Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 9, 1996, the Baltimore Sun ran an article reporting that Lalit H. Gadhia, a major political fundraiser in Maryland, confessed to laundering over $46,000 in illegal political contributions from the Indian Embassy. Gadhia, former campaign treasurer for Maryland Governor, Parris Glendening, and a Baltimore immigration lawyer, confessed to the scheme in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, according to the report. According to the report, Mr. Gadhia used money provided by the Embassy through an operative named Devendra Singh to reimburse friends and associates for campaign contributions to pro-India members of Congress and a political action committee known as the Indian-American Leadership Investment Fund. It is illegal for anyone who is not a citizen to make a political contribution, and it is illegal to falsify the name of the contributor. Yet Indian Embassy spokesman Shiv Mukherjee is quoted in the article as saying that ``the Indian Embassy operates fully within the bounds of diplomatic propriety.'' The words of the Embassy are clearly at odds with its actions. The Embassy officials in charge of the scheme, former Ambassador S.S. Ray and former Embassy staffer Devendra Singh, have both returned to India. Mr. Ray was a losing candidate for Parliament in the recent elections and Mr. Singh holds a high-ranking position with the Rajasthan state police. The new ambassador, Naresh Chandra, brought his brother, Girish Chandra Saxena, to the Embassy with him. Girish Saxena is a former head of India's Research and Analysis Wing [RAW], which infiltrated Sikh temples throughout Punjab, Khalistan, in June 1984, in which over 20,000 Sikhs were killed. Ambassador Chandra himself has recently been implicated in illegal smuggling of CFC's from India to the United States, according to published reports. CFC's have been banned in the United States since January 1. According to the Customs Service, CFC's are now the No. 2 problem after illegal drugs. In a press conference on February 19, 1995, Indian foreign Minister R.L. Bhatia said, ``There is a strong anti-India lobby in the United States. We are spending large sums of money through Ambassador Ray to neutralize it.'' Now we know how the regime was spending that money. While the Members who received these contributions did not know that they were illegal, they know now, and I call upon those Members to return the money. I urge you to cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 32, which calls for self-determination for Khalistan, and H.R. 1425, which will cut off U.S. aid to India until human rights are respected. These illegal political activities are just one more demonstration of the moral bankruptcy of the recent regime. Some of us spoke out when former Ambassador Ray was caught endorsing a candidate in the South Dakota Senate race and attacking one in New Jersey. Once again the Embassy is inappropriately involved in U.S. politics. I know I speak for many members of this House when I say that I hope the new Indian Government will correct these practices. I am introducing into the Record articles from the May 9 issues of the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Times about the Gadhia case. [From the Baltimore Sun, May 9, 1996] Campaign Fund-Raiser Admits Guilt (By Jim Haner and Mark Matthews) A prominent fund-raiser for Maryland Democrats pleaded guilty yesterday to election fraud in a scheme to launder at least $46,000 in illegal campaign contributions he received from an official at the embassy of India in 1994. Lalit H. Gadhia--a 57-year-old immigration lawyer and former campaign treasurer to Gov. Parris N. Glendening-- confessed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore to his role in the scheme to influence congressional lawmakers involved in foreign-policy decision affecting India. An immigrant from Bombay, India, who was active in Baltimore's early civil rights movement, Gadhia now faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Sentencing is scheduled for this summer. Prosecutors say the case against Gadhia is one of only a handful of cases in which foreign citizens or governments have been linked to illegal campaign contributions in a U.S. political race, and may be the first time an official of a foreign embassy has been implicated. ``The fact that the money came from the Indian Embassy and that so many people were manipulated into participating in the scheme takes this case to a higher level than we normally see in these kind of investigations.'' said U.S. Attorney Lynne A. Battaglia. ``Obviously, we have not seen a case like this in Baltimore before.'' Among those who received the illegal funds were four members of the Maryland delegation and congressmen in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. According to documents filed in the case, federal authorities could find no evidence that any of the recipients was aware of the true source of the contributions. ``The campaign assumed that these were appropriate contributions,'' said Jesse Jacobs, press secretary for Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, the Marylander who is the third-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Sarbanes received $4,500 of the questionable contributions. Other Maryland Democrats who received $3,000 contributions each were Reps. Benjamin L. Cardin and Steny H. Hoyer and former Rep. Kwesi Mfume. In all, 19 Democratic candidates nationwide got the money shortly before the 1994 elections through a network of prominent Indian-American businessmen in Maryland, their families and employees of their companies. The donors then were reimbursed by Gadhia, who admitted yesterday that he used money from a minister at the Embassy of India in Washington. Under Federal Election Commission rules, it is illegal for noncitizens to make political contributions or for anyone to make donations in another person's name. But Gadhia never informed donors that the money was coming from India--or told them that it was a crime to accept reimbursement for a donation. ``The vast majority of people in the Indian-American community nationally are going to be appalled by this,'' said Subodh Chandra, 28, a Los Angeles lawyer who heads a political action committee that unwittingly received at least $31,400 of the illegal contributions for Gadhia. ``We can only hope at this point that these were the acts of a lone bumbler or group of bumblers and not some sort of international intrigue involving the Indian government. Whatever the case may be, it has harmed an immigrant community in this country that has worked hard for political recognition,'' Chandra said. The scheme first came to light last year after a two-month investigation by The Sun into Chandra's PAC, the Indian- American Leadership Investment Fund. Federal campaign finance records showed that almost all of the group's money came from Baltimore donors with ties to Gadhia, who then was Glendening's campaign treasurer. Donating mostly in $1,000 and $500 increments, contributors ranged from prominent Indian-American engineers and doctors to cooks, busboys, students and secretaries who never before had made a political donation. A half-dozen contributors interviewed said they were paid by Gadhia or his nephew to write the checks, but had no idea the practice was illegal. Satish Bahl, a part owner of the Akbar Restaurant on Charles Street--where kitchen employees made $13,000 in bogus contributions--echoed other Baltimore donors in saying he now feels badly used by his former friend. ``I had no idea--absolutely no idea,'' he said yesterday. ``We were not aware of the consequences. We were only involved thirdhand. We never thought about how far this could go.'' Gadhia denied the allegations at the time of The Sun's investigation. But the case against him continued to build last summer as FBI agents issued subpoenas to those who gave to the PAC or who attended fund-raisers held by Gadhia for Maryland congressional candidates, Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke and presidential aspirants Bill Clinton and Michael S. Dukakis.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote for the Small Business Job Protection Act. The highlights of the bill in my view include the expansion of the expensing provisions for small business, the package of S corporation reforms and pension simplification items, and the employer-provided educational assistance provision. If signed into law, these provisions will do a great deal of good for small businesses in this country and will in turn provide real job opportunities for American workers. However, I must express my deep concern with regard to that portion of this bill which would phase out section 936 of the Tax Code over a 10-year period. Section 936 of the Tax Code provides tax incentives to companies that locate production facilities in Puerto Rico. Frankly, I have been concerned that many of those who will vote for this entire package know little about the positive impact that section 936 has had on employment in Puerto Rico. Nor, I fear do they appreciate the negative impact that eliminating section 936 will have with regard to the economic vitality of Puerto Rico and what the decline in that regard will mean to our Federal budget in the long run. Having served on the committee with jurisdiction over this issue for the past 20 years, the Ways and Means Committee, I can unequivocally report to my colleagues that section 936 has been one of the most successful provisions in our entire Tax Code. Section 936 has spurred economic development in Puerto Rico which has in turn created thousands of jobs, dramatically reduced the unemployment rate in Puerto Rico. By removing this incentive for companies to locate in Puerto Rico, an economic vacuum will be created which I do not see being filled any time soon. This void will bring on increased unemployment, and hope and opportunity, which has been on the rise over the last 20 years in Puerto Rico, will decline steadily. As the economy declines there will be an increased dependency--dependency on Uncle Sam to help those that no longer have jobs. Just what form this dependency will take, whether it be statehood or some other arrangement, remains to be seen, but mark my words, it will mean greater expenditures by the U.S. Treasury. So I would say to those that think they are savings taxpayers dollars when they vote to eliminate this so-called corporate welfare in the Tax Code, that you can either pay not by encouraging economic growth and opportunity, or you can pay later by increasing Federal outlays for welfare and creating a dependency which I don't think the American citizens--either on the mainland or in Puerto Rico will appreciate. Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere hope that Congress will either revise the provision of the bill before it becomes law or revisit this issue at a later time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize some outstanding business leaders in my district who have risen to the top in their respective fields. Tonight they will be recognized by the Rolling Meadows Chamber of Commerce for their efforts and achievements. I would like to take a moment to recognize each for their accomplishments in the hopes that their achievements will inspire others to follow their lead. Kristine M. Stabler, the vice president and head of sales for the Arlington International Racecourse, has been named the Business Leader of the Year. She has worked in the business community at Arlington International Racecourse for 14 years and was given the added responsibility to serve as a liaison between the racetrack and the business community. The Rolling Meadows Chamber of Commerce adds that ``she is also the coordinator of the International Festival of Racing, highlighted by the Arlington Million and oversees the retail operations, guest relations and special events.'' Her interaction with businesses and the community is extensive and her accomplishments impressive. The Platinum Home Mortgage Corp., which is a family-owned business, has been awarded the Small Business of the Year Award. Although the company is only 2\1/2\ years old, it has grown both physically and financially. It has brought on staff 88 employees and has opened offices in Chicago, IL, River Grove, IL, and Denver, CO. It is now the fourth largest government residential loan provider in my State. The Platinum Home Mortgage Corp. is truly representative of success as they continue to grow. Kevin T. Kendrigan, the director of the Northwest Special Recreation Association [NSRA] has been recognized as the Community Leader of the Year. His resume offers an extensive list of memberships to associations and community groups. Even more impressive are his accomplishments at the NSRA, which now serves over 2,500 people monthly and conducts 250 programs for both children and adults. The Community Consolidated School District 15 has been awarded the Exceptional Business/Educational Environment Award. District 15 has blended traditional educational classes with interaction between various business and community leaders to offer students a more worldly education. Through innovative new programs at the local level, sponsored by private industries, our education system will be more effective in turning out students who will have the skills and knowledge that companies need as they enter the next century. One award, the Business Beautification Award, was shared this year between two impressive edifices. The first is Michaels Glass and Mirror, Inc., which offers a wide variety of glass work, including auto glass, commercial and residential glazing, store fronts, table tops, shower doors, and mirrors. The second is the Rolling Meadows Shopping Center, owned by Baird and Warner. Both businesses have undergone substantial renovations to attract new customers and support businesses. Mr. Speaker, I commend all of the winners of the Rolling Meadows Chamber of Commerce awards. But more importantly, I thank all of them for their contributions to the community in which they live. I and the residents of the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois are proud of them.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the 104th Congress we will, with regret but with pride in having known him, bid goodbye to a valued friend and a dedicated Member of this Chamber, the Honorable Sam Gibbons of Florida. I have had the privilege of knowing the dean of the Florida delegation for more than 25 years and during most of that time we served together on the Ways and Means Committee. There he has served with the highest distinction, particularly as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, a position which I now have the good fortune to hold, and later as chairman of this powerful committee with paramount jurisdiction over taxes, trade, welfare, Medicare, and Social Security. However, I believe it is his commitment to free and fair trade for the United States which constitutes the greatest legacy of the honorable Member from Florida. He has guided numerous trade policy milestones through the sometimes contentious legislative process, including the historic passage of the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Uruguay Round Multilateral Trade Agreements. On both a bilateral and multilateral basis, he has worked tirelessly to expand markets and improve trade relationships all over the world. This includes not only our traditional trading partners, such as Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union, but also the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and China. It seems on the face of it such an impossible task. However, although the challenges were exceedingly difficult and the interests both at home and abroad were diverse, Sam's commitment to the philosophy of open, competitive markets and uniform trading rules provided the solid foundation for success after success. These successes meant the creation of more and more jobs and a higher standard of living throughout the world. Mr. Gibbons has traveled the world and talked frankly and openly with presidents, kings, dictators, and prime ministers. He also has traveled this country and talked to big business, small business, workers, and consumers--friend and foe alike. The results are his legacy--an economy that is the envy of the world, an expanding job market, and a primary role for the United States in international trade policy. There are few instances when the welfare of the average American working family has been so directly and significantly affected by the dedicated leadership of one man. We can claim such an honor for Sam Gibbons. His trade policy leadership, along with his contributions in the area of Medicare, Social Security, and tax reform, has touched the lives of so many, many Americans. Jobs have been created and the quality of life has been lifted. He has improved the lives of the citizens of his congressional district, his State, and the Nation. In the years to come, others must provide the caliber of leadership and commitment for which Sam Gibbons has become so well known. Others will strive to achieve his high standards of integrity, dedication to family, and service to country in both peace and war. I believe Sam Gibbons has provided a blueprint for a life of public service that will both attract and challenge a new generation of congressional leaders. I look forward to my friend's continued contribution in private life; I will forever cherish his friendship; and, I join my colleagues in extending the Honorable Sam Gibbons my very best wishes for the future. God bless you, Sam.