Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor five very special business leaders in my district who were recognized and honored on May 11, 1995 by the Rolling Meadows Chamber of Commerce for their contributions to the community. David Hill, Jr., chairman and president of Kimball Hill, Inc., was honored as the 1994 Business Leader of the Year. Having grown to become one of the 50 largest homebuilders in the United States, Kimball Hill Homes collectively delivered over 1,000 homes in 1994 alone. In addition, Mr. Hill has been involved in national housing policy efforts and has testified before Congress on housing finance issues. Moreover, he has been an extremely active participant in a number of local and regional planning, affordable housing, and charitable organizations. Dr. Arvind Goyal, of Family Doctor, Inc., was honored as the 1994 Community Leader of the Year. Aside from having served residents for 16 years as a family doctor, Dr. Goyal has belonged to a wide range of local, State, and national organizations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society. Other activities that have benefited the community include his public presentations and testimonials on health and other issues before a number of community institutions. Finally, Dr. Goyal has actively lobbied State and Federal legislators on such issues as smoking restrictions in business places, prevention of domestic violence, and health care reform. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., was honored with the 1994 Business Beautification Award. This respected Fortune 500 company which has been headquartered in Chicago for years completely renovated their building at 3100 Golf Road. The Rolling Meadows Chamber has obviously taken note of the marked improvement in appearance. McMinn & Troutman was honored as Small Business of the Year. Having moonlighted as my campaign treasurer for the past 25 years, I am pleased to see Billy McMinn recognized for all the dedicated time and effort that he and his partner, Larry Troutman, have put into their business. Aside from their exceptional skills within the office, McMinn and Troutman have been longtime civic volunteers, as each are also active members of the Rolling Meadows Rotary Club, their respective churches, and many other civic institutions within the community. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate these five business leaders of Rolling Meadows for their hard work and dedication. Rolling Meadows and the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois is a better place to live because of them.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the terrible conditions that the people of Khalistan must endure on a daily basis. June 3-6 marks the 11th anniversary of the Golden Temple Massacre, where the Indian army massacred thousands of Sikhs. The situation has not improved, and the Indian police routinely use torture, murder, and rape to oppress the Sikh people. This religious intolerance and ethnic warfare amounts to genocide and must stop. We need only look at the former Soviet Union to understand why a society based on ethnic repression cannot work. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the republics were finally able to break free and exist in peaceful democratic states. It has been predicted that India will suffer the same fate and it is our duty to support and encourage the people of the Sikh Nation. The following remarks by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh should be read to fully understand the importance of the situation. Council of Khalistan, Washington, DC, June 3, 1995. Remarks of Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan, on the Eleventh Anniversary of the Golden Temple Massacre, at Washington, DC. I am glad to see so many people her today. As you know, the Sikh Nation celebrated its 296th birthday this past Vaisakhi Day. That was a joyous occasion; today is a sad one. We all know about the oppression the Sikh Nation has suffered under India's tyrannical occupation of our homeland, Khalistan. At least 120,000 Sikhs have been murdered in India since 1984. Tens of thousands of Sikhs remain in prison. In many rural areas, where the killings are most frequent, whole villages are emptied of their most able bodied young men. The bloody massacre we commemorate today helped to clarify for the Sikh Nation its true place in Hindustan's sham ``democracy.'' The oppression and bloodshed inflicted on the Sikh Nation by the brutal Indian tyrants make it crystal clear that there is no place for Sikhs in India. For ourselves and for out children, we must liberate Khalistan. Only a free and independent Khalistan will insure that the Sikh Nation can live in peach, prosperity, and freedom. Freedom for Khalistan is coming soon. It is inevitable. Dr. Jack Wheeler of the Freedom Research Foundation, who predicted the Soviet collapse, predicted almost a year ago that within ten years, India will cease to exist as we know it. When Sikhs read about India's recent destruction of one of Kashmir's most sacred mosques, we felt a familiar pain remembering how we felt when thousands of our Sikh brethren were slaughtered in the Golden Temple massacre. In the country that bills itself as ``the world's largest democracy,'' military forces are being used to attack the faith, identity, and even the very being of the Sikh nation. But instead of breaking the Sikh nation, as the tyrants of Hindustan had hoped, it has led to a resurgence of the Sikh faith in our struggle for dignity and freedom. The Golden Temple massacre crystallized a desire in the Sikh nation for a free and sovereign Khalistan. As you all know, today marks the anniversary of that act of wanton desecration. From June 3 through 6, 1984, 15,000 troops of the Indian army launched a surprise military attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of the Sikh people. Simultaneously, they attacked 38 other Sikh temples throughout Punjab, Khalistan. These attacks, timed on a holy day for the Sikh nation, left 20,000 Sikhs dead. Many innocent, unarmed men, women and children, who had come only to pray on the anniversary of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, were gunned down in the very temples in which they sought peace and solace. The operation took 72 hours to complete. A news blackout in Punjab was initiated immediately before the attack. In the Temple complex itself, hundreds of Sikhs were forced into rooms designed to hold no more that 20 or 30 people. Most died of asphyxiation. Many Sikh women were raped before being killed. In one episode, one hundred Sikh boys, students at the temple who were between 8 and 12 years old, were lined up along the sacred pool that surrounds the Temple. The Indian army officers asked each boy, one by one, if he supported Khalistan. One by one, each boy would cry out Bulleh So Nihal! (``Everyone cry out and be contented!''), and the rest would respond Sat SRI Akal (``God is Truth!''). One by one, each boy was shot in the head. Yet the Indian regime claimed that ``Not a single woman or child was wounded in the operation proper at the hands of the Army personnel.'' Other Sikhs were herded together, their turbans were removed and used to tie their hands behind their backs. They were blindfolded and their unshorn beards were stuffed into their mouths. They were then killed by machine gun fire. Bodies were piled together and shipped to nearby Gobindgarh fort, where they were drenched in kerosene and burned. The stench of smoldering bodies permeated in the area for two weeks. Sant Bhindranwale and 20,000 other Sikhs lost their lives. The damage to the Temple complex was extensive. We cannot forget how the Akal Takht, the throne of timeless God, was severely damaged and the Temple's library building was destroyed. Priceless original manuscripts written by the Gurus were burnt. The Golden Temple itself was riddled with bullet holes, many precious stones inlaid upon its walls removed by Army personnel. In the mopping up operations, the Indian forces planted sophisticated weapons inside the Golden Temple in an effort to legitimize the action. The Golden Temple was utterly desecrated. In the 400-year history of the Golden Temple, no ruler had done the kind of damage the Indian Government meted out in the 72-hour massacre. The Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikh religion, had bullet holes in it. This is Indian religious tolerance. Eleven years later, we remember. The Sikh nation can never forget the brutal massacre and desecration that took place during those dark days. We cannot forget, and the memory reminds us that we must take back our homeland from the tyrannical Indian regime. We must liberate Khlistan from the grip of oppression, and we should do so very soon. It is our destiny. Raj Karega Khlasa! Khalistan will be free. Eleven years later, the killing has not stopped. Virtual martial law and press blackouts have been in place almost continuously [[Page E1185]] since 1984. In November 1984, after Sikh bodyguards assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Congress party and government sponsored rioting broke out in cities all over India. 