Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce, together with my colleagues Mr. Gibbons and Ms. Dunn, the Shipbuilding Trade Agreement Act. This bill implements the Shipbuilding Agreement signed December 21, 1994, by key shipbuilding nations after 5 years of negotiation under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. I congratulate the administration for negotiating this historic agreement which applies to the construction and repair of self-propelled seagoing vessels of 100 gross tons and above and covers approximately 80 percent of the ships engaged in global shipping. The agreement is scheduled to enter into force 30 days after all signatories deposit instruments of ratification, acceptance, or approval. In the interim, the signatories are in the process of formal ratification. In the United States, legislation must be enacted by Congress to bring U.S. law into compliance with the agreement. I believe that it is important to implement this agreement as soon as possible because it should help achieve an international environment that gives the U.S. shipbuilding industry the best chance to compete in world markets that are not distorted through subsidization. The agreement will open up trade in shipbuilding by eliminating distortive government subsidies granted either directly to shipbuilders or indirectly through ship operators. In addition, the agreement contains an injurious pricing code to prevent dumping in the shipbuilding industry and includes a comprehensive discipline in Government financing for exports and domestic ship sales as well as a dispute settlement mechanism. I believe that the hearing held by the Trade Subcommittee in July highlighted the benefits that implementation of this agreement will bring. The bill uses the antidumping remedies of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as the model for the provisions applicable to shipbuilding, revised only where necessary to take into account differences between the agreement and the WTO and differences due to the unique nature of vessels. However, although we applied Title VII without change wherever possible, we will review the entire antidumping scheme as it applies to merchandise in general and shipbuilding in particular at some later time. The Trade Subcommittee will mark up this legislation on Wednesday, December 13. I hope that after that point, the full Committee on Ways and Means will take up the bill as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the press of other business has prevented us from considering an implementing bill sooner. However, my commitment to this legislation is solid. I am confident that our trading partners do not doubt our resolve and understand that we will do our best to consider the legislation promptly so that we may implement the agreement as soon in 1996 as possible.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues, the American people, and the international community about the recent surge of activity that has occurred in this town regarding the Sikh struggle for an independent Khalistan. On October 19, 1995, 65 Members of Congress signed a letter to Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao demanding the release of Sikh human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. Mr. Khalra was abducted by Indian police in front of his home on September 6. It appears that Mr. Khalra represents a threat to the Indian Government because he had recently published a report in which he estimated that Indian police in Punjab, working under the direction of the Indian Government, had abducted murdered, and cremated over 25,000 Sikhs. Sikhs have long accused the Indian police in Punjab of conducting their terror campaign against the Sikhs according to this modus operandi. Mr. Khlara confirmed these accusations by tallying up the so-called unidentified bodies registered in municipal cremation grounds throughout Punjab. It should be known that in Punjab, family networks are extremely tight which would leave rare occasion for someone to die and not have the body identified by the next of kin. In the Amritsar District alone, Mr. Khalra found 6,017 unidentified bodies registered in the municipal crematorium. These findings seem to support Mr. Khalra's claim that the Punjab police have been killing Sikh and cremating their remains as unidentified bodies in order to erase any evidence of police wrongdoing. Under these circumstances we can understand why Amnesty International states in its latest report, ``Determining the Fate of the `Disappeared in Punjab,'' that ``the Punjab Police have been allowed to commit human rights violations with impunity.'' As a result of the letter of the 65 Members of Congress, President Clinton wrote a letter to Congressman Gary Condit, the initiator of the letter to express that he, too, is ``concerned by reports regarding Jaswant Singh Khalra.'' The President stated that the ``U.S. Embassy in New Delhi has already made inquiries into these allegations with various Indian Government agencies, and Ambassador Wisner has raiser the issue with high-ranking officials.'' Turning up the pressure on India even further, Congressman Condit is sending a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros-Boutros Ghali, in which he asks the United Nations to ``issue a strong statement condemning the murders of over 25,000 Sikhs'' and to ``demand the release of Mr. Khalra by India immediately.'' The media has been watching the congressional activity on behalf of the Sikhs closely. The November 28 issue of the Washington Times ran an article titled, ``Clinton checks India'', reporting on President Clinton's condemnation of India's abduction of Mr. Khalra. On November 3, the Washington Times also reported on an encounter between Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan and Indian Ambassador S.S. Ray which occurred in the halls of the Longworth House Office Building. Dr. Aulakh, the article reports, ``blames Mr. Ray for widespread human rights abuses when the ambassador was Governor of Punjab in the late 1980's. During that time thousands died in violence linked to Sikh demands for a separate homeland.'' When Dr. Aulakh encountered Mr. Ray in the Longworth building, he did not hestate to speak his mind. As the article quotes Dr. Aulakh: ``I walked up to him and told him, `You are a murderer and should not be walking these halls.' '' The efforts of Dr. Aulakh and the Council of Khalistan on behalf of the Sikh nation in its struggle for freedom from India have been highly successful. According to News India-Times, ``Sikh Nation activists led by Gurmit Singh Aulakh perhaps pose the biggest challenge and threat to India's lobbying efforts in the capital.'' Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the reason for the success of the Sikh nation in the U.S. Congress is due half in part by extremely hard work on the part of the Sikhs and half in part to the fact that evidence against India is so overwhelming. Though it claims to be a democracy, India is one of the most brutal regimes in the world regarding its dealings with minority nations and people under its rule. [[Page E 2310]] Against the efforts of India's lobbying machine Dr. Aulakh, has been able to highlight this fact. India-West, November 10, has reported that there is speculation that Ambassador S.S. Ray may be recalled back to New Delhi. This is due in part to his ineffectiveness at countering issues exposed by Dr. Aulakh. Perhaps Mr. Ray is not to blame. It appears that truth is on the side of the Sikh nation and the time has come for India to cease its oppression of the Sikhs and honor their right of freedom. I submit for the Record material pertinent to the recent congressional activity in favor of the struggle for Sikh freedom. House of Representatives Washington, DC, October 19, 1955. Hon. P.V. Narashima Rao, Prime Minister of India, Chankaya Puri, New Delhi, India. Dear Prime Minister Rao: According to an Amnesty International ``Urgent Action'' bulletin issued on September 7, Punjab police abducted Sikh human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra from his home in Amritsar on September 6. His whereabouts are unknown. As the general secretary of Human Rights Wing (Shiromani Akali Dal), Mr. Khalra had published a report showing that the Punjab police have arrested more than 25,000 young Sikh men, tortured them, murdered them, then declared them ``unidentified'' and cremated their bodies. These atrocities are intolerable in any country, especially one that calls itself a democracy. After the report was published, Mr. Khalra was told by the Amritsar district police chief, ``We have made 25,000 disappear. It would be easy to make one more disappear.'' This abuse of police power is inexcusable. The right to speak out and expose atrocities is one of the most fundamental rights of free individuals. As long as Mr. Khalra remains in detention, how can anyone in India feel secure exercising his or her democratic liberties? Many of us wrote to you previously urging that the passports of Sikh leader Samranjit Singh Mann and Dalit (``black untouchable'') leader V.T. Rajshekar be restored. Your government has not acted, and Mr. Mann and Mr. Rajshekar remain unable to travel. The right to travel is fundamental to a democratic nation. Mr. Prime Minister, we call upon your government to release Mr. Khalra immediately. We also urge you to restore the passports of Mr. Rajshekar and Mr. Mann. If India is a democratic country, it must end these gross violations of human rights and democratic principles. Only then can democracy truly begin to flower. We await your response. Sincerely, Gary A. Condit, M.C.; James A. Traficant, M.C.; William Jefferson, M.C.; Peter King, M.C.; Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, M.C.; Roscoe Bartlett, M.C.; Jack Fields, M.C.; Donald M. Payne, M.C.; Dan Burton, M.C.; Phil Crane, M.C.; Richard Pombo, M.C.; Karen McCarthy, M.C.; Neil Abercrombie, M.C.; Wally Herger, M.C.; Dana Rohrabacher, M.C.; Esteban Torres, M.C.; Ronald V. Dellums, M.C.; John T. Doolittle, M.C.; Michael Forbes, M.C.; Enid G. Waldholtz, M.C.; Gil Gutknecht, M.C.; Victor Frazer, M.C.; John Porter, M.C.; Sam Gejdenson, M.C.; Bob Livingston, M.C.; Edolphus Towns, M.C.; Chris Smith, M.C.; William O. Lipinski, M.C.; Scott Klug, M.C.; Lincoln Diaz-Balart, M.C.; Dick Zimmer, M.C.; Collin Peterson, M.C.; Pete Geren, M.C.; Joe Skeen, M.C.; Duncan Hunter, M.C.; Jim Ramstad, M.C.; Floyd Flake, M.C.; Bernie Sanders, M.C.; Matt Salmon, M.C.; Richard ``Doc'' Hastings, M.C.; Ileana Ros-Lehtiner, M.C.; Phil English, M.C.; Richard Burr, M.C.; Connie Morella, M.C.; Carlos Romero-Barcelo, M.C.; Sanford D. Bishop, M.C.; Jim Moran, M.C.; Martin R. Hoke, M.C.; Jack Metcalf, M.C.; Amo Houghton, M.C.; Jerry Solomon, M.C.; Robert Torricelli, M.C.; Ed Whitfield, M.C.; Melvin L. Watt, M.C.; Jim Kolbe, M.C.; John Shadegg, M.C.; J.D. Hayworth, M.C.; James H. Quillen, M.C.; Barbara Cubin, M.C.; Charlie Norwood, M.C.; Vic Fazio, M.C.; Chris Cox, M.C.; Joe Scarborough, M.C.; Bill Richardson, M.C.; Steve Schiff, M.C.