Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Yes, it has, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I have not suggested the content. What I have suggested is that we are going to terminate public financing of public broadcasting by the year 1998, and all that my amendment does is to do that in a staggered way where those people can make easier adjustments than to take a 70-percent hit in their total budget in 1997. Mine is 33, 33, 33, so they can make the adjustments to the cutbacks. And the other point is it is not cultural elitism that I have argued about.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say in conclusion, we are not talking about ending public broadcasting. Eighty-five percent of public broadcasting is privately funded. We are talking about a minuscule contribution from our grandchildren who are going to inherit the debt that we are running up right now. I say it is time to get Government out of public broadcasting. It can survive and it can continue to provide the worthwhile services it has in the past. I urge support for my amendment.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] who has a gentleman's disagreement with me.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have to explain again to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the public taxpayer-financed component of public broadcasting, will be gone by 1998. All my amendment does is phase that cut in in a way where they can make the adjustment easier than is otherwise prescribed under the legislation before us. It is a 33, 33, 33 percent cut instead of waiting until 1997 and taking a 70 percent hit on their whole budget. It is history, guys. Open your eyes up. We are talking about letting the private sector run it as it always should have. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. With all due respect, we have a gentleman's disagreement.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University, has formulated a decorous and forthright theory which reveals the malignant problems caused by American dependence on the welfare state. Since the 1960's, Federal welfare policies have only resulted in a debilitating reliance by American citizens on a Federal Government not created to function in this area. Unfortunately, this institution--the welfare state--has become a permanent and detrimental fixture in our society. I commend to the attention of my colleagues the following article written by Mr. Williams entitled, ``Led astray by the poverty `experts'.'' May we all learn from his insights and wisdom as the 104th Congress embarks on the reformation of the outdated welfare policies plaguing our Nation. Led Astray by the Poverty `Experts' (By Walter Williams) Much of what's wrong in our country is the result of heeding the words of ``experts'' and ``intellectuals,'' whose advice defies every notion of common sense. Take skyrocketing black illegitimacy. But first, let's put it into perspective. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent. Today, it's 68 percent and estimated to be 75 percent by the year 2000. As early as the 1870s, up to 80 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families. Between 1905 and 1925, 85 percent of Harlem youngsters lived in two- parent families. Today, fewer than 40 percent of black kids live in two-parent families. The black family could survive slavery and Jim Crowism but not the welfare state. During the '60s, now-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a report concluding, ``At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro family,'' At that time, black illegitimacy was 30 percent. Liberals attacked the report. Civil rights leader Bayard Rustin said, ``What may be a disease to the white middle class may be a healthy adaptation of the Negro lower class.'' Floyd McKissick, director of COPE, echoed that sentiment, saying, ``Just because Moynihan believes in middle-class values doesn't mean they are the best for everyone in America.'' Those sentiments were supported by many, including supposed intellectuals. Andrew Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins professor and sociologist, argued it had yet to be shown that the ``absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes.'' Mr. cherlin concluded that the real issue ``is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income.'' In other words, fathers can be replaced by a monthly welfare check. That's a stupid idea, but we bought it. When Mr. Moynihan completed his report, according to Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, attempts were made to repress its release. Professors Lee Rainwater and Williams Yancey suggested ``it would have been well to reduce the discussion of illegitimacy because of the inflammatory nature of the issue with its inevitable overtones of immorality.'' According to William Bennett, writing in the American Enterprise (January-February 1995), ``More than 70 percent of black children will have been supported by Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments at one point or another during childhood.'' He adds, ``The most serious problems afflicting our society today are manifestly moral, behavioral and spiritual, and therefore remarkably resistant to government cures.'' That recognition is thankfully slowly dawning upon us after years of listening to experts and their destructive nonsense. But the experts are doing their level best to keep us befuddled. They continue to preach nonsense like the proposition that crime and other forms of antisocial behavior are caused by poverty. The truth of the matter is the causal direction may be the other way around: Poverty is caused by crime and antisocial behavior. After all, poverty is the likely result when a person does not respect the rights and property of others and ignores the values of hard work, sacrifice and deferment of gratification. Congress has put welfare reform high on its agenda. In seeking advice on what to do, they should summarily disqualify all the experts whose advice we've listened to in the past that has resulted in today's calamity. If I had it my way, there'd be a blanket exclusion of anyone from any government agency dealing with poverty and anyone who has received a government grant to do research on poverty.