaction during consideration of this legislation. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to score the legislation under the $40 billion level we have already set aside in this year's budget. The fact remains that our nation's health care system has changed since Medicare was first created and, to be effective, Medicare must change too. We must modernize Medicare before the Baby Boom generation retires, and we must recognize that every individual has unique health care needs. This legislation makes Medicare more flexible to address the differing needs of seniors and recognizes the importance of both prevention and treatment. In the long term, this approach will save money because preventive medicine can delay or eliminate the need for hospitalization. As a fiscal conservative, I strongly believe the Medicare Rx 2000 Act does an excellent job of providing senior citizens the prescription drug benefits they need without squandering our nation's budget surplus. It does so by relying on the free enterprise system that has served our country so well and by giving senior citizens the choices they demand at prices for prescription drugs they can afford. Once again, I urge your support for the Medicare Rx 2000 Act. Let's give our nation's seniors the choices they deserve at prices they can afford.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment. The Brown amendment compromises USTR's ability to protect U.S. intellectual property rights around the world for U.S. pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers. Section 315 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act clearly states that it is U.S. policy to seek enactment and implementation of foreign intellectual property laws that strengthen and supplement TRIPS. The Brown amendment directly contradicts this provision, conflicting with U.S. law. The pharmaceutical and medical technologies industry depend on consistent and fair trade rules, including those that protect intellectual property rights. Without such practices, companies and those who invest in them will be discouraged from providing the necessary capital to pursue the development of new medicines. A consistent theme in U.S. trade policy is encouraging an environment based on rule of law around the world that U.S. firms need to be able to compete. The Brown amendment sends countries conflicting messages that we would like them to provide the highest degree of intellectual property protection in every category except pharmaceuticals and medical technology. Ironically, the Brown amendment, which is intended to help poor countries, will actually hurt them by reducing their ability to attract foreign investment. Developing countries need the transfer of technology and know-how for their economic growth and stronger, not weaker, intellectual protection is the way to get it. In short, the Brown amendment is the wrong solution to increasing the access of developing countries to pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. Instead of stripping U.S. firms of their legal rights, we should seek to encourage partnerships between U.S. pharmaceutical firms and developing countries. For example, several U.S. firms are already involved in pilot programs to increase access to AIDS drugs in African countries. Encouraging growing economies, as we are doing in the recently enacted African Growth and Opportunity Act, also enables developing countries to have the resources to purchase drugs without discouraging further innovation. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Brown amendment.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation and object.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for an explanation of his modification.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. USTR's appropriation under the CJS bill is $3.2 million less than its request, and this amendment would bring its appropriations closer to its request. This is a remarkable agency. It operates on a lean budget while charged with enormous responsibilities. USTR's' annual operating budget has remained virtually level during the 1990s, and almost all budget increases since FY91 have been used to meet legislated employee pay raises and other rising costs of doing business. Despite a no-growth budget, and even though the agency's workload has exploded, USTR has made impressive accomplishments. It has concluded a significant number of trade agreements, and has successfully resolved 25 dispute settlement cases in the first 5 years of the WTO. With China's imminent accession to the WTO, a strong, well-funded USTR is more necessary than ever to monitor foreign compliance with WTO obligations and to enforce our rights under the WTO. The ability of U.S. producers to export their products depends upon USTR's efforts to open foreign markets and keep them open. This leads to increased global trade, which leads to our economic prosperity. But USTR cannot fulfill its mission without these urgently needed funds. This amendment is essential to help USTR do what Congress and the American people expect, and I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard references made to jobs; we have heard references made to our trade deficits. The economic concerns involved in trade are important, but I think it is important for us to recognize that trade plays a critically important role in our economy today, and it is because we are less than 5 percent of the world's population and the market is beyond our borders and we have bountiful employment. We are at the biggest increases in gross domestic production that we have experienced in years. In fact, last year over $9.2 trillion was our GDP. I think it is important to recognize, too, the studies have already discovered that better than 90 percent of job dislocation here in the United States is totally unrelated to trade. When we then wonder about these increases in U.S. deficits, it is because of the insatiable appetites we have; and notwithstanding our incredible productivity, we cannot produce enough to meet the demands of the American consumers here at home. Let me conclude with a point, and this deals with the question of sovereignty. U.S. law which approved and implemented America's membership in the WTO makes clear that the U.S. reigns supreme. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, URAA, states, ``No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, namely, the WTO agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any of the United States law shall have effect.'' Secondly, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to, one, the protection of human, animal or plant life or health; two, the protection of the environment; or, three, worker safety unless specifically provided for in this act of Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that all Members here recognize the importance of this vote. I know we have some honest disagreements. I hope that we can move some of our opponents in this debate through a presentation of facts and the evidence to a different position. But in the interim, I think it is vital that Members recognize that we must vote down H.J. Res. 90.