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter to Members that I received today, but it is representative of many that I have received in the past 48 hours: Dear Representative Crane: I am writing to thank you for standing up for the future of America. My wife and I have twin sons that are waiting to be born any day now. I just want you to know that because of your strong stand in this budget battle with the White House, my boys will have a bright future. They won't have to worry about using their most productive days to pay off the nation's debt. Instead, they can use their talents and abilities to build a stronger country. In the coming days the temptation to compromise will be great, but please don't give in. Know that what you are doing is right. Regardless of the media hype and the opinion polls, the truth that you stand for will be vindicated. Neither my boys nor the rest of their generation will ever get a chance to thank you, but they will surely owe you a debt of gratitude. Someday they will read in their history texts about the Second American Revolution, the Congress of 1995 and I will be proud to say that my Congressman, Phil Crane played a key role in it. Thank you for being our congressman and having the courage of your convictions. Our thoughts and prayers are with you during these trying times. Sincerely, Chris and Danna Herden. Mundelein, IL. Mr. Speaker, because of debate time constraints, I wish to extend my remarks in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act. Unlike many of our friends on the other side of the aisle and the current occupant of the White House, both of whom have shifted the blame and offered excuses for not balancing the budget, we Republicans today are implementing legislation which will eliminate the Nation's budget deficit in 7 years. Over the last couple of years the President has announced publicly that he supports a balanced budget in 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years. Not only does the President continually change his mind on the number of years we should take to balance the budget, but he has not yet agreed to any plan which actually balances the budget in any length of time. In contrast, Republicans have been willing to make the tough choices, knowing that some sacrifices must be made to get our Nation's finances in order. Before today, Congress quite literally has been mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren, and this insane practice must stop. I recognize that the bill now before the House is not perfect. Like any piece of legislation crafted by a committee of men and women and containing hundreds of provisions, any one of us would construct this bill differently to suit the needs of our own constituents. For example, while some have objected to the tax cuts in the bill, I believe that we owe Americans a reprieve from the tax increase President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress imposed on the American people in 1993. In fact, the tax relief portions of this bill come $100 billion short of repealing that largest of tax increases in history. Over the 7 years of this budget, the $245 billion in tax relief amounts to only $35 billion per annum. As vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I can unequivocally state that our $5 trillion debt came as a result of Congress spending too much money, not because Americans have been taxed too little. While it is not as much as I would like, H.R. 2491 does in fact provide significant assistance for Americans most in need of tax relief. The bulk of the tax cuts, 61 percent to be precise, will go to Americans earning between $30,000 and $75,000. I feel particularly proud that H.R. 6, the American Dream Restoration Act, which I sponsored, is part of the tax relief portion of this reconciliation bill. This legislation will provide working parents with a $125 per child credit for parents this year and a $500 credit for each of their children beginning in the 1996 tax year. Furthermore, the bill offers some mitigation of the marriage tax penalty. In addition, the bill offers the opportunity for Americans to establish American Dream Savings IRA-type accounts to save for their retirement, purchase a first home, pay for health expenses, provide for periods of unemployment, or pay for education expenses. H.R. 2491 also offers other significant and important tax cuts. Too often, politicians think tax dollars belong to Congress, not to the American people. This bill allows Americans to keep more of their own money to spend or save as they wish. For example, under this bill capital gains taxes on individuals will be cut in half. This will free up capital for entrepreneurs to create small businesses and more jobs, thus creating more taxpayers, which means more dollars for the U.S. Treasury. However, I would like to add that my principal concern is job creation, not ensuring more money for the Treasury. On balance, H.R. 2491 is a well-crafted, long overdue piece of legislation. The bill recognizes the necessity for balancing the budget, and it does so by placing the onus on Congress to prioritize and reduce Federal spending, rather than by increasing the burden on overtaxed working Americans. Many of our Democrat colleagues have alleged that we are delivering draconian budget cuts which will impoverish millions of Americans. Only in Washington can spending increases be labeled as cuts--Federal spending under this plan will actually increase by 27 percent over the next 7 years. This budget act will, however, begin making necessary cuts in unnecessary Federal spending. Balancing the Federal budget offers significant economic benefits for all Americans in the form of lower interest rates. According to a study by the National Association of Realtors, the average 30-year, $50,000 home mortgage financed at 8.23 percent will drop by 2.7 percentage points, saving homeowners $1,081 annually and $32,430 over the life of the loan. Lower interest rates will also make car loans more affordable and will lower the cost of student loans. For all of these reasons, I believe it is incumbent on me and all of my colleagues to pass H.R. 2491. We must keep the promise to our children and grandchildren to stop billing them for our extravagant spending. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Balanced Budget Act conference report.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of the Republic of China on Taiwan's recent National Day, I wish to draw my colleagues' attention to a fine book authored by Taiwan's Foreign Minister, Fredrick Chien, and most recently published by the Arizona Historical Society, Arizona State University. Entitled ``Opportunity and Challenge,'' this publication of speeches, statements, and interviews by and about Dr. Fredrick Chien is a chronicle of Republic of China's diplomatic travails and successes from 1989 through 1994. During this period, Fredrick Chien confronted challenges and opportunities nearly every day. Shortly after assuming office as Foreign Minister in the summer of 1990, Chien saw Saudi Arabia break off relations with Taiwan and later, South Korea also broke off its relations with Taiwan. Never despairing, Chien adopted a pragmatic approach to foreign relations, helping his country establish ties with new countries or re-establish ties with old friends. Since 1990, the Republic of China has seen its diplomatic fortunes improve, increasing its number of offices abroad and its participation in international organizations. Taipei's campaigns to win international friends are chronicled in the speeches, interviews given or essays written by Fredrick Chien from 1989 through 1994. Among the many chapters, Chien's ``A View from Taipei,'' first published in the 1991-92 winter issue of Foreign Affairs, is particularly noteworthy. In this article, Chien articulates Republic of China's pragmatic diplomacy which has allowed the Republic of China entry in several important organizations such as the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperations and membership in nearly 800 international organizations. Republic of China's growing international importance is a fact of global life, and exclusion of the Republic of China from official world forums is contrary to contemporary realities, Chien asserts. What makes this publication different from other similar collections of political speeches and statements is the inclusion of a large number of articles originally written in Chinese and published in Chinese magazines and journals. Here these articles have been expertly translated. Some of these articles discuss Republic of China's pragmatic diplomacy, some focus on Taipei's international aspirations, including Taipei's campign to return to the United Nations, while others offer insights into Taipei's views on its eventual reunification with mainland China. They shed a great deal of insight into Fredrick Chien, the man, versus Fredrick Chien, the policy maker and diplomat. One particularly noteworthy chapter contains interviews with Fredrick Chien's friends and colleagues. The interviewees provide interesting tidbits about Fredrick, the prodigy diplomat. While Chien's casual acquaintances may consider Chien too serious about his work, most people concur that Chien is a diplomat's diplomat who is always giving his utmost to his country. In fact, Chien's own autobiographical piece, ``In the Universe There Is Absolutely No Easy Situation,'' summarizes Chien's own credo of life: I am a public servant and I try my best in everything I do. If one day I discover that I can't contribute any more to my country I will consider giving my post to someone else. Otherwise, I will steadfastly keep to my post, any time and any where. ``Opportunity and Challenge'' is a major publication. The materials by and about Foreign Minister Chien have a significance for practicing government officials and historians and other serious students of diplomacy everywhere. I recommend Dr. Chien's book to anyone seeking informed insights into the past, present, and future of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Congratulations to Dr. Chien personally and to the Republic of China on its 1995 National Day.