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, in 1982, I first introduced a bill to replace our entire complicated tax code with one, simple flat income tax. Unfortunately, we were not given the opportunity to debate my bill or fundamental tax reform in general thanks to the Democrat-controlled Ways and Means Committee. With the advent of Republican control of Congress, we finally have an opportunity to debate fundamental reform of the tax code. I believe that such reform should include the flat income tax. Echoing that statement is our Senate Colleague Connie Mack from Florida. In the March 2, 1995, edition of the Washington Times, Senator Mack wrote an article stating the case for the flat tax. I commend his article to the attention of my colleagues, and urge them to support the concept and implementation of the flat tax when Congress later considers tax reform. [From the Washington Times, Mar. 2, 1995] Taxed to the Limit (By Connie Mack) Eighty-two years ago this week Americans' hard-earned money became subject to federal income taxation. After eight decades of misuse by lawmakers, lobbyists, special interests and income redistributors, the income tax system is in dire need of a complete overhaul. Under the current income tax system, marginal tax rates that were 15 and 28 percent just a few years back are now as high as 45 percent--and in some cases high tax rates are combined with double and even triple taxation of income. Our current tax system punishes success, stifles work effort, discourages saving and investing and fosters unproductive investments in tax shelters. Simply stated, our tax system hinders the full productive potential of our economy and reduces every American's potential for a higher standard of living. Like our forefathers, we find ourselves at a crossroads of governmental evolution. The American Revolution was as much a referendum on tax policies as it was on government. Jefferson, Hamilton and Paine looked at the political realities of that time and concluded that the status quo could not meet the needs of the ``New World.'' Today, as we enter the new millennium, the American people are demanding the same kind of imagination and leadership that our forefathers provided. The Republican Economic Plan is a major part of the new revolution that began on Nov. 8. The Flat Tax is a critical part of this revolution. A flat rate income tax would radically reduce the tax compliance burden currently imposed on every individual and business. People would be able to calculate their income tax liability with ease. The Internal Revenue Service would no longer need to publish 480 different tax forms. Taxpayers would no longer have to wade through 1,378 pages of tax code and 6,439 additional pages of federal tax regulation. Not only is the tax burden (particularly on the middle- class) at a record high, but Americans waste some $190 billion and 6 billion man-hours just to comply with our onerous tax code. To add some perspective, 6 billion man hours is equal to the amount of man hours it takes to produce all of the cars, trucks and airplanes in this country each year! If adopted, a flat rate tax system would end the economic damage due to the perverse effects on work incentives caused by high marginal tax rates. The amount of after-tax money an individual keeps for each additional dollar earned can determine whether that individual works overtime, seeks out tax shelters, or goes fishing. Currently, people automatically forfeit more of their money to taxes when they increase their real income and are moved to a higher tax rate--cutting the government in on a larger share of people's hard work and success. It's no wonder Americans feel they have been working longer and harder with so little to show for it--they have. These deterrents would not exist under a flat tax system. The prevailing ``rich'' vs. ``poor'' tax warfare, which has fostered higher taxes across the board to the disadvantage of everyone, would end. To the greatest possible extent, people would be treated equally under the law. There would be no tax loopholes or giveaways for special interests. A flat tax would provide fundamental fairness in the way we treat all taxpayers. A generous individual allowance and dependent deduction would insure that low-income families would be completely removed from the tax rolls. Right now, our government takes a huge chunk of peoples' income and then bribes them with their own money by giving it back with a deduction here and tax credit there. A low-rate flat tax would allow tax payers to keep more hard earned money as they earn it; no other tax reform plan treats each individual with as much fairness, simplicity and clarity. The flat tax would eliminate government's current role of micro-managing people's behavior through the tax code, and would encourage individual initiative, ingenuity and opportunity to flourish. Tax reform is critical to enhancing long-term economic growth. By eliminating destructively high marginal tax rates, the flat tax would boost investment, productivity, wage growth and overall standard of living. We know that reducing high marginal tax rates worked when Presidents Kennedy and Reagan cut them, resulting in two periods of our nation's most robust economic growth. While Americans continue to work longer and harder to improve their lives, their efforts are being thwarted by an outdated and punitive tax code. Replacing the current income tax system with a flat tax will reduce both the time and amount Americans dedicate to taxes. A revolution began on Nov. 8--and flat-tax reform should be an integral part of this revolution.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a package of three bills designed to give Americans the freedom to invest and save, without interference from the IRS. Our current tax code acts as an obstacle for individuals to do what they have been counseled to do by their parents for generations--save and invest. A study by the Tax Foundation revealed that effective tax rates on income from savings and investment are substantially higher than the effective tax rates on income from wages. As a result, the tax burden falls heaviest on those who earn a greater portion of their income from savings and investments--namely entrepreneurs and senior citizens. As a consequence, these high tax rates actually discourage Americans from saving and investing. Again according to the Tax Foundation, the current estate laws have similar negative effects in the market. Amazingly, the current Federal estate taxes have the same punishing effect on Americans as doubling income tax rates. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I am attempting to put some rationality back in the tax code, and as part of the effort to achieve fundamental reform of the code, I am introducing a package of three bills to do the following: 1. Eliminate dividend and interest taxes on individuals; 2. Repeal estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers; and 3. Repeal the capital gains tax on individuals. It is high time we stopped punishing those who save and invest. A typical taxpayer who chooses to save is taxed several times on the same dollar of earned income under the present system. As a result, savings and investment rates in the United States are among the lowest of the world's major industrial powers. Under this legislative package, taxpayers will finally be set free from these redundant taxes. I encourage my colleagues to support these bills for the benefit of their constituents.