40,000 Sikhs lost their lives, 20,000 Sikhs in New Delhi alone. Sikhs were pulled out of shops, homes, trains and buses, and burned alive. For three days, television stations throughout India, all State controlled, aired the simple message, Blood for Blood. Indian newspapers recently reported that 25,000 bodies have been cremated and listed as unclaimed by the Indian regime since 1990. In Amritsar district alone, over 6000 bodies were listed as unidentified. This is one of 13 districts in Punjab. A mass grave which held the remains of 400 Cambodians shook the world, as it should have. Why does the mass cremation of 25,000 in Punjab, Khalistan, get ignored? These Sikhs were brutally tortured and murdered by the Indian police, then cremated to hide the evidence. Sikhs are not the only victims. Indian ``democracy'' has murdered over 150,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 43,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Manipuris, and other tribal people. According to the State Department's 1994 report on human rights, between 1991 and 1993 the Indian regime paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. Many people simply ``disappear.'' It is the great unknown holocaust. These atrocities are part of a pattern of oppression by the corrupt Indian regime. According to the Indian magazine Sunday, for every case of human rights violations that is reported, another thousand go unreported. I am sure that you know what happened to Simranjit Singh Mann. On December 26, Sardar Mann made a speech calling for a peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement to liberate Khalistan. He asked the 50,000 Sikhs in his audience to raise their hands if they agreed with him. All 50,000 did so. For this blatant act of free speech, Mann was arrested under the so-called ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA). Although the regime has repealed TADA, and despite a Supreme Court ruling that asking for Khalistan is not a crime, Mann remains in a windowless cell almost five months after he was arrested. This is typical of the kind of tyranny practiced against the Sikh nation by the Indian regime. According to the government of India, all Sikhs are terrorists. The regime has even outlawed the Sikh baptismal ceremony of amrit. Most Sikhs have a friend or relative who has been imprisoned, tortured or killed by police, ostensibly because they are terrorists. This is the myth that justifies the Indian government's bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing. The world is beginning to realize that Sikh terrorism is a myth. On November 6, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian regime paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to foment terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir, then blame it on ``Sikh militants.'' Again, Indian ``democracy'' is exposed. This oppression must stop. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh nation declared its independence from India, forming the separate country of Khalistan. Sikhs ruled Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and from 1765 to 1849. Punjab belongs to the Sikhs. Sikhs own 95 percent of the land in Punjab, Khalistan. Over two-thirds of the population of Punjab is Sikh. No Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution. In the Indian-run elections in Punjab, Khalistan, in February 1992, 96 percent of the Sikhs there did not vote, according to India Abroad. India's occupation of Khalistan is destroying our homeland. The Sikh Nation has made its desire for freedom clear. We want our country back. We want to live in peace, and we want to live apart from India in a free, democratic society. Every day the world is exposed to the brutality of India's occupation of Khalistan. In May 1994, Human Rights Watch/Asia and Physician for Human Rights released a report entitled Dead Silence: The Legacy of Abuses in Punjab. The report quotes a police officer as saying, ``Once I became a police officer in Punjab, I realized that torture is used routinely. During my five years with the Punjab police, I estimate 4,000 to 5,000 were tortured at my police station alone.'' Another policeman was quoted as saying that 500 people were killed at his police station in five years. At least 200 of these torture centers currently operate in Indian-occupied Khalistan. In 1947, when India achieved independence, three nations were to receive power. The Hindus got India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and the Sikh Nation was to receive a state of our own. But the Sikh leadership at the time made the critical mistake of taking our share with India on the solemn promises of Gandha and Nehru that Sikhs would enjoy ``the warm glow of freedom'' in Punjab and that no law affecting Sikh rights would be passed without Sikh consent. Almost immediately, those promises were broken and the repression of our people began. India is not one nation. It is a conglomeration of many nations thrown together for administrative purposes by the British. It is the last vestige of colonialism. 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. But we are willing to sit down with the Indian regime anytime to demarcate the boundaries of Khalistan. It is time for India to recognize the inevitable and withdraw from Khalistan. An independent Khalistan will help make South Asia nuclear- free. Punjab, Khalistan, produces 73 percent of India's wheat reserves and 48 percent of its rice reserves. As a country where it takes three days' pay to buy a box of cereal, India will have to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty because it needs food. Once India disarms, Pakistan will have no reason not to do so as well. Khalistan will sign the NPT and a 100- year friendship treaty with the United States. In the past eleven years, there have been thousands of cases of Sikh deaths and torture at the hands of Indian police and security forces. According to domestic and international human rights groups, the following are frequently used torture methods by the Indian government: A log of wood made heavier by weights is placed on the legs of the detainee and rotated up and down. The legs of detainees are often stretched and then the thigh muscles are beaten until they tear. Body joints are beaten with a heavy baton. Electric shocks are applied to genitals resulting in impotency. Sikh women and girls are raped, then usually killed or rendered infertile. Family members are forced to watch while violence is inflicted on other family members. Often the parents must watch as their children suffer. Husbands are forced to beat their wives and vice versa. Pregnancies are forcibly terminated. Security officials sponsor death squads throughout Punjab. Typically, these agents arrive in unmarked cars, dressed in plain clothes and carry automatic weapons. The death squads pick up suspects and take them to interrogation centers. According to Asia Watch, ``virtually everyone detained in Punjab is tortured.'' Sikhs who die of torture are routinely listed as having died in fake ``encounters'' with the police. Behavior like this is the reason that Amnesty International has been barred from conducting an independent human-rights investigation in Punjab, Khalistan since 1978. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba has allowed Amnesty International into the country more recently. Eleven years after the Golden Temple massacre, the human rights situation has only gotten worse. Our history and the history of other minority nations under Indian occupation teach us that freedom for Khalistan, Kashmir, and Nagaland is the only way to prevent further massacres like the one in the Golden Temple. Secular democracy in India is a myth. The plight of minority nations in India is a direct result of Indian government's racial and ethnic intolerance. A Brigadier General of the Indian Army made clear the actual, if unofficial, policy of the Indian government he said that he would execute the mayors of all six villages, kill all the adult males, and confine all the women to army camps, that they would reproduce with Hindus and thereby ``breed a new race.'' No longer can genocide be an accepted norm of democracy. Let me close with a poignant quotation from a former world leader, one that expresses the very situation in which Sikhs find themselves.: A government that has to rely on the Criminal Law Amendment Act and similar laws, that suppresses the press and literature, that bans hundreds of organizations, that keeps people in prison without trial, and that does so many things that are happening in India today, is a government that has ceased to have even a shadow of a justification for its existence. These were the words that Jawaharlal Nehru used to describe the British Administration in India in 1936. What is the difference between the India of 1936 and the India of 1995? I'll tell you. Our small homeland of Punjab, Khalistan has 500,000 security forces. The British never stationed that many troops in the entire Indian subcontinent. And the British, in the century in which they ruled Punjab, never came near slaughtering the 120,000 Sikhs India has slaughtered in the last eleven years. The free countries of the world support peace, justice, and freedom. I call on all Americans to support freedom for Khalistan. All the Sikh Nation asks is the same freedom that Americans enjoy. On this anniversary of the Golden Temple massacre, Sikhs will never forget the brutal desecration of our most sacred shrine. I know that by 1999, which will be the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Sikh nation, the truth will be known, and the Sikh nation will celebrate that year in a free and sovereign Khalistan. Khalistan Zindabad! India out of Khalistan!