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for everybody to understand something, and it goes back to Government 101. It is basics. This body originates policy. Congress exclusively has the responsibility to make policy. The function at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is to administer our policies, and the fact is further, if we go back to the election in 1992, this gentleman got elected at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue with only 29 percent of the electorate. A majority of the American people in the most recent election said this is what we want, and we will provide it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I came to this body in 1969, and I reflected back when we got into this debate about counsel my father gave us as children. He passed away this summer at the age of 94, mercifully in his sleep without pain and suffering. He told us as kids, he said, ``Boys, you have two obligations in life: One is to be givers and not takers; and, two, leave it better than you found it.'' I wrote him a letter after we got into this process of trying to turn this country around before he died, and I said, ``Pop, you know, I was always able to be a giver, because I controlled that.'' But when I came here in 1969, our national debt was in the neighborhood of $385 billion. I knew that we were facing the prospect of a $5 trillion national debt this year. And I reflected back that in 1969 we had a budget surplus, a modest $3 billion, but, still, it was a surplus, and I thought we were going to engage in elimination of debt at that time. And I steadily watched this situation deteriorate. Now, does this move fast enough in guaranteeing that we get our books in balance for our children and our grandchildren? No, not in my estimation. Does this provide us the kind of tax relief that is necessary to again revitalize our economy? No, not in my estimation. But it is a move in the right direction. I think all of us have to share a responsibility, having participated in this process for all of these years, in creating a kind of a climate that, if it is not addressed in 7 years, is hardly salvaging anything, in 7 years to get us back on track. This country still represents the world's last, best hope, and it is not just for our children and our grandchildren. We are talking posterity. And each one of us, when we raise our hand and are sworn in in this body, has the obligation to engage in that commitment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues, back off, take another look at this, because this is in the national interest. This is in the interest of mankind. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget reconciliation bill. While I have made separate remarks on other provisions in this package, as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I would like to point out some of the benefits of the trade provisions included in this bill. While these provisions have not been at the center of the debate on the reconciliation bill, they nonetheless provide important tools for U.S. business and industry in the global marketplace. Included within the budget reconciliation package are a number of technical corrections to certain trade legislation and other miscellaneous trade provisions. Passage of these provisions will streamline implementation of the Customs Modernization Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the North American Free Trade Act. The administration and the business community have reviewed each of these provisions and concluded that they are noncontroversial. The bill also includes an extension of the generalized system of preferences program [GSP] which expired on July 31, 1995. For over 20 years, the President has been authorized to grant tariff preferences to developing countries under GSP. Congress extended the program on a short-term basis in the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, and then again in the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements Act in 1994. I support extension of GSP because it is a useful program for promoting increased trade with lesser developed countries. USTR can use GSP benefits effectively as a trade policy tool to achieve more open markets for U.S. exports. Testimony received by the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means confirms that many U.S. businesses depend on duty-free treatment under GSP to help reduce costs. H.R. 2491 extends authority for GSP for 2.5 years, to terminate on December 31, 1997. So that there will be no gap in duty-free treatment provided under the GSP Program, the bill would provide for refunds of any duty paid, upon request, between July 31, 1995, and the date of enactment. The recommendations lower the per capita GNP limit from $11,800 to $8,600, a number which would be indexed. When countries reach this limit, which is considered high income under the bill, the President is required to terminate the country's eligibility for GSP benefits. H.R. 2491 would lower the competitive need limit in current law from $114 million in 1994 to $75 million in 1995 and increase it by $5 million each year after 1995. The bill would authorize the President to designate additional articles from the least developed beneficiary countries as eligible for GSP. This new authority does not apply to statutorily exempt articles such as textiles and footwear. Finally, the bill updates various provisions in order to simplify administration of the GSP Program. Also, I would like to address the issue of trade adjustment assistance. The Committee on Ways and Means carefully examined not only trade adjustment assistance for workers and firms, but also adjustment assistance programs tailored to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The committee's recommendations harmonize general trade adjustment assistance programs for workers with the NAFTA Workers Security Act programs. I firmly believe that protectionism destroys jobs, while free trade creates jobs by increasing our competitiveness in the global marketplace. Nevertheless, we have extended both general and NAFTA- related trade adjustment assistance to reassure those workers uncertain about free trade. NAFTA-related trade adjustment assistance for workers will be extended through September 30, 1998. General trade adjustment assistance will be extended through September 30, 2000. Our recommendations require workers to enter approved training programs to receive further cash benefits. The Secretary of Labor will be permitted to issue waivers of the training requirement only if training is not available. Our recommendations also terminate relocations allowances under both general TAA and NAFTA-related TAA. This will end a two- tiered system of haves and have-nots in which workers unemployed due to foreign competition are relocated at the expense of the Federal Government while those unemployed due to domestic competition are not eligible for such assistance. The provisions included in the reconciliation bill reauthorize general trade adjustment assistance programs for firms through September, 2000, at which time these programs will terminate. The budget reconciliation bill also dismantles and reorganizes the Commerce Department as part of the congressional effort to streamline Government, increase its efficiency, and save taxpayer dollars. The legislation retains a number of trade- related functions that are aimed toward achieving gains for U.S. companies and places them within the U.S. Trade Representative. I strongly believe that we should preserve powerful tools in this way to negotiate initiatives that open foreign markets, encourage growth in U.S. exports, and fight foreign unfair trade practices. This effort will remove a Cabinet seat and streamline our Government, while at the same time preserving the functions that keep our U.S. companies competitive. I would like to add a word here about consideration of H.R. 2371, the Trade Agreement Authority Act, which is not included in the reconciliation bill. This legislation would renew trade agreements negotiating and implementing authority for the administration--to so- called fast track authority. We tried very hard to come to an understanding with the administration concerning the content and form of this special procedure. However, the administration would not agree to our language and seems to be prepared to do without this authority. I believe that fast track is extremely important if we are to continue to implement trade agreements that strengthen our economy, create good jobs, and reduce the deficit--including an agreement with Chile. However, the administration must recognize that fast track is a derogation of the rules of the Congress. As such, congressional concerns over the use of fast track for issues that are not directly related to trade must be taken into account if these special procedures are to be used by the administration in the future.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a certain document to the attention of the House. The document is entitled ``A New Declaration of Independence'' and was authored by Bill Zimmermannn, a long-time constituent and friend. I think a careful reading of this work would serve all the members of this body quite well. The document follows: Rally for Freedom--A New Declaration of Independence When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political bonds which have unnecessarily restricted them, and to assume the Freedom and Individual Responsibility which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God placed on them in the first instance, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel this action. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are entitled to equal opportunity, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Property. To secure these rights, our Government was instituted by Free Men, deriving its power from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of the rights of Free People, it is the right of the People to alter it as seems most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Government long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right them by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of socialistic abuses, invariably pursuing the same objective, threatens to reduce them under a tyranny, it is their right, it is their duty to change their government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient suffering of our citizens; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their system of Government. They, the Federal Government, have usurped authority never assigned to them by our Constitution, on the basis of which they have passed laws which are destroying our Society, our Economy, and our future as Free Individuals. They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. They have spent the fruits of our labors without thought of the future. They have imposed harsh and unusual taxes, even with representation. We, therefore, the sovereign citizens of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of Future Generations of Sovereign Citizens of America, solemnly publish and declare, that We Command that, during the next seven years, Congress shall pass no New Law, but shall confine its activities to such as will enable it only to Review, Revise, and Repeal such old laws as have oppressed and confounded our citizens, and reduced their Freedom, their Initiative, and their area of Responsibility, to the detriment of our nation. We further Command that the Supreme Court and all other Federal Courts base their decisions on strict interpretation of our Constitution, and considering that the words ``general Welfare'' refer only to the nation as a whole and not to the welfare of citizens as individuals or as groups smaller than the whole. Having decided questions of Justice under the law, it should not be necessary for the courts to assume a continuing burden of administration and enforcement of those decisions. For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, there was an interesting cartoon in yesterday's newspaper that perhaps not everybody in our listening or viewing audience saw. It had this patient lying in bed in a hospital on a life support system, and at the foot of the bed he was identified as Medicare, and there were two Republican elephants there that were dressed in doctor's attire and they said, ``He needs immediate surgery to survive,'' and the nurse was behind the two elephants and she was standing in front of the Jackass and a man who occupies the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and said ``No, no, the family insists, no surgery. They believe in faith healing.'' I think it pretty well describes so much of the rhetoric that has been going on here in this debate. We got from the administration's trustees the death sentence. They handed down the death sentence on the fate of Medicare. It required some kind of immediate attention. Now, to be sure, we could have enacted blood transfusions out of my children and my grandchildren by tripling their taxes as a way of addressing this problem. But there are more efficient ways and ways that employ certain options that have been prevalent in the private sector all along, and that is guaranteeing people more choice and more control over their own medical coverage. The fact of the matter is I am confident that the Republican approach can address this problem and simultaneously hold those escalating costs on an annual basis to just a little more than 2 percent than the escalating costs in the private sector. That is not too much to expect. The fact of the matter is this is long overdue legislation. It is a shame we waited until the 11th hour to finally take a look at it, but I support H.R. 2425. I urge all of you too.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, lately there has been a great deal of rhetoric about train wrecks and other analogies to cataclysmic events to describe the impending doom to the Nation's financial markets should the Government shut down if Congress and President Clinton disagree on a Federal budget. I believe that most of the gloom and doom forecasts come from bureaucrats and Democrats who generally overstate the importance of Washington to the rest of the Nation. As far as I am concerned, the shutdown of non-essential Federal agencies would constitute the fulfillment of my mission as a Member of Congress. However, in the past, the Government has, in fact, shut down temporarily as Congress and the President fought over the details of the funding for the Federal agencies. I suspect that, outside the Capital Beltway, no one noticed when it was shut down. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Jim Miller, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget, also argues that no one, even those on Wall Street, will notice if the Federal Government temporarily shuts down during budget negotiations. As we in Congress continue to convince President Clinton of the necessity to balance the Federal budget, I commend Mr. Miller's article, ``Government Shutdown? `See If Anybody Notices' '' to my colleagues for reassurance. [From the Wall Street Journal] Government Shutdown? `See if Anybody Notices' (By James C. Miller III) Washington is reaching the end game on the budget. The White House wants Congress to compromise on--read, back off-- a budget that simultaneously cuts taxes by $245 billion, pays dollar for dollar for those tax cuts with spending cuts, and balances the books by the year 2002. In a fit of rhetorical overkill, the Clinton administration has warned of a ``train wreck'' that will shut the government down and shake the financial markets if no agreement is reached by Nov. 15. In fact, the so-called train wreck would be more of a fender bender. The law is quite clear: There would be no shutdown--only ``non-essential services'' would be curtailed. The armed forces would stand ready as ever; social security checks would be mailed on time (and the post office would deliver them along with all other mail); air traffic controllers and meat inspectors would stay on the job. The fact is, the government has [[Page E 1974]] ``shut down'' four times in the last 15 years without anyone much noticing. After one such shutdown in 1990, the General Accounting Office asked various government agencies what their number one concern regarding a shut down was, most answered ``reduced morale.'' The IRS mentioned that it was worried about a ``loss of public confidence in the agency''! As for payments to U.S. debt holders, a potential default will be no more than a bump along the road to a balanced budget. In 1987 and 1990, the government hit against the debt ceiling, and we heard the same apocalyptic rhetoric we hear today. In 1985, as Congress and the Reagan administration were busy erecting the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings guillotine, the debt ceiling was reached, and default loomed. Relying on a number of technical fixes, the Treasury Department was able to forestall actual default, but the uncertainty lasted more than a month. Did the market implode? Far from it: Stocks actually staged a rally--taking the S&P index to its then- all-time high. There's a lesson in that earlier experience that holds true today: The value of the debt investors buy depends on the dynamism of the U.S. economy--not the fate of the U.S. government. As always, in its preference for fear over fact, the Clinton administration is playing fast and loose with the numbers. Take the allegedly increased cost of interest rates if the government does hit the debt ceiling. According to President Clinton's chief economic adviser, Joseph Stiglitz, a rise of one hundredth of one percent--a single basis point--would cost $3.5 billion over seven years. Three things are wrong with that number. First, it ignores the fact that over $1 trillion of government debt is ``owned'' by another government agency or entity--money, in effect, that Uncle Sam's right pocket owes his left. Second, Mr. Stiglitz apparently assumes the impossible--namely, that all government debt would re-price immediately--and, third, that it would then carry the new and higher rate for the next seven years. That kind of statistical sleight-of-hand may pass for analysis in the White House, but not on Wall Street. How can I be sure? I was serving as director of Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan when one of these noncrises happened in 1986. At that time, of course, the roles were reversed. A Democratic Congress was trying to force increased spending and higher taxes on a reluctant Republican president. The Democrats thought Mr. Reagan would ``blink first,'' approve their extravagant spending bills, and be forced to raise taxes to pay for their largess. Unable to convince them that wasn't going to happen, I found myself in the Oval Office apologizing to the president and saying that I feared the government would be forced to close down. ``Jim, Jim,'' he said, with that famous smile and a twinkle in his eye, ``just settle down. Let's close the place down and see if anybody notices.'' Then he went on the radio and said the same thing: If Congress doesn't act responsibly, ``I won't have any choice but to shut it down. If they want to put a real budget together by candlelight, it's OK by me.'' In the end, Congress agreed to take the most offensive measures out of their appropriations bills, and the government engines started back up after a brief pause. The moral of the story: No one did notice. Perhaps President Clinton is heartened by Mr. Reagan's example, but there is a profound difference in their positions: President Reagan stood with the American people in their desire to cut wasteful government spending. President Clinton stands against their wishes and for a continuation of the spending status quo. Congress has the moral high road here, and they shouldn't be afraid of sticking to it. Theoretically, the president could engage in a reckless ``firemen first'' shutdown strategy. After all, the president has full power to define which services are essential and which are not. If he chose, he could define air traffic controllers as ``non-essential'' and hope the American people blame Congress for the closure of the nation's airports. Or, when the debt ceiling is reached Nov. 15, he could stop sending out Social Security checks to senior citizens, at least temporarily. But the public will know that none of these actions is necessary. The law is clear: After debt holders, Social Security and other entitlements get first priority, and there is no good reason why those payments should ever be disrupted. If the president chooses to play politics with entitlements, he and only he will be responsible. If there is a ``train wreck,'' he will be the engineer failing to put the brakes on a runaway spending locomotive. And like one of President Clinton's favorite musicians, the late Jerry Garcia, used to sing, ``Casey Jones, you better watch your speed.''