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sikh nation on the 297th anniversary of its founding, Vaisakhi Day, which occurred this past April 13. We join in celebrating the heritage of these courageous people. On this Vaisakhi Day, the Sikh nation struggles to secure the blessings of liberty which we in America and most the Western World enjoy. Sikhs have long supported the idea of freedom for all people. As a free nation, it is our duty to help them live in freedom in their own country. The Sikh nation's heritage of freedom most recently manifested itself on October 7, 1987, when the Sikh nation declared the independence of the Sikh homeland, Khalistan. Sikhs had previously ruled themselves from 1710 through 1716 and again between the years of 1765 and 1849. When Britain left the subcontinent in 1947, the Sikh nation was one of only three nations granted power. The Hindu leaders of India assured the Sikhs that they would enjoy the glow of freedom and that no law affecting their rights would pass without the consent of the Sikh nation, and on that basis the Sikh leadership joined with india. But as soon as India achieved its independence, its repression of the Sikhs began. I am proud to have been among the members of this House who have helped to publicize these cases, such as the September 6 kidnapping of Jaswant Singh Khalra. Concerned Members of this House have helped bring to light reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch/Asia, and other human rights groups which provide a mountain of evidence of India's genocide and tyranny against the Sikhs and others. We will continue to raise our voices for the freedom of the Sikhs, the Kasmiris, the Nagas, the Assamese, the Manipuris, the Dalits, and others. Freedom is the universal birthright of all mankind. On Vaisakhi Day, let us join the Sikh nation in recommitting to the cause of freedom. I believe the Sikhs should have the right to and opportunity for self-determination, and they should be allowed to decide the question of independence in a free and fair vote. To help accomplish this goal, I hope my colleagues will cosponsor H.R. 1425, which will halt all United States developmental aid to India until the President certifies that India is respecting human rights. To further explain this need, I am inserting for the record a letter from Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, president of the Council of Khalistan. In celebration of Vaisakhi Day, I hope my colleagues will read his letter and will consponsor H.R. 1425. Vaisakhi Day Message to the Sikh Nation on the Birthday of the Sikh Nation, Recommit to a Free Khalistan Dear Khalsa Ji: It is Vaisakhi Day again, the 297th anniversary of the Sikh nation. We celebrate our Sikh identify and the courage of the Sikh nation. On this occasion, we must remember our heritage: Khalsa Bagi Yan Badshah: Either the Khalsa is in rebellion or it is a ruler. We have been enslaved by the brutal genocide of the Indian tyrants for too long. It is time to renew our commitment to free the Sikh nation by starting a shantmai morcha to liberate Khalistan. Only a free Khalistan will insure that the Sikh nation can live in freedom, security, peace, and dignity. Elections are scheduled to be held on April 27th. Simranjit Singh Mann has filed to challenge S.S. Barnala in Sangrur. We are to feel deeply betrayed by the Akalis shameful eagerness to fight elections under a government that has made every effort to destroy us as a nation. The Akalis have been fighting elections since 1950. What have they achieved? Are we any closer to freedom because of their desire to cow-tow to the Indian regime? It is clear that a nation-wide shantmai morcha is the only way to liberate Khalistan. The sooner we as a nation realize this, the sooner we will enjoy the fruits of freedom so long denied us. I ask the Khalsa Panth to remember that the Sikh nation won the Jaito morcha by peaceful means. We also liberated the Gurdwaras in the 1920s by peaceful means. Likewise, it is through peaceful means and the grassroots involvement of the Sikh nation that we will achieve freedom for Khalistan. The time is now to start a shantmai morcha. We must boycott the Indian government. Protest by the hundreds of thousands. Court arrest. Fill the jails. We cannot allow the Indian regime to deny us our sovereignty. Free Khalistan today? India's tyranny continues to be exposed, hastening the inevitable breakup of India's bloody empire. The new video documentary ``Disappearances in Punjab'' shows a Punjab policewoman speaking about the brutality of the Indian regime. She says, ``I joined out of patriotic sentiments, but what I saw, atrocities--including those against women--that I cannot bear. Women suffer much. Male officers torture them. They also rape detainees. Some who had been picked up were in the interrogation center. Then I read that they had been killed in an encounter. But I had seen them in detention.'' Here is a member of the Punjab police admitting that rape and torture is common? She also reveals that victims' legs were broken as part of the Indian regime's campaign of terror against the Sikh nation. According to the documentary, the Chief Medical Officer at Patti Hospiatl in Punjab, Khalistan admits that he provided quick, fraudulent postmortum reports to police so that the authorities could cremate the bodies of their victims, destroying any evidence of state-sponsored murder. ``My example set the precedent in Punjab,'' the Chief Medical Officer says in the video. ``Five minutes a postmortem, five minutes a postmortem.'' The modus operandi of the India police is exposed? This video, produced by a Hindu human rights activist, has blown the cover off India's genocide against the Sikh nation. India has also been hit in print. On November 4, The Pioneer ran an article by Iqbal Masud called ``The Bogus Peace of Beant and Gill.'' Masud reports that ``the Beant- Gill duo committed mass incarceration and called it `normalcy.' '' He also writes about the case of Sarabjit Singh, who was brought in for an autopsy but found to be alive. The regime then killed him and brought his body back to the same hospital. ``When I read that,'' writes Masud, ``I said, Welcome to Super Nazi State.'' The U.S. Congress continues to speak out for freedom for the Sikh nation. Recently, seven more statements were inserted into the Congressional Record. Members of Congress were vocal in their support for the liberation of Khalistan and exposed India brutal history of human rights abuses against the Sikhs. Members of Congress also strongly supported two bills, H. Con. Res. 32 and H.R. 1425 which would respectively recognize the Sikhs nation's right of self-determination and cut off U.S. development aid to India until human rights are observed. These Congressional statements are covered in the April 5 issues of India Abroad, News-India Times and Navjyoti, a Hindi language Indian newspaper. Within Khalistan, human rights activist continue to raise their voice about Indian repression. A group of human rights activists have written to Indian President Sharma ``to point out that the rule of law is yet to be restored to Punjab. Examples like the disappearance of human rights activist S. Jaswant Singh Khalra are continuing. There is an urgent need to carry out a census under the supervision of UNO, on illegal killings and disappearance as these may be over a hundred thousand,'' these activists wrote. Amnesty International has also issued two recent reports on Indian repression. Amnesty points out that it is routine for people to be arrested for their political views, that preventive detention is widespread, torture ``remains endemic,'' and ``disappearances'' are rampant. These are just a few examples that show that awareness of India's repression of the Sikh nation is rising. I urge all Sikhs to renew their commitment to the liberation of Khalistan. A shantmai morcha is the only means by which we can reclaim our sovereignty. Indian's state terrorism will not deny the Sikh nation the freedom to which we are entitled. If India could not suppress our struggle for freedom by killing over 150,000 Sikhs, kidnapping and murdering more than 25,000 young Sikh men, and holding over 70,000 Sikhs in detention under the expired TADA law, then how does it think that more repression will end our movement? Let us liberate Khalistan the way that India got its own freedom. Peaceful resistance is the only way to liberate Khalistan, and an independent Khalistan is the only way that the Sikh nation can live in freedom, security, and dignity. On this Vaisakhi Day, the dawn of freedom in Khalistan is closer than ever. We look forward to celebrating Vaisakhi Day 1999, the 300th birthday of the Sikh nation, in an independent Khalistan where the glow of freedom shines brightly, bringing peace and prosperity to the Sikh nation and the South Asian subcontinent. On this Vaisakhi Day, let us recommit ourselves to this goal. Khalistan Zindabad. Panth Da Sewadar, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 3074, legislation that would provide the President proclamation authority to modify tariffs on products from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and qualifying industrial zones. I introduced this bill, together with my colleagues Mr. Shaw and Mr. Rangel, because I believe it will go a long way to improve the tense situation in the Middle East. This bipartisan bill was reported favorably out of the Ways and Means Committee by voice vote without amendment on March 14 and enjoys the full support of the administration. Specifically, the effect of the provision is to offer to goods from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and qualifying industrial zones the same tariff treatment as is offered to Israel under the United States-Israel Free-Trade Agreement. In exchange for this preferential tariff treatment, the Palestinian Authority has agreed to accord United States products duty-free access to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to prevent illegal transshipment of goods not qualifying for duty-free access, and to support all efforts to end the Arab economic boycott of Israel. I believe that granting duty-free treatment for goods produced in these zones in exchange for the commitment by the Palestinian Authority is important to the Middle East peace process. In addition, it will increase employment and will stimulate the economy of the region. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to give their full support to this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recommend to my colleagues the video ``Disappearances in Punjab,'' which was provided to my office by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, president of the Council of Khalistan. Produced by Hindu human rights activist Ram Narayan Kumar and ethnologist Lorenz Skerjanz, ``Disappearances in Punjab'' tells the story of Jaswant Singh Khalra, general secretary of the human rights wing, who has disappeared and has apparently been abducted by the Indian Government. Khalra reported the abduction, torture, and murder of as many as 25,000 young Sikh men whose bodies were then cremated and listed as unidentified. Other human rights activists have claimed that as many as 100,000 Sikhs have been designated as ``disappeared'' by the Indian regime. The Indian Government has faced many similar charges before-- including a February 25 article in the New York Times which described the Government as ``rotten, corrupt, repressive, an anti-people''--but this video provides documented evidence of the brutal violence that Sikhs must face every day. I hope my colleagues will take the time to review the video, and I am inserting a transcript for the Record. The Sikhs have struggled for independence and have been repressed by a central government. I support independence for Khalistan, and I believe that after reviewing this video, my colleagues will as well. Introduction On 31 August 1995, Punjab's Chief Minister Beant Singh was assassinated in a suicide mission of bombing carried out by a Sikh militant organization at the State government's Secretariat in Chandigarh. Beant Singh of the Congress party has taken office in early 1992 after winning the elections to the State Legislative Assembly, which the main Sikh political groups had boycotted to pursue their decade long agitation for a radical measure of autonomy for Punjab. As the Sikh electorate, constituting the majority of Punjab's population stayed away from the polling, the Congress party won the elections, without a real contest. But the government formed by the Congress party under Beant Singh's leadership projected the election results as the democratic mandate to stamp out the Sikh agitation, promising to implement the mandate by all possible means. Reports of human rights violations became widespread. The leaders of Hindu public opinion in Punjab argued that the due process of law was a luxury, which India could not afford while fighting the secessionist terrorism: [Interview with Vijay Chopra, publisher and editor of Hind Samachar group of newspapers, who brings out the three most popular language dailies in northern India.] Only the human rights groups and the individuals, with little influence on the working of the government, expressed indignation against the reports of police atrocities. [Interview with Satish Jain, Professor of Economics at Jawarharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.] Many inside observers of Indian politics, including the former President of India Zail Singh, admitted that the highhanded methods of the security forces, instigated the separatist terrorism. [Interview with Zail Singh.] historical background of the sikh separatist unrest Approximately twenty million Sikhs of India form less than 2 percent of the country's population, but constitute majority in the agriculturally prosperous Northwestern province of Punjab, which had been divided between India and Pakistan in 1947. Prosperous Jat Sikh farmers dominated the Akali Dal, the main political party of the orthodox Sikhs, that launched the agitation for the radical measure of autonomy for the State in early 1982. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a charismatic religious preacher, who had already emerged on the scene as the messiah of ``true Sikhs'', rallied the discontented sections of the Sikhs, particularly the unemployed youth, to the Akali agitation. The Union government projected the agitation as a secessionist movement, and refused to negotiate decentralization of political power. The next two years of virulent violence, which also witnessed the rise of Sikh terrorism in the real sense, came to a head in June 1984 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the military to flush out Bhindranwale and his armed followers from the Golden Temple of Amritsar in which they had taken shelter. When the operation was over, hundreds of Sikh militants, including Bhindranwale, and a larger number of Sikh pilgrims, were dead. The Akal Takht, an important shrine inside the temple complex regarded as the seat of political authority within the Sikh historical tradition, was rubble. For devout Sikhs, Bhindranwale and his followers, who had died fighting the Indian military, became the martyrs of the faith. A section of Bhindranwale's followers now began to talk of an independent Sikh state. The Parliamentary elections held at the end of 1989, returned many extremist candidates under the leadership of Simranjit Singh Mann, former police officer turned separatist politician. The results showed that the separatist cause now possessed a measure of popular support. Alienation of the Sikhs of Punjab from India's political system again became manifest when the overwhelming majority of them stayed away from the polling in early 1992, keeping with the call given by the main Akali groups to boycott the elections. The boycott helped the Congress party, under Beant Singh, to form its government in the State, and to embark on a highhanded policy to suppress the Sikh agitation without caring for the limits of the law. Many officials involved in the security operations privately admit that excesses, including custodial killings, do take place. But they argue that they have no other way to demoralize a secessionist movement, which enjoys a measure of sympathy in Punjab's countryside. evidence of state atrocities Interviews with Inderjit Singh Jaijee, Chairman, Movement Against State Repression, and Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Chairman, Shiromani Akali Dal's Human Rights Wing. [Photographic evidence of custodial torture and killings.] [Interview with Ranjan Lakhanpal, a lawyer who fights generally losing legal battles to enforce the rule of law, against the working of the Punjab police.--Lakhanpal introduces two women victims of custodial rape.] Our own investigations in the Amritsar region reveal that the dealings of the security forces with the relatives of separatist militants, themselves unconnected with crime, are not only routinely illegal but also brutal. Apparently, the idea is to set an example of harshness that would discourage the rural folk from sympathizing with the extremist cause. [Interview with Arjun Singh, grandfather of a known militant Paramjit Singh Panjwad, tortured in the police custody. Panjwad's mother was killed in custody.] Many Sikh officers of the Punjab police privately corroborate these reports of police atrocities. [Interview with one woman police officer, on the condition of anonymity: She told us about her experience of custodial torture, rape and murders at an interrogation center she was attached to.--Photographic evidence of custodial torture and murders.] Champions of human rights in Punjab are themselves vulnerable to persecution. Many have suffered long periods of illegal detention, torture in custody and even elimination. Sometimes their relatives become victims of police wrath. On 29 March 1995, lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal's ten year old son Ashish was run over by a police vehicle. The vehicle belonged to an officer whom Ranjan has accused of murdering a detainee in custody. the case of jaswant singh khalra The more recent example comes from the case of Jaswant Singh Khalra, General Secretary of the Shiromani Akali Dal's Human Rights Wing, who got picked up by uniformed commandos of Punjab police from the porch of his house in Amritsar on 6 September 1995, six days after Beant Singh's assassination. Human Rights Wing has been focussing attention on unravelling the mystery of what happens to the large number of people the security forces illegally pick-up for interrogation. Jaswant Singh Khalra was associated with the investigations that led to the discovery that Punjab police have been cremating thousands of dead Sikhs illegally, by mentioning them in the registers at the cremation grounds as ``unclaimed'' and ``unidentified.'' The investigations also established that these ``cremated'' Sikhs were largely those who had earlier been picked up for interrogation. [Interview with the attendant of the cremation ground at Patti, a subdivisional town in Amritsar district.] Equally incriminating evidence against the police comes from the hospitals where the police sent some bodies so cremated for postmorten. [Interview with the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital at Patti: This doctor told us that Sarabjit Singh was still alive when the police first brought him for the postmortem. On being discovered alive, Sarabjit Singh was taken away by the police and brought back to the hospital the second time when he was actually dead. The hospital gave the postmortem report the police wanted. The Chief Medical Officer of the hospital at Patti also offered us some astonishing information on how he helped the police to get the postmortem reports they legally needed in all circumstances before cremating the dead bodies.] Investigation carried out by the Human Rights Wing forms the basis of a petition that the Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab has filed before the Supreme Court of India. The issue of illegal cremations by the Punjab police is now being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the orders from the Supreme Court. However, the order of the probe did not come before Jaswant Singh Khalra himself ``disappeared.'' [Interview with Jaspal Singh Dhillon: ``Khalra was quite clearly told that he can