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, today is a day that I almost thought would never come in my time here in Congress. Today I will be voting for a budget resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 67, which will put this Congress on a path toward balancing the federal budget. I have voted for such resolutions in the past only to see them trounced on the floor of the House. What makes today so special for me is that a majority of my colleagues in the House of Representatives will be joining me in voting for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I came to this House in 1969, a majority of Members of this House agree that we must substantially shrink the size of government in the effort to balance the budget. We are not going to raise taxes, we are not going to use budget gimmicks, we are actually going to cut spending in an effort to slow the rate of growth of the Federal Government. Congress is finally acting in a fiscally responsible manner. The manner in which Congress has acted in the past can be described as selfish at best and criminal at worst. In my view, the debt that past Congresses have heaped upon future generations has been a criminal act. It can be characterized as criminal because that approach was mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. In short, Congress has spent money we did not have and sent the bill to our kids. This new Congress is saying enough is enough, and I could not be prouder than I am to be a part of this historic day in the House of Representatives. Finally, I would like to commend my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Kasich, for all his hard work and dedication in making this day possible. I remember campaigning for John when he first ran for office and it was clear to me then that he was committed to principle and committed to the concept of fiscal responsibility. The House of Representatives and the people of this country are very fortunate to have John Kasich as chairman of the Budget Committee, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his efforts. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 67 and look forward to the day when the end purpose of this resolution-- achieving a balanced budget by restraining spending--becomes a reality.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, let me preface my remarks by regrettably stating that regardless of the understanding I hope to reach in this colloquy regarding this provision, I do not support this provision, and believe it is inconsistent with the intent and goals of the legislation. However, for clarification purposes, I would ask the chairman of the committee to confirm my understanding of how this provision would apply to a party that has applied twice for a section 404 permit and has been denied a permit both times by the Corps of Engineers. If the party applying for the permit litigates the second permit denial and is successful in court in overturning the Corps of Engineers' second permit denial, will the party be able to file another permit application, or have their permit application reconsidered under this provision?

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in a colloquy so I might clarify my understanding of a provision in title VIII. Specifically, I refer to page 311, line 16 of the bill, which makes reference to previously-denied permits. I have provided the chairman with a copy of the specific language.

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman profoundly. amendment offered by mr. taylor of mississippi

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that the voters expect this Congress to address relates to the elimination of unnecessary and burdensome Federal requirements and regulations. In that spirit, I am today introducing legislation, the Nuclear Decommissioning Costs Simplification Act of 1995, which will take one small and reasonable step toward simplifying our Tax Code. Under current law, section 468A of the Internal Revenue Code permits a utility to elect a deduction for the amount of payments made to a nuclear decommissioning reserve fund. The fund must be dedicated exclusively for the payment of costs associated with decommissioning a nuclear power reactor. The amount of the deductible payment for a particular tax year is limited to the lesser of: first, the nuclear decommissioning cost included in the taxpayer's cost of service for ratemaking purposes or, second, the so-called ruling amount as determined by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. In order to claim a deduction, the taxpayer must submit a detailed application to the IRS which sets forth the computation of the ruling amount. It has been indicated to me that the process required by section 468A is the only provision of the Internal Revenue Code in which a deduction is made conditional upon pre-approval by the Secretary of the Treasury. Moreover, preparation of each ruling request costs utilities thousands of dollars in legal and other fees in addition to the $3,000 user fee imposed for filing the ruling request. In many cases, utilities have more than one reactor, in which case the utility must absorb the preparation costs and pay the filing fee several times in a single year. For example, a taxpayer with four reactors that contributes to four reserve funds would incur costs in excess of $50,000 to submit four ruling requests. Mr. Speaker, perhaps this unique pre-clearance procedure would be necessary if there was a particular risk of fraud, abuse, or miscalculation. However, there is no evidence that any such risk exists or ever has existed for that matter. Nevertheless, the pre-clearance requirement lives on in the Internal Revenue Code. The time has come to recognize that the process that utilities go through to comply with section 468A is entirely computational, and presents no unusual set of circumstances requiring the abandonment of the normal rule that taxpayers take deductions subject to a subsequent audit. The Nuclear Decommissioning Costs Simplification Act of 1995 is truly a simplification proposal. The bill, if enacted, would modify section 468A by striking the requirement that the taxpayer must request and receive a schedule of ruling amounts from the Secretary of the Treasury as a condition to claiming a deduction for payments to the nuclear decommissioning reserve fund. The bill would not result in larger deductions because the current substantive rule limiting the deduction would remain in place. The proposal simply would have the effect of treating the deduction for amounts paid into the fund in the same manner as other deductions are treated and if, on audit, the IRS determines that an excess amount was deducted by the utility, additional tax payments, interest, and penalties would be imposed. Mr. Speaker, this reform may not be as dramatic as some others that we have debated in the House this year, but it is no less worthy. The bill I am introducing today is narrowly targeted to relieve utilities of a regulatory requirement that long ago outlived its usefulness. It will neither create a tax loophole nor compromise safety, but it will strike a small blow for sensible deregulation. I am hopeful that this legislation will be considered in the context of tax legislation this year, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the Orlando Sentinel recently featured an article which destroys numerous myths pertaining to inflation. Mr. Charley Reese, author of the article, highlights congressional responsibility for inflation. He goes on to argue that economic progress has been hampered by inflation stemming from actions of the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System. I commend to the attention of my colleagues ``If you have a job, you aren't causing inflation--guess who is?'' If You Have a Job, You Aren't Causing Inflation--Guess Who Is? (By Charley Reese) There's a big con game going on. The con is that politicians in both parties and the bankers talk about problems caused by inflation without mentioning that they cause it. To hear the central bank talk about it, you would think inflation is caused by people getting jobs. Uh, oh, the central bankers are saying, too many Americans have jobs, and so we had better increase the rates of usury to keep inflation under control. In a country with so many millions of people unemployed and underemployed, it is impossible for people to cause inflation by getting a job. Even if we had 100 percent employment, people getting jobs would cause little if any inflation. There are, to keep it simple, two kinds of inflation. One is called cost-push inflation and the other is monetary inflation. Politicians and money-lenders would like you to believe that cost-push inflation is the only kind that exists. Not so. An example of cost-push would be a situation in which there were a great drought in the Midwest followed by a plague of locusts, so that the grain crop would be severely reduced. Because there would be insufficient grain to meet the demand, people would bid up the price in an effort to get what was available. That's cost-push: a rise in prices produced by an increased demand for a commodity or product. Monetary inflation, however, is when the monetary authorities put so much money into the system that the value of each unit declines. Demand and working people have nothing to do with it. That type of inflation is entirely in the hands of the government and the central bank. That's really what Mexico's peso crisis is all about. As it always does, the Mexican ruling party turned on the printing presses and greatly boosted the money supply during the election campaign. When this happens, eventually the monetary unit will decline in value. As the value of the monetary unit declines, people are forced to raise prices just to maintain their same level of income. Because of continued deficits and the profligate policies of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. dollar has lost its value. Money is not wealth. What one buys with money is wealth-- houses, clothes, tools, services, etc. How