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a situation in India which is very troubling. This situation involves the treatment of the Sikh people living in India. Since 1984 over 120,000 Sikhs have been killed, and other ethnic groups have had thousands of their members killed as well. The recent abduction of Human Rights Wing leader Jaswant Singh Khalra is but the least incident of repression focused on the Sikh people. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation declared its independence, forming the separate, independent country of Khalistan. At that time, Sikh severed all political connection with India, as we did with Britain in 1776. Sikhs were supposed to receive their own state in 1947, but were deceived by Indian promises of freedom. They ruled Punjab during the 18th and 19th centuries. They have their own language, religion, and culture. Clearly, the Sikh claim to independence is a legitimate one. I am introducing into the Congressional Record a speech given on August 15, 1995 by Dr. Gurmit Sikh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, the Khalistani Government in exile, at a conference on self- determination held at the Luther Institute. It lays out the case for Khalistan. I urge my colleagues to read it carefully and consider his claims for Sikh independence. I certainly support the Sikhs' claim for independence and a separate nation of Khalistan. The speech follows: Ladies and gentlemen--I am very happy to be here today and to be given the opportunity to speak to you today on the topic of self-determination. Ironically, today is India's Independence Day. And since India continues to suppress Sikh independence while celebrating its own, I led a demonstration of Sikhs in front of the India ambassador's residence today to express our disapproval. So, forgive me if my voice is not 100 percent. For the past decade I've been intimately involved with the issue of self-determination. As President of the Council of Khalistan, I have been charged with working in the international community to secure the independence of the Sikh nation from the brutal oppression of the government of India. In the minds of many Westerners, India is a land of peace and spiritual tranquility--the land where problems are solved not through violence but through civil disobedience. The experience of the Sikhs--to say nothing of the Muslims of Kashmir, the Christians of Nagaland, the Assamese, Manipuris and the Dalits--has been quite the opposite. Let me provide you with a few figures. Since 1984, the Indian regime has murdered more than 120,000 Sikhs. Since 1947 India has killed over 150,000 Christians in Nagaland. The Muslims of Kashmir claim a death toll of 43,000 at the hands of Indian forces. Tens of thousands of Assamese and Manipuris have also been killed. The Dalits--the so-called ``black untouchables'' of India--are perhaps the most oppressed people on the face of the earth. Just last week newspapers and wire services carried the story of a five- year-old Dalit girl who was beaten and blinded by her teacher after she drank from a pitcher reserved for the upper castes. Press reports state that 70,000 Sikhs are being held in detention by the Indian regime at the present time. The State Department reported that between 1991 and 1993, the regime paid more than 41,000 cash bounties to policemen for the murder of Sikhs. Human Rights Watch issued a report in 1994 which quoted a Punjab police officer as saying that ``4,000 to 5,000'' Sikhs were tortured at his police station during his five-year tenure. There are over 200 such police stations/torture centers in Punjab. Indeed, the Sikh homeland can rightfully claim the title of the torture capital of the world. Why is there such oppression against the Sikhs and other minority nations in India? The answer brings us back to the issue before us today: self-determination. All the nations and peoples suppressed by the Indian regime have in one way or another attempted to exert their independence either politically or culturally. In the case of the Sikhs, we have demanded outright sovereignty and separation from India, having declared our independence on October 7, 1987, forming the separate country of Khalistan. The International community upholds the right of self- determination for all nations. Here in America, the political system is predicated on the principle that when any government no longer protects the life, liberty and security of the people it rules, it is the people's right to rid themselves of that government. The principle that the consent of the governed underlies all legitimate government is fundamental to the American idea. These two principles are being exported around the world. But in too many places today, these principles are being widely violated. One such country is India. The government of India has attempted to rob the Sikhs of our nationhood at every turn. It should be known that the Sikh nation ruled all of Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and again from 1765 to 1849. Our reign extended well into present-day Pakistan and Kashmir, stopping at the Khyber Pass. In the mid-19th century, British power and influence expanded on the subcontinent, but the Sikhs were the last nation to fall. We were also the first to raise the cry for independence. During the struggle to oust Britain from the subcontinent, 85 percent of those hanged by the British were Sikhs; 80 percent of those exiled were Sikhs; and 75 percent of those jailed were Sikhs. And at that time, the Sikhs constituted less than 2 percent of the population of the subcontinent. The Sikh nation's contributions to the freedom of the subcontinent cannot be underestimated. When the British first arrived on the subcontinent, they dealt with the Sikhs as a separate nation, fighting a series of three wars with the Sikhs. When the British left the subcontinent, they again dealt with the Sikhs as a separate, distinct, sovereign nation. Thus during its withdrawal, the British transferred power to three nation-groups, the Muslims, the Hindus and the Sikhs. The Muslims took Pakistan on the basis of religion. The Hindus took India, and the Sikhs took their own homeland, opting to join with the Hindus on the solemn assurances of Indian leaders like Jawarhar Lal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi that no laws unacceptable to the Sikhs would be passed by the Indian Congress. I quote Nehru who said to the Sikhs: ``The Congress assures the Sikhs that no solution in any future constitution [of India] will be acceptable to the Congress which does not give the Sikhs full satisfaction. I also quote Mahatma Gandhi who told the Sikhs the following: ``Take my word that if ever the Congress or I betray you, you will be justified to draw the sword as taught by Guru Gobind [Singh].'' Implicit in these assurances is the recognition of that the Sikhs as a nation possess the right of self determination. Indeed, Nehru and Gandhi were not ordering the Sikhs to join their grand vision of an India encompassing the entire subcontinent. In fact they possessed no such power over the sovereign Sikh nation. Rather they were attempting to woo the Sikhs as a nation to join their union, something at which they failed with the Muslims. In retrospect, the Sikhs made the wrong decision; but having made that decision, we never forfeited our right to self determination. Indeed, Sikh history under Indian rule is a history of constant agitation for our most basic rights as a nation, and India has betrayed its promises to the Sikhs at every turn. In 1950, when India ratified its constitution, the Sikh representatives at the Constituent Assembly refused to sign the constitution because it was inimical to Sikh interests, contrary to what both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawarhar Lal Nehru promised. Since then Sikhs have been struggling to reclaim their nationhood In June 1984, India's attempt to suppress the Sikh nation reached a climax. The Indian army launched a military assault on the Golden Temple, the holiest of Sikh shrines. Over 20,000 Sikhs were killed. The Akal Takht, which houses the original writings of the Sikh gurus was destroyed. Thirty eight other Sikh temples throughout the Sikh homeland were also attacked. Make no mistake about it, the reason India likes to attack important temples is because it symbolically reinforces the government's total domination over a given people. To put it another way, India wanted to show the Sikhs who was the boss. This is India's way--complete denial of self determination, even if it means military action. The Sikhs, therefore, appeal to the international community to support their right to freedom as a sovereign nation. Despite its constitution, India has proven itself anti-democratic. Despite its image as the home of spiritual tranquility, India has proven itself one of the worst violators of human rights in the world. The time has come for the world to demand that India honor the freedom of the Sikh nation and other nations that struggle against its repressive policies. On February 22, 1995 the U.S. Congress took a step in this direction when 30 Members of the House introduced House Congressional Resolution 32, which expresses the Congress's opinion that ``the Sikh nation should be allowed to exercise the right of self-determination in their homeland, Punjab Khalistan.'' I encourage similar action throughout the international community. A cursory look will tell the casual observer that India is not one nation. Rather it is a conglomeration of many nations thrown together for administrative purposes by the British. With 18 official languages, India is doomed to disintegrate just as the former Soviet Union did. Freedom for Khalistan and all the nations living under Indian occupation is inevitable. The Sikh Nation's demand for an independent Khalistan is irrevocable, irreversible, and nonnegotiable. We have been denied our right of self-determination too long. India's lip service to the principle holds no water. The time is now for the international community to pressure India with economic sanctions to honor the freedom of Khalistan. The time is now for the Indian government to sit down with the Sikh leadership and formally recognize the clear boundaries which separate Khalistan from India. Sikhs have motto that says, ``Khalsa Bagi Yan Badshah: Either the Sikhs rule themselves or they are in rebellion.'' The Sikh nation will not rest until freedom is ours. It is our tradition. We are secure in our right to self-determination, and we will allow no foreign power to determine our fate, Thank you.