also become an unidentified body. And today Khalra is not there.''] The guilty officials of Punjab police knew that, without Khalra's investigative resourcefulness in the Amritsar district, the Human Rights Wing could not have so conclusively exposed their ways of handling the Sikh unrest in Punjab. Khalra had also been providing legal counselling to victims of police atrocities, particularly the relatives of the ``diasppeared'', which encouraged them to approach the courts to redress their grievances. Khalra's whereabouts remains unknown. The chief of the Punjab police has categorically denied Khalra's abduction by the officers of his force. The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe the ``disappearance'' along with the issue of illegal cremations by the Punjab police. In ordering the probe, the court has neither extended protection to witness who might lead to evidence to establish the truth, nor has asked the CBI to associate the human rights groups, directly involved in exposing the police atrocities, with the inquiry. It is evident that the Central Bureau of Investigation, as an investigating agency under the Union Home Ministry, lacks the necessary power and independence to determine the truth of allegations of serious human rights crimes, made against India's security forces. Human right groups worldwide are seriously concerned about the disappearance of Jaswant Singh Khalra, which is seen as a warning to all those who are engaged in exposing police atrocities in the State. The Sikh groups in Punjab are agitating the Khalra's release. Many leaders of the Western countries, including the President of the United States of America, have conveyed their concern about the case to the government of India. However, the information percolating from the police sources suggests that Khalra might already have been eliminated. Despair dominates the mood of the Sikh leaders in Punjab. [Interview with Sukhjinder Singh, former Akali Minister: ``All Sikhs cannot get one constable or one police officer transferred from one place. That is the situation.''] [Interview with Jaspal Singh Dhillon: ``There is no way any Sikh today can look for justice from any organ of the Indian state.''] [Interview with Professor Satish Jain: ``There is a large section of this country which approves of State atrocities. And, I think, the weakness of the Indian nation, the weakness of the Indian society, really lies in this attitude.''] Will India society rectify this weakness? Will State atrocities in Punjab cease? These are the mute questions before the people of India, even as they prepare themselves for the next elections.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues: Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Bilirakis of Florida; Mr. Poshard, Mr. LaHood and Mr. Weller of Illinois; Mr. Latham of Iowa; Mr. Myers, Mr. Burton and Mr. Hostettler of Indiana; Mr. Tauzin of Louisiana; Mr. Barrett of Nebraska; Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota; and Mr. Chabot of Ohio, to pay tribute to CF Industries, Inc. CF Industries is an interregional fertilizer manufacturing cooperative, which this year is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary of providing service and agricultural products to the Nation's farmer cooperatives. Over 1 million farmers and ranchers in 46 States and two Canadian provinces depend on CF and its eleven regional member companies to distribute nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizers in a timely and cost effective manner. We congratulate CF on its high quality service and products over the past fifty years as well as its commitment to environmental, health, and safety practices. CF began in 1946 as a broker of fertilizers for its farmer-owners. CF then branched out into manufacturing and by 1960 came closer to its goal of being the Nation's major fertilizer supplier for the agricultural cooperative community. Today, CF manufacturing plants have the capacity to produce more than 8 million tons of fertilizer products annually. In 1995, CF sales totaled over $1.3 billion. CF manufacturing plants include nitrogen fertilizer complexes in Donaldsonville, LA and Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, as well as extensive phosphate mining and manufacturing facilities in Florida. CF's headquarters are located in Long Grove, IL. The extensive distribution system operated by CF allows products to reach their regional member cooperatives and, ultimately, their farmer- owners. CF has ownership and lease positions in 63 regional terminals and warehouses. Total storage capacity of CF's distribution terminals and warehouses is in excess of 2.4 million tons of product. We would like to close, Mr. Speaker, in expressing our best wishes to CF and its employees as they look forward to providing good quality products and services to their members for the next 50 years.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 387) returning to the Senate the bill S. 1518, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 1518, because it contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. S. 1518 would repeal an import restriction found in current law, and therefore contravenes this constitutional requirement. S. 1518 proposes to eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation Act of 1897. Under the act, it is unlawful to import to the United States tea which is substandard, and the importation of all such tea is prohibited, except as provided in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The repeal of this provision would have a direct effect on customs revenues. The proposed change in our tariff laws is a revenue-affecting infringement on the House's prerogatives, 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 July 21, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 729, prohibiting the import of specific products which contain more than specified quantities of lead. On February 25, 1992, the House returned to the Senate S. 884, requiring the President to impose sanctions, including import restrictions, against countries that fail to eliminate large-scale driftnet fishing. On October 31, 1991, House returned to the Senate S. 320, including provisions imposing, or authorizing the imposition of, a ban on imports in connection with export administration. I want to emphasize that this action does not constitute a rejection of the Senate bill on its merits. Adoption of this privileged resolution to return the bill to the Senate should in no way prejudice its consideration in a constitutionally acceptable manner. The proposed action today is procedural in nature, and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue matters. It makes it clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill, and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I compliment him on his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think there are many good provisions of H.R. 2202 dealing with illegal immigration, and adding approximately 6,000 people to monitoring our borders certainly can address that problem. But what we are proposing in the current language, unless the Chrysler amendment is adopted, to me runs contrary to all our values. Just stop and think where your ancestors came from. Why did they join the cosmic race here? It was for the same reasons that we enjoy being Americans. It is the land of opportunity and the home of the brave, and we enjoy a degree of personal liberty that is unprecedented. Looking at the historic figures, the first time we deviated from our traditional policy was with the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. We locked Chinese out for a decade. Then in 1924 we started establishing quotas and we discriminated against the Orient in that package. This kind of thing is inconsistent with our historic tradition. Our percentage of immigrants in this country today is infinitely lower than it was for the first 150 years. I urge Members to support the Chrysler amendment.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Smith for his hard work on the illegal immigration provisions in H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995. I would like to draw attention to the role played by the U.S. Customs Service on our borders in the processing and interdiction of illegal passengers, conveyances, and cargo. While H.R. 2202 calls for additional Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] inspectors and certain infrastructural improvements along borders, it should not be forgotten that primary responsibility for policing our borders falls on the Customs Service. Customs inspectors and agents protect American citizens from the entry or importation of illegal goods. In fact, the Customs Service seizes more illegal drugs than all other Federal agencies combined. A lesser known fact is that in addition to their own obligations along the southwest border, Customs has a cross-designated responsibility with the INS to identify and detain illegal immigrants. Customs holds the line on our borders, and INS plays it role, too. In considering H.R. 2202, I ask my colleagues to remember these facts. First, unlike the INS, Customs deploys its personnel along the border according to changing threats, not the absolute numbers of passengers in any given period. Customs has targeted inspections based on intelligence from its agents, some of whom operate beyond our borders to protect vital national interests. Second, decisions by the INS to build commuter lanes, open new ports, or establish additional preinspection facilities must be made in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs. Third, INS infrastructural needs at the border are much smaller than those of Customs, which must process people, vehicles, and cargo. Appropriations for the INS for changes in infrastructure or personnel at our borders must take into account any new demands placed on Customs by these changes. I am confident that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury will consult with each other to ensure the continued coordination of interdiction efforts along our borders.