much a given unit of money can buy is called purchasing power. Well, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, thanks entirely to Congress and the Federal Reserve, has declined so much that, if you made $10,000 in 1967, you would have to make $40,000 in 1995 just to be where you were 28 years ago. To put it another way, it takes $4 today to buy what $1 would buy in 1967. But the key point to understand is that this is the fault of Congress, not the fault of the private sector. Back in the 1960s, Congress gave up any effort to maintain a stable money system and indexed--those famous cost-of-living allowances-- most federal programs. It did that to take the sting out of inflation, a policy it was consciously pursuing, because it is more politically palatable than bringing the federal budget into balance and reining in the central bank. But, of course, if you aren't on the federal teat, your income didn't get indexed to inflation. Inflation never affects people uniformly. Some can prosper; some can stay even; and some will fall behind. What outrages me is to hear bankers and politicians talk about the real misery their inflationary policies have caused while pretending that it is not their fault but someone else's, either greedy consumers spending too much or some unexplained, uncontrollable mysterious ``thing.'' It's they. It's the 100 senators and the 435 members of the House. It's the Federal Reserve System, which Congress created and which Congress could, if it had the sense and the guts, seriously reform or abolish. They caused the economic misery. Now they are blaming the victims.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express appreciation to my distinguished chairman and to our colleagues who are in the process of making real significant, historic strides in turning around the direction that this country has been on in virtually all of the 25 years I have been here. We had a tax cut in 1981, the biggest tax cut in our history at that time, approximately, about $200 billion, and the fact of the matter is that that was the last time we had a tax cut. We have done nothing in the intervening years but raise taxes, and paying taxes to the average middle-income family today accounts for 40 to 50 percent of their budget when you include taxes at all levels, Federal, State, and local. The tax burden has become oppressive. It has had a dampening effect attempted to advance the argument that by raising taxes you are promoting economic growth. Quite the contrary. You lower taxes and you promote growth. The other thing that was significant about that tax cut in 1981 is that it more than doubled revenues to the Treasury in the decade of the 1980's. That one single tax reduction more than doubled revenues. It was the fastest revenue increase in our national experience, and it had a very positive effect in other ways, too, which created almost 20 million new jobs. We have an opportunity here though to address more than just tax relief. it is the question of distribution of taxes. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, if you look at income brackets after the tax cut, those people in the highest income brackets will be paying a marginally larger component part of the total tax burden, and those people in the lowest income brackets will be paying a marginally lower percentage of the total tax burden. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and get this country moving in a forward direction. Mr. Chairman, the last time I was on the floor of the House of Representatives to debate and vote on a substantial tax cut for the American taxpayer was in 1981. Since that time, Congress has raised taxes more times than I care to remember. In 1993, President Clinton and a Democrat Congress topped all the previous tax bills by enacting the single largest tax increase in the history of the world--literally. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 1993 tax bill robbed the American taxpayers of a total of $240 billion over a 5-year period. Not surprising, not one Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for Clinton's tax bill. For the American taxpayer, the 1993 tax bill may have been the last straw. And thanks to the American voter, the make-up of Congress was radically altered in the 1994 elections. For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives. Republicans campaigned on the Contract With America and promised to change business as usual. We have kept our promises and we certainly have changed this House of Representatives. One of the key components of the contract is to give back to the American taxpayers some of their hard-earned dollars that Democratic Congresses have taken from them over the years. The bill we have before us today would cut taxes by a total of $190 billion over 5 years. Some have called this excessive. In fact, it is rather modest, particularly when one considers that the $190 billion figure falls $50 billion short of cutting the amount of taxes raised in the 1993 tax bill alone--to say nothing of all the other tax increases we have seen in the last 12 years. Unfortunately, my colleagues need to be reminded of an important point--tax dollars do not, by right, belong to our Government. Some of my colleagues in this House seem to think that tax dollars are owned by Congress. Let me remind my colleagues that tax dollars are owned by hardworking taxpayers, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure that any money it takes from the taxpayers is spent wisely. Unfortunately, we cannot say that Congress has spent tax dollars wisely over the last 40 years. Indeed, Congress has squandered billions upon billions of dollars. In my view, the only way to force the Federal Government to become efficient, to force it to return to the essentials, and to force it to eliminate the excesses that exist, is to restrict the flow of tax dollars to Congress--it is time to turn off the spigot. Only then will we be able to force Congress to live within its means. Only then will we be able to force Congress to stop spending money and stop mortgaging the future of our children. what the bill does If you listened to the opponents of this bill you'd think we were increasing taxes. Of course, what this bill does is substantially reduce taxes for both individuals and businesses. The opponents of this bill have been screaming in righteous indignation over even the thought of reducing taxes. When you look at the actual contents of this tax legislation you begin to wonder where the opponents of this tax bill are coming from. This bill does a great many good and necessary things for the overburdened individual and business taxpayers. First of all, this bill helps American families. I have seen estimates that indicate that 40 to 50 percent of the typical American family budget goes toward paying taxes--Federal, State, and local. Specifically, 25 percent of the family budget goes toward paying Federal taxes. That is absolutely outrageous and it is no wonder that families are getting sick and tired of the tax burden they are shouldering, particularly when they see how their money is being spent by Congress. Families have been hit hard over the last few decades by taxes. The exemption amount for dependents, had it been indexed for inflation from the date it was created, should be worth over $8,000 today, instead of the $2,450 allowed in 1994. This bill attempts to modestly help families by providing a $500 per child credit. In addition, the bill creates the American Dream savings accounts which will provide families the opportunity to create an IRA with tax free withdrawals for retirement, education expenses, medical expenses, and first time home purchases. The legislation provides a credit for adoption expenses and reduces the marriage penalty. As a long time proponent of all of these efforts, and as the lead sponsor of the American Dream Restoration Act which contained nearly all of these three proposals, I can assure my colleagues I feel strongly about this portion of the bill. All these things are long overdue and will help families considerably. The bill helps seniors as well. While Democrats have often tried to portray themselves as the protectors of senior citizens, in reality you will find that Democrat tax policies have hit senior citizens very hard. Our seniors have worked hard all their lives and they have paid taxes all their lives. Many live on fixed incomes and can ill-afford the continual tax hikes that have been heaped upon them by an arrogant Congress these past 40 years. Seniors deserve a break. This legislation offers them some hope. The bill repeals the increase in income taxes on Social Security benefits which President Clinton had pushed for in the 1993 tax bill. In addition, the legislation raises the amount seniors can earn before their Social Security benefits are reduced. This is referred to as the Social Security Earnings Limitation issue. Both of these measures will put more money in the pockets of seniors. In addition, the bill provides for a tax credit to taxpayers who provide custodial care of certain elderly family members staying in the taxpayer's home. Finally, the bill gives the American business community a break. Although it is fundamental economics, I believe some of my colleagues need to be reminded of some basic tenets of the marketplace: First, businesses create jobs, and second, without employers you do not have employees. Anything we can do to ease the burden on business community, increase their ability to compete, and encourage investments in new business ventures will help create new jobs in this country. The best way out of poverty is opportunity--a job. This legislation reduces the tax burden on American businesses by eliminating the excessive, complicated, and inefficient section of the Internal Revenue Code referred to as the alternative minimum tax. Scrapping this insane system will go a long way toward putting American businesses on a competitive footing with businesses overseas. In addition, we reduce the rate on capital gains and index capital assets for inflation. I could write a book about the importance of this provision of the bill. I have been advocating reducing the rate on capital gains for years, and I have seen the benefits of doing so based on past experience. By reducing the capital gains rate we will not only encourage more capital to be invested but we also encourage capital to move freely. This will result in job creation. Moreover, the increased number of transactions will actually mean more revenue to the Treasury. In short, this bill will create long term dynamic economic growth that will benefit all Americans. the class warfare debate In the debate over this legislation, there are those in Congress who wish to divide our country and its people. These people wish to create class antagonism, and choose demagoguery over logic and reason. These people want to engage in class warfare. These are the social engineers of our society who still don't understand that socialism died of natural causes. These people think they have the perfect formula for deciding what the proper tax burden ought to be for various income groups. They believe that it is Government's responsibility to redistribute income. They apparently do not understand some of the basic concepts upon which this country was founded--freedom, opportunity, hard work, etc. These people argue that the tax bill before us today caters to the rich--that it does not properly distribute the tax burden. Let me present some hard facts for these social engineers. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1982, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 19 percent of the taxes. In 1992, this group paid 27.4 percent of the taxes. In 1982, the top 10 percent of income earners paid 48.6 percent of the taxes, while in 1992, that figure rose to 57.5 percent. For both 1982 and 1992 the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid over 90 percent of the taxes. All this was before the 1993 tax bill which was specifically designed to take $114 billion from high-income individuals. Isn't this progressive enough? In fact, the tax bill we have before us today does nothing to change these percentages. Indeed, figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation percent will pay a slightly higher proportion of the total tax burden after this bill is passed than they would if it were not passed. That ought to make the social engineers happy and they ought not be complaining. Of course my point is that all this talk of tax/income distribution tables and class warfare is foolishness. This bill gives money back to the taxpayers. It does not discriminate. It is designed to encourage savings and investment. It is about reducing the size of Government. conclusion Mr. Chairman, I could speak on this subject for a long time. However, let me simply say that this legislation is a most critical part of our Contract With America. Yes, we have brought this legislation to the floor of the House as we promised. But let us do even better than that. Let us pass this legislation with the goal of enacting into law real tax relief before the year is over.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. It is a precious moment of recollection, and I said that when you think back on our 40 years in the wilderness, there are biblical parallels, and Bob Michel served 38 faithful years here, but like Moses, he saw the Promised Land but never entered it. I first met Bob when I was teaching history down at Bradley University in Bob's hometown, and he was Uncle Bob to me, and he was a dear friend, and I admired him greatly long before I ever dreamed of joining him here. I had the distinct honor of serving with him for 25 of his 38 years. I miss him. I think we all miss him on a bipartisan basis. Bob came down here when this place was infinitely more collegial than it has become. It strikes me that we are perhaps learning from the British Parliament in our exchanges here on the floor that I do not really recall in previous years. But part of that was Bob's influence, and Bob had a gentlemanly demeanor. It was persistent. He could get filled with passion when he believed profoundly in an issue, but it never got down to personalities. I think it is a fitting tribute that is being paid to Bob by memorializing his name here, a great public servant, a great patriot, and we all honor him.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of Congress. While several different proposals have been discussed today, I believe that it is vitally important that we allow the States to ratify a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits, regardless of the final version. I have been a long-time supporter of term limits. In 1985, I introduced my first bill to set a 6-year limit on service for both Members of the House and Senate. Although I promoted such an idea for a decade, neither I, nor my colleagues who supported term limits, had an opportunity to bring such an idea to the House floor. While I personally prefer my term limits proposal, I am very pleased that the issue of term limits has finally come to the floor for a vote. To those of my colleagues who oppose term limits because it was not part of the Constitution, I would suggest that our Founding Fathers did, indeed, believe that rotation in office was vital to a representative democracy. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, after reviewing the Constitution, wrote to James Madison: ``The second feature I dislike [the first being the absence of a Bill of Rights], and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office. * * *'' During the early days of our Republic, service in Congress was generally limited to 4 years in the House and one 6-year term in the Senate. However, these were self-imposed limits on service. In closing, I would urge my colleagues, despite their preferences for one term limit proposal or another, to vote yes on final passage for term limits, and send it on to the States for ratification.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the public education system in America, having been infiltrated by Federal regulations, has significantly diminished fundamental learning opportunities that should be available to all students. Since the Department of education was established in 1980, curriculum standards, as well as the incentive for students to succeed have plummeted. What many people do not recognize is that future social stability and adequate education run parallel--when one rises, the other will follow. It is obvious that quality education in America's schools, mainly public, needs to be resurrected. The fundamental step in reforming public school systems begins with decentralization. The power to reduce the standard curriculum, held by the Department of education, should never have been created. There is no benefit no bureaucratic control over our Nation's learning institutions. It literally threatens the level of competence that future adults will possess. Dr. Milton Friedman, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, CA, and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in 1976, introduces the benefits of a voucher system within privatized schooling. In his article, ``Public Schools, Make Them Private,'' he illustrates how the voucher will eventually boost student performance and help low income families pay for school without raising taxes. I commend to the attention of my colleagues the following article written by Dr. Friedman in the hopes that we can correct the flaws in American education. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 19, 1995] Public Schools: Make Them Private (By Milton Friedman) Our elementary and secondary educational system needs to be radically reconstructed. That need arises in the first instance from the defects of our current system. But it has been greatly reinforced by some of the consequences of the technological and political revolutions of the past few decades. Those revolutions promise a major increase in world output, but they also threaten advanced countries with serious social conflict arising from a widening gap between the incomes of the highly skilled (cognitive elite) and the unskilled. A radical reconstruction of the educational system has the potential of staving off social conflict while at the same time strengthening the growth in living standards made possible by the new technology and the increasingly global market. In my view, such a radical reconstruction can be achieved only by privatizing a major segment of the educational system--i.e., by enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer effective competition to public schools. Such a reconstruction cannot come about overnight. It inevitably must be gradual. The most feasible way to bring about a gradual yet substantial transfer from government to private enterprise is to enact in each state a voucher system that enables parents to choose freely the schools their children attend. I first proposed such a voucher system 40 years ago. Many attempts have been made in the years since to adopt educational vouchers with minor exceptions, no one has succeeded in getting a voucher system adopted, thanks primarily to the political power of the school establishment, more recently reinforced by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, together the strongest political lobbying body in the United States. (1) the deterioration of schooling The quality of schooling is far worse today than it was in 1955. There is no respect in which inhabitants of a low- income neighborhood are so disadvantaged as in the kind of schooling they can get for their children. The reason is partly the deterioration of our central cities, partly the increased centralization of public schools--as evidenced by the decline in the number of school districts from 55,000 in 1955 to 15,000 in 1992. Along with centralization has come-- as both cause and effect--the growing strength of teachers' unions. Whatever the reason, the fact of deterioration of elementary and secondary schools is not disputable. The system over time has become