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to an extremely sensitive situation in India. In a time when civil rights abuses around the world are being condemned, the treatment of the Sikhs by the Indian Government should not go unnoticed. This shameful treatment has included documented cases of rapes of young women, the beating of old men, and the murder of young boys. Innocent Sikh people have also been subjected to imprisonment without trial, and this practice has been occurring for more than a decade. The Sikhs are being persecuted in their own homeland. They live in fear everyday, and the freedoms we take for granted simply do not exist in this part of India. Those Sikhs that have the coverage to speak out against these abuses are often arrested and held for no reason. The imprisonment of innocent Sikhs is made worse by the unfair treatment they receive once in prison. This despicable treatment all too often leads to the murder of innocent prisoners. Many times these deaths go unreported by police, and the bodies are cremated and, therefore, go unclaimed. I believe this situation deserves and demands the attention of this body. Just as we have supported democratic reforms and the right to self-determination in Eastern Europe, I believe we should support independent and self-determination for Khalistan. The behavior of the Indian Government should not be tolerated, and their treatment of the Sikh people should be condemned. Parliamentary Debates punjab (treatment of sikhs) Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington): I wish to bring to the attention of the House the continuing persecution of the Sikhs living in their homeland, the Punjab--an issue that I have brought before the House on three previous occasions in the 12 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I noticed that nearly 30 hon. and right hon. Members were in the Chamber to listen to a debate about Bosnia, about which British people are not really interested because it is not of direct concern. We now have a debate--at least, a statement--about the position in a Commonwealth country, and the 30 people who were in the Chamber at 10 o'clock have almost all left. I find that surprising and disappointing. Sikhs in my constituency and throughout the world are worried for relatives and friends who continue to live in that part of India. The rape of young women, the beating of old men and the murder of young boys, together with the imprisonment without trial of thousands of innocent people, have been taking place for more than a decade and continue to this day. Living in fear in part of everyday existence in the Punjab. The freedom that we take for granted in Britain does not exist in that part of India. Recent evidence obtained from police files shows that bodies of police suspects murdered in police custody have been cremated as ``unclaimed'' and that that practice has continued since 1984. The documents that I have with me were given by or bought from police authorities in the Punjab. They list names of people relating to the bodies that have been cremated; yet the Indian authorities denied the existence of such records. The Indian Express carried a front-page story in its edition of 3 February 1995, in which it said that during the three years 1991-93, the Punjab police dumped about 426 bodies for cremation as ``unclaimed'' on the Patti Municipal Committee. In many cases, the relatives had not been informed even though the bodies had been identified. In the same region last year, another 17 ``unclaimed'' bodies were sent by the police for cremation. Why cremation? Because burnt bodies cannot be examined later for evidence of torture or other abuse. Police sources have disclosed that, although some of those so-called ``missing persons'' may have died as a result of torture while in police custody, others may have been eliminated because they had some evidence of police brutality--in other words, they had witnessed what was going on and they had to be put away together with those who were murdered as suspects. A local human rights group brought that position to the attention of the Indian high court, but its action was dismissed on the grounds that only relatives of murdered individuals could be party to any litigation. [[Page E 1544]] That approach is a bit like telling the relatives of Kuwaits who disappeared during the occupation of Kuwait to apply to the Iraqi high court in Baghdad for an inquiry to be held into their disappearance. Investigation into allegations of police torture are rare and, even when such allocations have been established, prosecutions have not taken place. According to recent reports by Amnesty International, there is no evidence of a police officer having been convicted of human rights violations in the Punjab. That says it all about the so- called free and democratic nature of that place and the police reaction to law and order. The British Parliament has refused to condemn the behavior of the Indian Government, no matter how well documented the facts are. The Government refuse, supposedly because India is a powerful Commonwealth country. Indeed, India refers to itself as the ``largest democracy in the world''. Perhaps the phrase the ``largest hypocrisy'' is more appropriate; it is one that I use frequently to describe that Government and that country. The Labour party, with its close links with the Congress party and the Gandhi family, prefers to say nothing at all--I suppose that that is par for the course for that party. Abuses elsewhere, such as in Bosnia and in parts of the Soviet Union, have led to condemnation by our Government. Why have the Indian Government escaped Britain's wrath? If the Indian Government have nothing to hide, what are they attempting to cover up? Why will they not grant me a via to enter the country? I reiterate my offer to the Indian Government; if my Sikh friends are telling me lies, I will condemn them outright upon my return from the Punjab; on the other hand, if the Indian Government have been misleading the rest of the world, I will shout the facts from the rooftops upon my return to Britain. With such a reasonable offer available, perhaps the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will seek to persuade the Indian Government to grant me a visa. I sincerely hope that they will. As the elected representative of some 8,000 Sikhs, it is important that I see the position for myself. I hope that, with the help of the Foreign Office, I shall gain access to that country. Recognition of the rights of Sikhs who are living in the Punjab is all that Sikhs elsewhere want. That means the right to press for self-determination and to strengthen the call for an independent Kalistan, Sikhs cannot understand how Britain, which is their mother country in some ways, can take such determined action against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and yet stand by and do nothing about human rights abuses in India. They wonder why they are treated differently, but they are also aware that the Punjab is not an oil-rich region. Our Government give the impression that they are being selective in their opposition to human rights abuses. If that impression is to change, our Government must condemn outright the behaviour of the Indian Government There should be no aid programme to India, particularly because aid is now tied to good human rights practices. If that is the case, how can we give a penny to the Indian Government which use and abuse the Punjabi people in their own country? If that has no effect, I believe that our Government should break off all diplomatic ties with India. Perhaps the ``curry club'' lunches between hon. Members in the House and the people who represent the Indian Government should also come to an end. There can be no appeasement of a Government who treat one of their ethnic minority groups in that way. We are now celebrating the end of the second world war--a war that was fought to preserve freedom of expression, freedom from tyranny and freedom of self-determination. In the Punjab there is no freedom of expression, only its restriction. In the Punjab there is no freedom from tyranny, only the fear of tyranny. In the Punjab there is no freedom of self-determination, only the ability to whisper the word ``Kalistan'' because to do otherwise would put lives at risk. For Sikhs in the Punjab, we should read Muslims in Kashmir. Who is causing their suffering? It is none other than the Indian Government. The Sikhs in the Punjab and the Muslims of Kashmir turn to us for help. They believe in the democratic principles upon which our Parliament is based. How much longer must they suffer and how many more excuses will be found to justify ignoring their pleas? As I said earlier, this is the fourth time that I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House Commons. I suspect that, for the fourth time, my hon. Friend will read a Foreign Office brief and that no further action will be taken. I suspect that there will be no effort to help me to secure a visa to visit India. I suspect that the Government will not raise the issue of human rights with the Indian Government and that they will not consider doing away with the aid programme because of the abuse of human rights in India. I shall probably hear--with great respect to my hon. Friend-- platitudes and no firm decisions. There are about 300,000 Sikhs in this country. The 8,000 Sikhs in my constituency will want to know how Parliament can spend hours talking about Bosnia--which is of no concern to this country in any shape or form: the Balkans were never part of the Commonwealth--and yet can debate this very important issue for half an hour four times in 12 years. I know that my hon. Friend the member of Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has many Sikhs in his constituency, so I now give way to him to say whatever he wants to say. Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesam): I am extremely grateful to my hon. friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for raising this very important subject. As he said, many thousands of Sikhs live in Gravesend and Northfleet in my constituency. The are very concerned about their families and friends who remain in the Punjab and many hundreds of my Sikh constituents travel to the Punjab every year to visit them. They find the situation there to be extremely insecure. Constituents travel to the Punjab every year to visit them. They find the situation there to be extremely insecure. In this country we take it for granted that human rights will always be preserved, and that if difficulties arise for ourselves and our families, in extremis we can turn to the police for help. Those are freedoms and rights not easily available to residents in the Punjab. Not only are their families vulnerable to the depredations of the police but, if things go wrong and they are the victims of extortion or violence of any sort, they cannot have recourse to the police authorities, as should be their right. What remains in the Punjab is an extreme uneasiness for the individual, especially as there has been no proper investigation of the considerable number of cases of people who have disappeared over the years. Families throughout the Punjab--and therefore, by extension, families in this country--have seen their members disappear. Justice does not ensue. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order here. First, I hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has the Minister's permission too. This is not something that can just be done off the cuff, on the spur of the moment. Does the hon. Member have the Minister's permission? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am perfectly content for the hon. Member for Gravesham to intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that many of my constituents are concerned about the lack of follow-up to the disappearances that have occurred in the Punjab, especially when young men from their extended families have disappeared. For instance, there was a ghastly case of a young man disappearing and all the stories were that he was being held in prison in a police station. The family was eventually advised that the young man had died in custody, yet only a few weeks later he was clearly seen at the window of the prison. When the case was pursued with the prison authorities and the place was eventually checked out, the young man had disappeared yet again. With my Latin American experience, I know about the concerns about those who have disappeared in Argentina. In the last decade of the 20th century such dreadful things are still happening. It is especially relevant to raise the matter in the House of Commons, because until 1947 the House was responsible for the conduct of affairs in India. In some ways the agreement made by Mountbatten with the successor authorities, especially Nehru and the Congress party, for the creation of India led to the current position. The great Sikh leaders of the day took at his word and at face value the promises that Mr. Nehru made them concerning the autonomy and the governance of greater Punjab, as it then was--promises that he subsequently broke. As a result of the haste with which we left India and of the lack of care taken at the time to ensure that the legitimate rights of the Sikhs were sustained, we have a responsibility. The debate is especially relevant this week, because over the past weekend we have celebrated Victory in Europe day. While I was doing so in my borough of Gravesham, I met an elderly Sikh visiting from India, who told me how he had served as a sergeant-major with the British forces in Italy as part of the imperial Indian army under the Raj. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people. We owe it to them to speak up for human rights in the Punjab, so that they can live in peace in the land of their forefathers. Here is the true face of Indian ``democracy'' revealed for all to see. All over the world, their tyranny is being exposed. These strong statements reveal yet again that India is in truth a brutal, repressive tyranny which tortures and murders routinely. This is the truth that will cause India to collapse. Freedom for Khalistan and all the nations living under Indian occupation is inevitable. (Dr. G.S. Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan.)

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, last week my father, who celebrated his 94th birthday last April, passed away in his sleep. Mercifully, he did not undergo the pain and suffering at the end that so many go through before shuffling off this mortal coil. I missed 2 days of legislative business to attend his funeral which filled me with mixed emotions. The first, of course, was sadness over losing my father, who was an idol to all of us kids in the family. But I take comfort in the conviction that we will all be reunited in time and that a lifetime is but a wink of the eye in eternity. The second emotion I experienced was joy over the opportunity to visit with family, relatives, and friends, many of whom I had not seen personally in years. It was a touching family reunion. And I'm convinced my father was experiencing joy in heaven through a family reunion there with all who preceded him. The eulogy for my father was delivered by Dr. E. Duane Hulse, who married a close [[Page E 1546]] cousin of mine when I was in high school. Dr. Hulse is a retired Methodist pastor. Ironically, he delivered the eulogy 39 years ago for my older brother, George IV, a marine pilot who was killed in a mid-air at Glenview, IL. I would like to share with colleagues and friends the eulogy Dr. Hulse delivered. And I would like to express to colleagues and friends deep appreciation for their thoughtful words of condolence. Memorial Service for Dr. George W. Crane (By Dr. E. Duane Hulse) Today we honor a faithful husband, a loving father, a doting grandfather, and an exceptionally talented applied psychologist and physician, and one of the finest exponents of the basic tenets of Christianity I have ever known. He was adviser to millions of Americans, who eagerly grabbed their newspapers with their morning coffee to dote on his every word. He was called by Reader's Digest, ``the maker of happy marriages.'' Pearl and I share with the other members of the Crane family, this great personal loss. For this dear man had more influence on our lives than any other single individual in this world. The scriptural words which seem appropriate today are those of another Christian veteran, who came to the close of his life and said, ``The time of my departure has come, I have fought the fight * * *, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.'' (II Timothy 4:6-8) Yes, this modern Sunday School teacher, who rarely missed church in his life time, kept the faith admirably like the Apostle Paul, who travelled hither and yon about the Mediterranean world. People today are like Paul. They are on the move. We are a mobile population. The Crane family used to move almost every weekend and all summer from 7457 Coles Ave., Chicago (the relative's Motel) to the Coach in Hillsboro. We are still a mobile society. Also, we change physically with these moves, with every cell in our body changing every 7 years. This arm I have here is not the same one I had 7 years ago. I know it's not as good on the tennis court as it was 7 years ago. We change socially and spiritually as well. So, we might well ask, ``What are you keeping?'' Like the Apostle Paul, Dr. George Crane was exemplary in Keeping and Promulgating the Christian gospel. i First, he was brought up in the faith He went to church and Sunday School every Sunday, whether he wanted to or not. His mother, Jen, saw to that. It was not a debatable issue. He read his Bible repeatedly, learned it well, and applied it's teachings all his life. He kept faith with his wife, Cora. They met at Epworth League meetings. It was their common faith that first drew them together. Dr. George never made a major decision in his adult life without consulting Cora first. Sometimes it was just a glance. Other times it was a long conversation late at night, on the way back from making a speech in another state. Cora was his constant companion on his speaking tours. They loved each other, they counselled each other. It was indeed a marriage made in heaven. Dr. George and Cora were our earliest role models. We idolized them and tried to pattern our lives after them. We often sought their advice around the long table with the checkered table cloth, as we shared a ``little caffeine stimulation''. ii Secondly, he kept faith with his children When parents bring children into the world, that too, is a venture of faith. They cannot know whether they will bring honor or shame to the family. The parents venture on faith. On the other hand, the children cannot know whether the parents will keep the faith with them. They may disappoint them or forsake them. The poet Gillilan said of this father: He was my own until I fully knew And never could forget how deep and true A father's love for his own son may be. It drew me nearer God Himself, for He Has loved His son. These are but grateful tears That he was with me all those happy years. Dr. George's faith in his progeny never wavered and they never failed him. They never forsook his teachings. He taught them the virtues of life by precept and example. He taught them fortitude by taking moving pictures of them when he gave them their shots, so they would look brave when they were shown at the next family gathering. Then these inventive young rascals turned the tables on their father by insisting they give him a shot with the needle, so he could show his bravery on camera. And these dear children have been honoring him with their lives ever since. iii Thirdly, he kept faith with his country He volunteered to serve his country in the armed services in World War II, but he was advised he could do more good as an editorial writer. That he did. In my humble opinion, he was the greatest single psychological motivator in this century. All over the United States, Americans looked to his newspaper columns for advice on now to solve the problems of every day living. He was praised highly, but sometimes he was disbelieved, for he was 50 years ahead of his time in his thinking. Consider this, thirty years ago he actually advocated running Clark Gable as a candidate for Vice President. First: he claimed the party would get a million dollars worth of free publicity. Secondly: the party would get a majority of the female votes. But, who ever heard of running a movie star for a national office? I rest his case. I know, those of us who loved him sometimes called him affectionately ``old sea salt'', but today in Florida, I often run my boat out into the gulf to satisfy my friends requests for sea water so they get their daily trace minerals.