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, it was with regret that I cast a ``no'' vote today on final passage of H.R. 2703, the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act. In previous years as a member of the minority party in Congress, I regularly voted ``no'' on Democrat legislation which I believed to be inconsistent with my views of a limited Federal Government. I am proud to say that in the 104th Congress I have cast many more ``aye'' votes than ``no.'' However, today I must oppose H.R. 2703, as amended. While my vote puts me at odds with my party leadership, I remain obligated first to my constituents and my convictions. I know that this antiterrorism legislation was drafted with the best intentions. The domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, along with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City were reprehensible acts. I recognize too that American citizens abroad have been victims of terrorist attacks simply because of their nationality. Furthermore, the most fundamental responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense of its citizens. However, I cannot justify a needless expansion of Federal law enforcement authority for these worthy purposes. Accordingly to a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, the list of current Federal antiterrorist laws is 17 pages long. I could accept a measured modification of current law to deal with specific deficiencies, but object to this overbearing legislation because it will trample on constitutionally protected rights of Americans. Before further expanding Federal laws, I believe that Congress ought to first review the Federal Government's role in law enforcement. In particular, a comprehensive oversight of all Federal law enforcement agencies, especially the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to investigate abuses of authority is overdue. I, along with many Republican colleagues, fought against the omnibus crime bill passed and signed into law by President Clinton during the last Democrat- controlled Congress. Until we act to repeal some of these needless and dangerous laws, I cannot support further expansion of Federal authority in law enforcement. While this stance may put me at odds with some, letters and phone calls from my constituents were overwhelming in their opposition to this legislation. On behalf of them, and my convictions, I had no alternative but to oppose H.R. 2703. I can only hope that my colleagues will keep these points in mind as the bill proceeds to conference with the other body.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before we conclude this exchange on this important piece of legislation, I want to take this opportunity briefly to pay tribute to the former chairman of our Committee on Ways and Means and the man under whom I served when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade. I refer, of course, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. Mr. Speaker, I have often mentioned to folks that it was the Democratic party traditionally that embraced free trade, and it was the Republicans that tried to put the Great Wall of China around this country. In the post World War II era, our positions tended to shift somewhat, but not totally. It was, in fact, McKinley, a Republican, who imposed what at that point was the highest tariff in our history in 1890. That brought on the panic of 1893. Grover Cleveland was reelected in 1892, and he got the tariffs lowered and he restored a stable economy again. He said in a State of the Union message at that time, when you put those walls around your country, you inflict the greatest injury on that man who earns his daily bread with the sweat of his brow. That was a profound truth that he uttered. But I have mentioned to many people that the gentleman from Florida, Sam Gibbons, is our Grover Cleveland, and he has faithfully stood on behalf of those free market principles, and has tried to advance them, and we have worked amicably on a bipartisan basis on all of these issues. His announcement of his retirement I deeply regret. He will be profoundly missed. I salute you, Sam, and thank you for your guidance.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2853) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment-- most-favored-nation treatment--to the products of Bulgaria.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2853, which would extend permanent most-favored-nation [MFN] tariff treatment to the products of Bulgaria. This legislation, which was introduced by myself and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Mr. Rangel, is non-controversial and is identical to legislation that the House passed last year, H.R. 1643, by a voice vote. The House needs to take action on this important legislation again because the provisions on Bulgaria were not contained in the version of H.R. 1643 that was ultimately enacted. The reasons for the normalization of trade relations between the United States and Bulgaria through the passage of H.R. 2853 remain the same as they were at the time of the House's consideration of this issue last year. At present, Bulgaria's MFN status is regulated by title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, which is commonly referred to as the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Since 1993, Bulgaria has received MFN status after the President has found the country to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements contained in this provision of United States law. The political and economic circumstances in Bulgaria have changed considerably since the enactment of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was intended to address United States trade relations with nonmarket economies. In recent years, the Communist dictatorship in Bulgaria has collapsed and a democratically elected government has taken office which has implemented basic market-oriented principles, including privatization. Normalizing United States trade relations with Bulgaria, as has been done for other East European countries, will enhance our bilateral relations with the country. Moreover, it will foster the economic development of Eastern Europe by providing the business community with greater certainty with respect to Bulgaria's status under United States law. At present, Bulgaria is also in the final stages of its negotiations to become a member of the World Trade Organization [WTO]. In this process, Bulgaria has presented a market access offer that would further open the Bulgarian economy to United States exports. For this reason, passage of H.R. 2853 is important in order for the United States to avail itself of all WTO rights in our trade relations with Bulgaria at the time of the country's accession to the agreement. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that its baseline revenue projections assume that Bulgaria's conditional MFN status will be renewed by the President in the future. Therefore, enactment of H.R. 2853 will not affect projected Federal Government receipts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2853.

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

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the World Trade Organization [WTO] recently ruled against the United States in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA's] regulations on reformulated gasoline to achieve the standards of the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, this decision has been portrayed by some as an assault on U.S. environmental laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. To begin, it should be pointed out that the case involved an EPA regulation, not U.S. law, U.S. air quality standards, as legislated in the Clean Air Act, were not at issue. Rather, the case dealt with the different set of regulations that are imposed on imports of reformulated gasoline from those imposed on domestically refined reformulated gasoline. In the WTO, the case was filed under the national treatment clause which says that you cannot have one regulatory standard for imports and a different one for domestic products. This is a principle of trade that the United States, as the world's leading exporter, has espoused for years in our efforts to open new markets to U.S. goods and services. It works to protect the competitiveness of U.S. goods and services overseas by ensuring that our trading partners treat our exports in their markets in the same manner that they treat their own products. I urge my colleagues to carefully study this decision and, more importantly, to learn the facts before urging action which would damage U.S. credibility in the short term and our trading relationships in the long run. Indeed, the United States fought to establish the WTO dispute settlement process because of the way it will help us pry open foreign markets to our products. Under the old GATT dispute settlement procedure, the United