more defective as it has become more centralized. Power has moved from the local community to the school district to the state, and to the federal government. About 90 percent of our kids now go to so-called public schools, which are really not public at all but simply private fiefs primarily of the administrators and the union officials. We all know the dismal results: some relatively good government schools in high-income suburbs and communities; very poor government schools in our inner cities with high dropout rates, increasing violence, lower performance and demoralized students and teachers. These changes in our educational system have clearly strengthened the need for basic reform. But they have also strengthened the obstacles to the kind of sweeping reform that could be produced by an effective voucher system. The teachers' unions are bitterly opposed to any reform that lessens their own power, and they have acquired enormous political and financial strength that they are prepared to devote to defeating any attempt to adopt a voucher system. The latest example is the defeat of Proposition 174 in California in 1993. (2) The New Industrial Revolution A radical reconstruction of our educational system has been made more urgent by the twin revolutions that have occurred within the past few decades: a technological revolution--the development, in particular, of more effective and efficient methods of communication, transportation and transmission of data; and a political revolution that has widened the influence of the technological revolution. The fall of the Berlin Wall was the most dramatic event of the political revolution. But it was not necessarily the most important event. For example communism is not dead in China and has not collapsed. And yet beginning in 1976, Premier Deng initiated a revolution within China that led to its being opened up to the rest of the world. Similarly, a political revolution took place in Latin America that, over the course of the past several decades, has led to a major increase in the fraction of people there who live in countries that can properly be described as democracies rather than military dictatorships and that are striving to enter open world markets. The technological revolution has made it possible for a company located anywhere in the world to use resources located anywhere in the world, to produce a product anywhere in the world, to be sold anywhere in the world. It's impossible to say, ``this is an American car'' or ``this is a Japanese car,'' and the same goes for many other products. The possibility for labor and capital anywhere to cooperate with labor and capital anywhere else had dramatic effects even before the political revolution took over. It meant that there was a large supply of relatively low-wage labor to cooperate with capital from the advanced countries, capital in the form of physical capital, but perhaps even more important, capital in the form of human capital--of skills, of knowledge, of techniques, of training. Before the political revolution came along, this international linkage of labor, capital and know-how had already led to a raid expansion in world trade, to the growth of multinational companies and to a hitherto unimaginable degree of prosperity in such formerly underdeveloped countries in East Asia as the ``Four Tigers.'' Chile was the first to benefit from these developments in Latin America, but its example soon spread to Mexico, Argentina and other countries in the region. In Asia, the latest to embark on a program of market reform is India. The political revolution greatly reinforced the technological revolution in two different ways. First, it added greatly to the pool of low-wage, yet not necessarily unskilled labor that could be tapped for cooperation with labor and capital from the advanced countries. The fall of the Iron Curtain added perhaps a half-billion people and China close to a billion, freed a least partly to engage in capitalist acts with people elsewhere. Second, the political revolution discredited the idea of central planning. It led everywhere to greater confidence in market mechanisms as opposed to central control by government. And that in turn fostered international trade and international cooperation. These two revolutions offer the opportunity for a major industrial revolution comparable to that which occurred 200 years ago--also spread by technological developments and freedom to trade. In those 200 years, world output grew more than in the preceding 2000. That record could be exceeded in the next two centuries if the peoples of the world take full advantage of their new opportunities. (3) WAGE DIFFERENTIALS The twin revolutions have produced higher wages and incomes for almost all classes in the underdeveloped countries. The effect has been somewhat different in the advanced countries. The greatly increased ratio of low-cost labor to capital has raised the wages of physical capital but has put downward pressure on the wages of low-skilled labor. The result has been a sharp widening in the differential between the wages of highly skilled and low- skilled labor in the United States and other advanced countries. If the widening of the wage differential is allowed to proceed unchecked, it threatens to create within our own country a social problem of major proportions. We shall not be willing to see a group of our population move into Third World conditions at the same time that another group of our population becomes increasingly well off. Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster. The pressure to avoid it by protectionist and other similar measures will be irresistible. (4) EDUCATION So far, our educational system has been adding to the tendency to stratification. Yet it is the only major force in sight capable of offsetting that tendency. Innate intelligence undoubtedly plays a major role in determining the opportunities open to individuals. Yet it is by no means the only human quality that is important, as numerous examples demonstrate. Unfortunately, our current educational system does little to enable either low-IQ or high-IQ individuals to make the most of other qualities. Yet that is the way to offset the tendencies to stratification. A greatly improved educational system can do more than anything else to limit the harm to our social stability from a permanent and large underclass. There is enormous room for improvement in our educational system. Hardly any activity in the United States is technically more backward. We essentially teach children in the same way that we did 200 years ago: one teacher in front of a bunch of kids in a closed room. The availability of computers has changed the situation, but not fundamentally. Computers are being added to public schools, but they are typically not being used in an imaginative and innovative way. I believe that the only way to make a major improvement in our educational system is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of all educational services are rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the current educational establishment--a necessary precondition for radical improvement in our educational system. And nothing else will provide the public schools with the competition that will force them to improve in order to hold their clientele. No one can predict in advance the direction that a truly free-market educational system would take. We know from the experience of every other industry how imaginative competitive free enterprise can be, what new products and services can be introduced, how driven it is to satisfy the customers--that is what we need in education. We know how the telephone industry has been revolutionized by opening it to competition; how fax has begun to undermine the postal monopoly in first-class mail; how UPS, Federal Express and many other private enterprises have transformed package and message delivery and, on the strictly private level, how competition from Japan has transformed the domestic automobile industry. The private schools that 10 percent of children now attend consist of a few elite schools serving at high cost a tiny fraction of the population, and many mostly parochial nonprofit schools able to compete with government schools by charging low fees made possible by the dedicated services of many of the teachers and subsidies from the sponsoring institutions. These private schools do provide a superior education for a small fraction of the children, but they are not in a position to make innovative changes. For that, we need a much larger and more vigorous private enterprise system. The problem is how to get from here to there. Vouchers are not an end in themselves; they are a means to make a transition from a government to a market system. The deterioration of our school system and the stratification arising out of the new industrial revolution have made privatization of education far more urgent and important than it was 40 years ago. Vouchers can promote rapid privatization only if they create a large demand for private schools to constitute a real incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the industry. That requires first that the voucher be universal, available to all who are now entitled to send their children to government schools, and second that the voucher, though less than the government now spends per pupil on education, be large enough to cover the costs of a private profit-making school offering a high-quality education. If that is achieved there will in addition be a substantial number of families that will be willing and able to supplement the voucher in order to get an even higher quality of education. As in all cases, the innovations in the ``luxury'' product will soon spread to the basic product. For this image to be realized, it is essential that no conditions be attached to the acceptance of vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprisers to experiment, to explore and to innovate. If this image is realized, everybody, except a small group of vested interests, will win; parents, students, dedicated