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we in the House have devoted a great deal of attention to the issue of crime in the United States, and have passed several anticrime bills. While we have not always agreed on the proper methods to reduce crime in America, Members of this body have unanimously condemned acts of violence. To me, therefore, it is inconceivable that this Congress has not moved to outlaw certain acts of violence that have been protected by the Supreme Court since 1973. That year, the Court ruled in its Enmons decision that union officials were exempt from prosecution for acts of violence, if they were used to gain legitimate union objectives. The Enmons decision severely restricted the scope of the 1946 Hobbs Anti- Extortion Act. The Hobbs Act was enacted primarily to quell violence and extortion by union members and officials as they enforced compulsory union membership. By exempting union officials from the Hobbs Act, the High Court effectively sanctioned these acts of violence. The results of this decision have been devastating. Since 1973, union violence resulted in 181 murders, 440 assaults, and more than 6,000 acts of vandalism. In fact, from 1975 to 1993, there were more than 7,800 acts of documented union violence. I believe that this violence must stop. On June 8, 1995, I introduced H.R. 1796, the Freedom From Union Violence Act. H.R. 1796 would restore the original intent of the Hobbs Act to allow Federal authorities to prosecute union officials accused of violence or extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act. The author of the Hobbs Act, Representative Samuel Hobbs, stated, ``that crime is crime * * *, whether or not the perpetrator has a union card.'' I agree with Mr. Hobbs, and I believe that, regardless of one's views on labor issues, the House can agree that violence is wrong and ought to be condemned. Lady Justice, after all, is blindfolded--she should not be peeking to ask for union credentials. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the view that China's MFN trade status should be preserved. As the previous Bereuter bill makes clear, the Chinese Government is, in many ways, a brutal and anachronistic regime, intolerant of dissent and responsible for grave human rights abuses. Yet under this repression flourishes one of the world's largest and most rapidly growing economies. Free-market reforms taken in the name of ``Leninist Capitalism'' have dramatically increase in the well-being of Chinese citizens to the degree that per capita income in China now doubles every 6 to 7 years, United States commercial involvement in China has been an integral part of this dramatic change, contributing significantly to the improvement of living conditions in China. There are currently over 2,000 United States companies with $6 billion invested in mainland China. A close look at these operations reveals countless separate contributions to Chinese well-being above and beyond basic employment. United States businesses offer management development programs, scholarships, on site medical clinics, and gifts to charitable causes in China. Operating under the strictest standards of safety, hygiene, and environmental protection, these firms, by their presence and example, spread United States values and ideals throughout the communities in China where they are located. As employees of United States companies, Chinese citizens are able to interact with their government on a more independent basis than would be possible absent United States support and employment. Pluralism and personal liberty also are enhanced through government to government contacts, scientific exchanges, personal travel, and increased international awareness of Chinese Government activities. While beneficial to the average Chinese citizen, United States commercial involvement in China also is critical to United States economic and strategic objectives. Since 1980, when MFN was first granted to China, United States exports have increased 438 percent compared to an overall increase in United States exports of 156 percent during the same time period. As other speakers will lay out, a policy that preserves United States interaction with Chinese society puts us in the best position to leverage the Chinese Government in the sensitive areas of weapons proliferation, North Korea, and market access for United States exports. House Joint Resolution 96, would set back all progress the United States is making with China. Such a policy of unilateral confrontation must be rejected in favor of a strategy that preserves United States leadership in Asia, and maintains our commitment to the people of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, due to the death of my father, today I am requesting a leave of absence after 2:00 p.m. I am also requesting a leave of absence for Wednesday, July 19.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill--H.R. 1643--to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the products of Bulgaria.

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

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1643, 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 noncontroversial and was reported out of the Ways and Means Committee by a voice vote on June 20. At present, Bulgaria's MFN status is regulated by title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, the provision of U.S. law which governs the extension of MFN tariff treatment to nonmarket economies. Bulgaria was first granted MFN treatment by the United States in 1991 under a Presidential waiver from the freedom of emigration requirements contained in the Trade Act of 1974. Since 1993, Bulgaria's MFN status has been renewed after the President has found the country to be in full compliance with the requirements stipulated in U.S. law. The political and economic circumstances in Bulgaria have changed considerably since the enactment of the Trade Act of 1974. The Communist dictatorship in Bulgaria has collapsed and a democratically elected government has taken office which has instituted basic market- oriented principles, including privatization, in the Bulgarian economy. Normalizing United States trade relations with Bulgaria, as has been done of other Eastern European countries, by authorizing the removal of the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, from Bulgaria will enhance our bilateral relations with that country and foster the economic development of the region by providing the business community with greater certainty with respect to Bulgaria's status under United States law. At the present time, Bulgaria is in the process of acceding to the World Trade Organization [WTO]. For this reason, the extension of permanent MFN tariff treatment to Bulgaria is also necessary in order for the United States to avail itself of all WTO rights vis-a-vis 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 MFN status will be renewed annually by the President. Therefore, enactment of H.R. 1643 will not affect projected Federal Government receipts. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on H.R. 1642.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1643.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend our ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means who has been a devotee of the advancement of free trade principles in all the years I have had the privilege of working with him. I think it illustrates the bipartisan support that we have on this proposal before us today. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I year back the balance of by time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1642, legislation to extend permanent most-favored-nation [MFN] tariff treatment to the products of Cambodia. This legislation, which was introduced by myself and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Mr. Rangel, is noncontroversial and was reported out of the Ways and Means Committee by a voice vote on June 20. After two decades of civil war, Cambodia held democratic elections in May, 1993. Upon the formation of the freely elected Royal Cambodian Government on September 24, 1993, the United States and Cambodia immediately established full diplomatic relations. To normalize trade relations between our countries, the United States concluded an agreement with Cambodia in the spring of 1994 on bilateral trade relations and intellectual property protection that calls for a reciprocal extension of MFN status. Since taking office, the Cambodian Government has taken steps, and planned additional action, to convert the Cambodian economy from one based on central planning to one based on market-oriented principles. Establishing normal commercial relations with Cambodia will assist in this transformation by making Cambodian exports to the United States more competitive in the global marketplace. In addition, establishing normal commercial relations with Cambodia on a reciprocal basis will promote United States exports to the rapidly growing southeast Asian region and expand opportunities for United States businesses and investment in the Cambodian economy. Furthermore, expanding our bilateral trade relations with Cambodia will promote further progress by Cambodia on human rights and toward the adoption of regional and world trading rules and principles. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that enactment of H.R. 1642 has no significant budgetary effect. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1642) to extend nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the products of Cambodia, and for other purposes.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this amendment. But whether one supports it or does not support it, I think it is important for you to recognize that all this vote is about is giving the people a chance to be heard. A vote against this is a denial to hear the expressed will of the people. Amendments require 75 percent ratification support amongst all the States. Forty-nine of the States endorse the concept. All you are asked to do on this vote is give the people a chance to be heard. You are not changing the Constitution. You are giving the people a chance to change it if they choose.