States filed the greatest number of cases of any member country. However, because countries could block the old dispute settlement process, we sometimes could not get decisions in cases that would have helped us remove barriers to our exports overseas. The new process established in the WTO removes the possibility of such obstruction and ensures that the procedure will work on a predictable timetable and that a decision will be rendered. Based on our history of using the GATT dispute settlement process, the new procedure is likely to be used frequently by the United States in the future to help us achieve our trade liberalization goals. As chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I am proud of the great strides that the United States has made in recent years toward opening markets and removing barriers to trade around the world. As we work to ensure that our trading partners fulfill their WTO commitments, it is critical that we set an example by living up to our own. In sum, I would like to quote from an editorial from the January 21, 1996 issue of the New York Times. The editorial, entitled ``Winning, by Losing on Trade,'' concludes: The ruling helps establish the W.T.O. panels as deliberative judicial bodies willing and able to enforce rules of fair trade. That is beneficial to the United States, which brings more complaints to trade-dispute panels than any other country. Washington will win more than its cases in the years ahead. The W.T.O. has shown it can keep trading honest. That is a welcome development.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation along with my colleague from New York, Charlie Rangel, which will allow churches to carry on a minimal degree of grassroots lobbying and campaign activity without jeopardizing their tax exempt status. The proposal can best be described in two parts, with the first part focusing on the grassroots lobbying activity of churches. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code states that ``no substantial part of [church] activities [can] consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.'' While this language clearly suggests that some such activity is acceptable, churches have had a hard time determining just exactly what level will pass muster with the Internal Revenue Service. Because of the verbiage ``no substantial part,'' and varying court interpretations as to just exactly what ``substantial'' means, churches are very shy about engaging in any lobbying activity on issues at all because of the fear that they could lose their tax exempt status. In an effort to give churches a better idea of just exactly how much in the way of resources they can devote to grass roots lobbying, we have drafted a proposal which would give churches and the IRS a bright line test. Working with legislative counsel, we have crafted a proposal which allows churches to continue to maintain their tax exempt status as long as they do not make lobbying expenditures in a taxable year ``in excess of an amount equal to 20 percent of such organization's gross revenue for such year.'' This ``20 percent rule'' for lobbying activity parallels another provision in the Code for nonprofits (501(h)). The second part of the proposal addresses church involvement in actual campaign activity. The Code currently states that churches cannot engage in ``any political campaign on behalf of--or in opposition to--any candidate for public office.'' In other words, a church is prohibited from campaigning for or against a specific candidate. The current language begs some questions. Is allowing a candidate to come into a church to speak from the pulpit or allowing a meeting of a candidate's volunteers in the church basement really something we want to prohibit? Shouldn't a certain minimal degree of activity be acceptable? Without getting into a lengthy debate on the subject of separation of church and state, I do need to make some observations on that matter at this juncture. As a Ph.D. in American History, I have taken great pains to study our Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers. There is no question in my mind that the so-called wall erected to separate church and state was erected to prevent the state from interfering with the activities of the church--not to prevent the church from being involved in the activities of the state. In other words, it is my view that church involvement in the political process is not something that would have been frowned upon at all by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, I would imagine that they might be surprised if there were no such activity. Frankly, plenty of churches on both the right and left currently allow such activity, and that fact raises the question of selective enforcement by the IRS. If the IRS decides to step up enforcement in this area, are we going to see some churches lose their tax exempt status simply because of a volunteer meeting in the church basement? Will we see a situation where, depending on the political party in power at the time, harassment of churches exclusively on the right or churches exclusively on the left? If the reality is that the IRS currently looks the other way when it comes to such minimal activity, putting a bright line test in law for such minimal activity will put everyone's mind at ease and would seem reasonable. To address these concerns and questions, the second part of this bill states that it is acceptable for a church to devote up to 5 percent of the organization's gross revenues to campaign on behalf of--or in opposition to--any political campaign or candidate for public office. This would allow for the very limited and modest activities given as examples above. Finally, I would note that the legislation contains an aggregate limit which states that both the grass roots lobbying activity and the campaign activity combined cannot exceed 20 percent of gross revenues. It is my hope that this proposal will generate broad bipartisan support, and I encourage my colleagues to join us and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, the Small Business Investment and Growth Act, to provide needed tax relief for some of America's small business manufacturers. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I strenuously objected to the tax increases of 1990 and 1993, knowing of the negative economic impact these would have on American businesses and individuals. In particular, increasing the maximum individual marginal tax rate from 28 percent to 39.6 percent put a tremendous strain on small businesses organized as S corporations, because they must pay taxes at the individual rate. S corporation manufacturers, facing 36-percent and 39.6-percent tax rates at the highest levels, compete at a significant disadvantage against C corporation manufacturers, which pay a maximum 34-percent rate. I propose to end this Government-created inequity with the Small Business Investment and Growth Act. Small businesses have created the overwhelming majority of jobs in the United States. We cannot allow the intrusiveness of the Federal Government to neutralize this proven formula of prosperity and job growth. This act will establish at 34 percent the maximum tax rate for manufacturers organized as S corporations. The taxable small business income would be limited to income from the trade or business of certain eligible small businesses, specifically excluding passive income. To benefit from the maximum 34-percent rate, businesses must also reinvest their after-tax income into the business. To encourage business reinvestment, each eligible S corporation would establish a new qualified retained earnings account [QREA]. Each year, the QREA will be increased by the taxable earnings of the business. The QREA may then be decreased by either ``qualified'' or ``nonqualified'' distributions. Qualified distributions are to enable shareholders to pay the income taxes due on their pro rata share of the taxable income. Should a business choose to make nonqualified distributions from its QREA, it will incur an additional tax, designed to negate the benefit of the maximum rate of 34 percent. Again, the intent of this legislation is to reward eligible S corporations which reinvest income into the business, thereby creating more jobs. Indeed, successful small manufacturers have been able to create three to four new jobs for every additional $100,000 they retain in the business. I recognize that this legislation is a rather modest and narrowly crafted bill, and I realize that there may be other ways to accomplish the end goal of this proposal, which is to equalize the tax treatment of all manufacturers whether they organize as S corporations or C corporations. In that regard, I would welcome a debate on the best means to achieve this end. Personally, I would prefer to lower even further corporate and business taxes, but we are currently constrained by our budget rules. Furthermore, I look forward to an opportunity to completely abolish the present tax code in order to replace it with a more simple tax code that eliminates the inequities inherent in the current code. The Small Business Investment and Growth Act will, in the near term, provide much needed tax relief to spur economic and job growth, and I would strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, 43 years ago on January 26, 1953, the World Customs Organization, formally known as the Customs Cooperation Council held its first meeting in Brussels, Belgium. In recognition of this occasion, the Council observed January 