teachers, taxpayers--for whom the cost of the educational system will decline--and especially the residents of central cities, who will have a real alternative to the wretched schools so many of their children are now forced to attend. The business community has a major interest in expanding the pool of well-schooled potential employees and in maintaining a free society with open trade and expanding markets around the world. Both objectives would be promoted by the right kind of voucher system. Finally, as in every other area in which there has been extensive privatization, the privatization of schooling would produce a new, highly active and profitable private industry that would provide a real opportunity for many talented people who are currently deterred from entering the teaching profession by the dreadful state of so many of our schools. This is not a federal issue. Schooling is and should remain primarily a local responsibility. Support for free choice of schools has been growing rapidly and cannot be held back indefinitely by the vested interests of the unions and educational bureaucracy. I sense that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in one state or another, which will then sweep like a wildfire through the rest of the country as it demonstrates its effectiveness. To get a majority of the public to support a general and substantial voucher, we must structure the proposal so that (1) it is simple and straightforward so as to be comprehensible to the voter, and (2) guarantees that the proposal will not add to the tax burden in any way but will rather reduce net government spending on education. A group of us in California has produced a tentative proposition that meets these conditions. The prospects for getting sufficient backing to have a real chance of passing such a proposition in 1996 are bright.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, a pleasure and an honor to join in this commemoration of Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. It is fitting that the House of Representatives is the scene for this observance, as this Chamber is an arm of the Government which leads the world in guaranteeing freedom for its citizens. And, it was ancient Greece which really invented democracy--giving to the people the true power to govern themselves. Saturday, March 25, mark the 174th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution that freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. What could be more appropriate than for the United States to observe that occasion with Greece. It is a time to again rejoice in the democratic heritage which links our two nations. As our Founding Fathers successfully drew up the Constitution for this country--a document which has never been equalled in the over two centuries which have passed since its signing--they had a historic outline to work from. That outline was provided by the leaders of ancient Greece who succeeded in defining and granting freedom to their people. Our friendship has been linked not only by our democratic foundations, but by the blood the soldiers of each country shed as they joined to fight common enemies in both World War I and World War II. May these two great nations continue their friendship and may their citizens continue to enjoy the freedom that has been theirs for almost two centuries in the case of Greece, and for over two centuries for our own Nation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, throughout my career in Congress, I have watched as Democrat majorities sat idly by and watched the welfare system destroy the lives of millions of Americans. I have watched as these failed liberal policies have burrowed a deeper and deeper hole of dependency, abuse, and fiscal irresponsibility for our children and their children. Democrats argue today that they are in favor of change. They claim to recognize the fact that welfare has not only failed to solve problems, but it has actually made them worse. Unfortunately, this realization comes too late. Last year, Democrats who then controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, could not reform the system. In historic numbers, the American people embraced the Republican reform proposal, and Republicans will reform the welfare system. While I strongly support this bill, I must admit to some reservations. I believe it is unfortunate that we have left untouched some administer as block grants. I have concerns about the expanded use of Social Security numbers under the child support provisions. Finally, I believe there are understandable fears that this bill could adversely impact the number of abortions. But the vast majority of this bill will be beneficial and will help those in need. Opponents of this welfare reform package have chosen to call supporters mean spirited, and they claim that the bill puts children at risk. I believe that it is far more uncaring and callous to put children and their parents into a welfare system that offers little hope of escape. I do not wish to leave future generations with the social and fiscal responsibilities of cleaning up our mess. This bill does not, as some on the other side have argued, need a jobs program. Welfare reform, along with other provisions in the contract, is in and of itself a jobs program. By reducing the size of Government, by getting Government out of people's lives, and by cutting the tax burden felt by the American public, jobs will be naturally created. In fact, I would argue that we would today have more jobs with higher wages were it not for Government intrusion into the market. What we do need is to end the cycle of dependency that has been created by the current welfare system. In too many cases, the current system has created what amount to reservations. So long as beneficiaries stay within certain boundaries, they will be given food and clothing and shelter and other benefits. The system not only does not reward those who try to move off of the reservation, it actually punishes them. This bill provides substantial incentives for States and individuals to make real efforts at moving beneficiaries to self- sufficiency and reducing the welfare rolls. Perhaps most importantly, this bill gives the States the flexibility to reach those goals. While Governors across the Nation have been experimenting with innovative programs and finding great success in giving beneficiaries the opportunities and incentives they need to become independent, the Federal Government has been largely static, watching without acting. In this bill, we will give States the opportunity to push those experiments even further. We will give States very real incentives to adopt successful programs from other States, without imposing Federal mandates from on high. Today, we begin to move in the right direction, but I hope that this will be only the first step. I hope that we will be able to implement further reforms in the future to give States more resources and more responsibilities. Some may see this bill as too large a step, others may call it too small. But it is a step. And it is one step more than Democrats ever made. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as a professor of history, I hope my colleagues will remember that today is the 147th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising against the Hapsburg Empire. While the uprising was relatively short-lived, a study of history shown that even unsuccessful revolutions can serve as important precursors to future reforms. It is important that we not forget or ignore the sacrifices of those who established the tradition of freedom and democracy in Hungary. Especially on this anniversary day, we should recognize those early revolutionaries and their descendants who sought liberty unsuccessfully in 1956 and who eventually won their freedom in 1989. I hope that my colleagues and all those who find freedom dear would read the following commemoration of this anniversary and remember those who made it possible. Commemoration of the 1848-49 Revolution and War of Independence in Hungary March 15 marks the anniversary of Hungary's Revolution and War of Independence for freedom, liberty and self- determination. On this day 147 years ago, the people of Hungary, led by reformers and young intellectuals, rose to demand freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, enforcement of human rights, and, first of all, independence from the Hapsburg empire. The quest by the people of Hungary and the War of Independence that followed, was, as so often before and after in Hungarian history, subdued by foreign intervention in August, 1849. The glorious Revolution that placed Hungary in the vanguard of the revolutionary movement for political and economic modernization which swept through Europe at that time, and the fallen War of Independence set an example for the entire world by a small nation. Hungary's effort proclaimed to mankind the inherent and indefeasible right of every nation to elect its own leaders and to establish its own laws. March 15, 1848 has never ceased to signify the torch of freedom, independence and democratic endeavors for the people of Hungary. The ideals and spirit of this historic effort have been the guiding spirit of the eternal adherence by the people of Hungary to independence and democracy throughout the years of foreign occupation and communist dominance ever since. The symbol and significance of Hungary's revolt for freedom and liberty are eloquently emphasized by the fact that Lajos Kossuth, one of history's most revered political leaders and champion of liberty and justice, is one of the few foreign political figures who is honored by a bust in the Capitol of the United States. Kossuth and the noble aspirations of the people of Hungary for freedom and independence gained attention and sympathy from the American public. The liberal and democratic principles so clearly proclaimed by the people of Hungary during the Revolution and War of Independence of 1848-49 are shared by the community of democratic nations. Therefore it is only fitting to pay tribute to the endeavors and sacrifice, to the bravery and love for independence by the people of Hungary. Almost a century had to pass before the dreams and aspirations of the Hungarian patriots of the 19th century led the people of Hungary to the streets during the heroic Revolution of 1956 in their desperate effort to gain freedom from foreign occupation and independence. Hungary and its freedom-loving people also deserve the admiration of the entire world for their crucial contribution to bringing down the Berlin Wall in 1989 by offering the gift of freedom for East Germans. Freedom for Hungary and freedom for all, ``with malice toward none, with charity for all''--this is what Hungary has stood for, this is what Hungary is representing even today. The people of Hungary face new challenges at present. These challenges emerge from their newly gained political and economic freedom the answers of which are sought by Hungary under firmly established democratic political order and policies aiming at the creation of a market economy and at the prevalence of human rights. The United States of America has always been a devoted supporter of the cause of Hungarian independence and freedom. This and engaged in ensuring the fulfillment of the ideals of Hungary's Revolution and War of Independence which started on March 15, 1848 under the new international political environment as their ideals, a democratic and free Hungary and a Europe which is free, united and at peace, are also shared by us all.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I thank my colleague the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise is support of the amendment. We just heard the eloquent plea for the arts from my distinguished colleague from my home State of Illinois. Yet it misses the point altogether. The fact of the matter is we have an arts bureaucracy in this government entity called the National Endowment for the Arts. That government bureaucracy only awards one recipient out of every four that makes an application. If we look at where those applications or those grantees are, I can understand why a colleague from the State of New York might be for preservation of the NEA in perpetuity. I can understand why somebody from California might take the same position, and I understand why somebody from Washington, DC, especially, would want to see it preserved. The fact of the matter is, I say to my colleague from Illinois, Washington, DC is, you probably do not realize this, a hub of artistic talent, and they get twice the grants that our whole State of Illinois gets. Yet they have fewer people in Washington, DC, than in your congressional district or my congressional district. In fact, Washington, DC, gets more in grants than Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming combined. That goes to Washington, DC. That is what goes to Washington, DC thanks to this arts bureaucracy and how they are manipulating public moneys and misallocating public moneys. Keep in mind another thing, too. That last year the private sector anted up $9.3 billion to fund the arts, in contrast to a $167 million input at taxpayer expense through this wheeling and dealing operation I touched upon. A single art auction up in New York, for example, brought in $269.5 million. For all I know, some of my artistic colleagues from New York may have participated. In addition to that, a single painting alone last year managed to get $82.5 million. I submit to Members that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I hope it will be addressed more fully when we get to the question of total funding. That is later in the year. But right now this is a very modest cut when we are asked to reallocate scarce resources and we have heard eloquent appeals as to where money should be going other than the way the committee has determined. I compliment the gentleman on his amendment and urge everyone to support it. announcement by the chairman

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Infinitely preferable to do it in the private sector than the public sector. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to be sure. I said gross income. But my point is that when you are looking at $2 billion a year in gross income, for goodness' sake, our contribution that we are talking about is inconsequential by comparison.

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I assume that free exchange is on Barney and Sesame Street that he is talking about, and that is characteristic of the other side of the aisle. But let me tell you something: Lyon's Group and Children's TV Workshop are grossing about $2 billion a year through the exposure of Barney and Sesame Street. Now, why do they not, because of that free advertising, permit a little flow-back to replace any component part of national public broadcasting that is coming from the taxpayers.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for one final rebuttal. My point is that is a gentler adjustment time frame than what is proposed under the legislation, because if you make marginal cuts this year and marginal cuts next year, and then you come in and you savage them totally in that final year, that is a bigger adjustment than my proposal offers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Speaker Gingrich has indicated that he would not recognize further funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after 1998, and as a result, we are on a course that is designed to totally defund the public contribution to public broadcasting. It is a, relatively speaking, minimal contribution right now, and it will be zeroed out. But in the interim, what I am arguing is that my amendment would do this in a way that enables those people to make adjustments as they face that final decline of Government money involvement in public broadcasting. They would do this in a more rational way. The proposal in the legislation before us is mild up front. In 1995, it is a 15-percent cut, a 30-percent cut in 1996, but then they are faced with a 70-percent reduction in their funding the year that it is terminated. My proposal, Mr. Chairman, would, instead, make it 33 percent, 33 percent, and 33 percent, and I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that that is a better way to approach the resolution to this problem than is currently contemplated. The CPB funding, one must recognize, is a very small percentage of total funding for public broadcasting. As I indicated earlier, it is roughly 15 percent that comes from Federal appropriations to fund public broadcasting. We are talking about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, not public broadcasting. Public broadcasting will continue, and my argument is there are ways in which it can be assured of a continuation for those programs that those people who are constant viewers, say, of public broadcasting, they can be assured that they will still continue to receive those services. There will be some adjustments, however, and those adjustments are dictated in part by economic reasons, and that has been a part of the argument advanced by Speaker Gingrich when he says by 1998 the Government taxpayers will no longer be involved in this process. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that from 1975 until the present the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the public funding, has risen by 500 percent, 500 percent since 1975. And even if you are looking at constant dollars, the fiscal year 1995 appropriation is more than three times higher than 20 years ago. Telecommunications is very different than it was in 1967 when CPB was created. The functions of public broadcasting, namely, education, entertainment, diversity, access, and so forth are now duplicated in other entities such as cable, direct satellite, VCR's, public-access shows. CPB provides only one block of programming, while cable provides hundreds. Some say that we need CPB because many do not get cable, the main source of diversity. However, the answer to that problem is to encourage access to cable, not to subsidize public broadcasters. Many public TV stations themselves are now redundant. CPB estimates that 58 percent of Americans receive at least two or more public TV stations. In the greater Chicago area, for example, my hometown, there are as many as four access stations, and New York has four. Washington, DC, has three; Kansas City, for example, has two. Public broadcasting funds should go to rural stations where the need for access and diversity is most acute. If the CPB were truly the philanthropic organization it claims to be, cuts in its budget would not lead to the end of small stations. Instead, it would end big stations where consumers have a number of choices. Barney was created by the Lyons group. Founder Sheryl Leach and her partner were listed as one of Forbes magazine's highest-paid entertainers with 1993 to 1994 earnings of $84 million. The Lyons group has the licensing agreement with Hasbro and a theme park at Universal Studios theme park in Orlando. Barney avoided extinction with the help of a $2 million grant from the CPB and public broadcasting. ``What we didn't realize is that exposure is so important,'' said Barney creator Sheryl Leach. After public broadcasters provided exposure, Barney became an institution. The Wall Street Journal reported that despite Barney's $1 billion in gross revenues and Leach's $84 million earnings, almost nothing goes to CPB. In total, according to the Wall Street Journal, the CPB earned $317,000 from product licensing fees in 1991. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that we are not talking about ending public broadcasting. What we are talking about is ending that minimal Federal Government involvement in this process that is not necessary, not in any way, shape, or And we know, for example, that there are alternative ways to meet that marginal void of the 15-percent taxpayer contribution to the process that has perpetuated this with escalating costs to the taxpayers and minimal return. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.