26 as International Customs Day. This occasion is also being used to give recognition to Customs Services around the world in view of the role they play in producing national revenue and in protecting national borders from economically and physically harmful importations. I am particularly proud of the U.S. Customs Service for its great contributions to the Nation over the past 207 years of its existence. U.S. Customs was once the sole revenue producer for the young United States. Its role in revenue collection continues: In fiscal year 1995 Customs collected a record $23.3 billion in revenue. In addition, Customs has taken on such important responsibilities as interdicting narcotics at our borders, preventing the exportation of critical technology, and enforcing the regulations of more than 40 Government agencies. The U.S. Customs Service represents the United States at the World Customs Organization [WCO], a 137-member international organization founded to facilitate international trade and promote cooperation between governments on Customs matters. The WCO works to simplify and standardize legal instruments and rules of international customs. The WCO also renders technical assistance in areas such as Customs tariffs, valuation, nomenclature, and law enforcement. Its objective is to obtain, in the interest of international trade, the best possible degree of uniformity among the Customs systems of member nations. The United States became a member on November 5, 1970. The United States and its trading partners benefit when both exporters and importers operate in an atmosphere of simple unambiguous Customs operations around the world. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the World Customs Organization on its past accomplishments and for its ambitious goals of further harmonizing and simplifying those Customs rules which affect international commerce. I also congratulate the U.S. Customs Service for its fine work both nationally and internationally.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill that could prove vital to the health and competitive position of U.S. companies that rely on imported components and raw materials, as well as their workers and communities. Specifically, my bill gives authority to the Department of Commerce to suspend the imposition of antidumping or countervailing duties temporarily on a limited quantity of a particular product needed by the American industry when users are effectively unable to obtain that product from U.S. producers. Under current laws, antidumping and countervailing duties are imposed on all covered products, even where there is no domestic production. However, imposing such duties on products that cannot be obtained in the United States hurts U.S. manufacturers who must compete globally, but does not reduce injury to any U.S. industry. Current U.S. trade laws simply do not provide adequate redress for American firms that need products subject to orders but cannot obtain them from U.S. producers. Present procedures are operative only in situations in which domestic producers have no intention of ever producing a particular product. By contrast, my bill would address situations in which a product is only temporarily unavailable--i.e., situations in which the domestic industry is not currently producing a product but may wish to leave open the option of doing so in the future. The bill provides the Department of Commerce with the flexibility to suspend duties temporarily until the domestic industry is able to produce a particular product. The temporary relief will encourage the domestic industry to develop new products since it will enable U.S. downstream users to stay in business in the United States until the U.S. industry begins to manufacture the needed input product--thus assuring that there will be U.S. customers for new products produced by the domestic industry. This proposal is a substantial departure from the short supply proposal considered by the Ways and Means Committee last year. Last year's proposal was modeled on the short supply provision in the U.S. voluntary steel restraint agreements and limited the discretion to be exercised by Commerce. My proposal is modeled on the temporary duty suspension provision that the European Union included in its antidumping regulation last year. It increases the degree of flexibility and discretion that Commerce will have in administering a temporary duty suspension provision, thereby responding to Commerce's concern about the burden of administering such a provision. With this increased flexibility and discretion, the proposal should not impose any significant burden on the Department. My temporary duty suspension provision would not in any way undermine the effectiveness of the antidumping or countervailing duty laws or the protections that these laws afford to U.S. producers and workers. This provision would apply only in situations in which no U.S. producer benefits from the protection of antidumping laws and downstream U.S. producers and their suppliers would be harmed because the product cannot be obtained in the United States. The current failure of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws to consider domestic availability of products subject to these proceedings continues to hamper the competitiveness of numerous U.S. companies. A large and diverse group of trade associations and companies employing well over 1 million American workers supports including a temporary duty suspension provision such as this one in the trade laws because it gives Commerce the flexibility and control necessary to address changing market conditions. I look forward to moving this provision forward at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 325 for a number of reasons. But before, I elaborate on them, let me congratulate my Illinois colleague, Mr. Manzullo, on introducing this bill and for the determined efforts he has made on its behalf. Also, I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the Commerce Committee, and its Health and Environment Subcommittee in particular, for making today's consideration of H.R. 325 possible. This is a measure whose time has long since come. However well intentioned, the employee commute reduction program, better known as the ECO Program, would do more harm than good. Based on prior analysis and experience, about the best that could be expected from such an approach is a 2-3 percent reduction in auto emissions, with 1 percent being a more likely figure. Not only that, but the cost of effecting such a minimal reduction in air pollution is very high. In the Chicago area, for instance, it has been estimated that implementation of the ECO Program would cost more than $200 million annually. For all 11 severe ozone nonattainment areas nationwide, the cost of implementing ECO has been pegged at $1.2-$1.4 billion a year by the Environmental Protection Agency. If money grew on trees or materialized out of thin air, it might be possible to overlook such financial considerations. But when a severe nonattainment area such as Chicago has to reduce its ozone levels by 65 percent, it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify investing so heavily in an effort that will achieve such a small fraction of that amount. Not only that, but the imposition of such costs of employers-- an unfunded mandate if there ever was one--could prompt them to relocate to other areas of the country. In that event, some Chicago area workers could find themselves out of more than just a parking place at work; they could be out of job as well. Nor is that all that would be lost. Gone are the days when, in most American families, one parent stayed at home and was in a position to handle any child care or other emergencies that might arise during the course of the work day. Now we live in an era when working parents need to be able to get home quickly should any of their children get sick or run into trouble at school or at the neighborhood child care center. Federally mandated carpooling not only deprives them of that capability but it leaves them at risk if their job requires overtime and/or unexpected evening work. Finally, the investment of time and effort into arranging carpools or other commuting alternatives could be better directed towards pollution reduction programs having far greater potential for bringing about the desired improvements in air quality. However, all is not lost. By adopting the bill before us today, we can move away from the Federal Government telling people in certain areas how they should get to and from work and focus instead on the most effective means of reducing ozone levels and achieving compliance with existing air quality standards. As reported by the Commerce Committee, H.R. 325 would enable us to do just that. If enacted into law, this measure would allow States having severe ozone nonattainment areas to determine for themselves whether to undertake an ECO program. However, a State deciding against the ECO approach would be obliged to identify and implement alternatives that would be at least as effective in reducing emissions. In short, States will be given more freedom to carry out their air pollution control responsibilities. But that does not mean that they will have any less of an obligation to comply with the standards and deadlines established by the Clean Air Act. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 325 is a good, commonsense bill which is not just timely but long overdue. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.