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to salute my distinguished chairman for his efforts here to restore and make permanent the 25-percent health insurance deduction for the self- employed, something that should have occurred a long time ago, and he has finally adroitly addressed it. Second, another reform in it is repeal of section 1071 of the tax code which has permitted an unconstitutional usurpation of the exclusive jurisdiction on the part of Congress and more specifically the House to originate tax policy. Tax policy has degenerated over a period of years and the lack of appropriate oversight into something that has been taken over in part in this instance by a Federal agency. Finally, it ends the discriminatory provision that falls under the definition of affirmative action, because if affirmative action is dealing with minority rights, then what are the rights of minorities who are of Polish descent, of Irish descent, of Italian descent, German descent, Hungarian descent? It is long since overdue. I salute my distinguished chairman for having done it. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that the first bill that has been reported to the House floor by the Ways and Means Committee this year, H.R. 831, sets us on a good course for tax policy in the 104th Congress. The primary purpose of this bill is to permanently extend for the self-employed the 25-percent tax deduction for health insurance expenses. I would put emphasis on the word ``permanently'' because it raises a point that is worth noting in terms of tax policy. There are a number of deductions/credits in the tax code that are temporary in nature. Rather frequently, the Ways and Means Committee must decide whether to extend various expiring provisions. Consequently, every year hundreds of proponents flock to the Hill to lobby in support of the various provisions. This process is not only time consuming, costly, and unnecessary, but the temporary nature of these provisions is frankly unfair to the taxpayer. Taxpayers and businesses often never know from year to year whether they can count on a particular deduction or credit. In this case, the self-employed deduction expired December 31, 1993, meaning that those filing their returns for the 1994 taxable year with the April 15, 1995, deadline, still do not know whether they can take the deduction. This legislation will ensure that these hard- working individuals will not have to go through this kind of uncertainty again. In my view, either these temporary deductions/credits are worthwhile or they aren't. If they are, let's make them permanent, and if they are not, let's eliminate them from the code altogether. I believe it is the intention of the Ways and Means Committee under the leadership of our fine new chairman, Bill Archer, to move in that direction. I will certainly do all I can to encourage the membership of the committee and the House to proceed accordingly. Moreover, I will look forward to the opportunity at a later date to consider raising the 25-percent deduction to a higher percentage. In the meantime, having the certainty that the deduction is going to be there is critical. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee who has dealt with this issue for many years, I can say with confidence that this credit helps literally thousands of individuals by encouraging health insurance coverage without the heavy hand of Federal bureaucrats. Having touched on the principal purpose of this legislation, another aspect of the bill must be discussed. There are two items in H.R. 831 that have been incorporated into the bill to pay for the extension of the self-employed deduction. One of these items, specifically that portion of the bill which repeals section 1071 of the Internal Revenue Code, deserves further comment. The history of this section is fully recited in the Ways and Means Committee Report 104-32. In a nutshell, current law attempts to promote minority ownership of broadcast facilities ``by offering an FCC [Federal Communications Commission] tax certificate to those who voluntarily sell such facilities to minority individuals or minority- controlled entities.'' This tax certificate results in substantial tax savings for the sellers in the transaction and that fact alone should be enough for those little imagination to realize how such a provision might be utilized. Basically, as section 1071 has evolved, it is designed to work as an affirmative action program to encourage minority ownership of broadcast facilities. To be blunt, I view affirmative action programs as reverse discrimination and believe that in the long run they are detrimental to the efforts of minorities to break down some of the discrimination barriers that still exist because of the resentment such policies generate in the various classes of people not given the benefit. However, even if one supports the concept of affirmative action, it is not all clear that this program has actually resulted in long-term minority ownership of broadcast facilities as was intended. Rather, from the information that is available on the FCC program, it would appear that many of the deals are accomplished purely to take advantage of the certificate because we find the minority interest evaporating in a short period of time after the transaction has been triggered. Put another way, many of the deals little or no interest in ensuring long-term minority ownership. Finally, I would contend that the FCC should not be making these type of decisions anyway--I do not believe it is wise to give the FCC the authority to carry out Federal tax policy. In short, it is my strong opinion that section 1071 of the code is ill-advised and must be eliminated. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation because it embodies sound tax policy.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, while we all support the concept of providing equal treatment and access for those with disabilities, I believe that Congress must take time to evaluate how the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] of 1990 embodies those concepts. We must decide how to maintain the benefits that ADA provides as well as eliminate the problems that it causes. In pursuing this evaluation, I would recommend to my colleagues the following article, ``Why the ADA Could Ruin the Superbowl.'' The author, Deborah K. Schlussel, has vividly illustrated the problems encompassing the ADA. She gives unmistakable proof that the ADA has imposed unnecessary barriers on American companies and professional sports teams. It is our duty to proceed in making the correct and necessary alterations to the Americans With Disabilities Act, and I hope my colleagues will keep this article in mind as Congress considers this issue. Why the ADA Could Ruin the Superbowl (By Deborah K. Schlussel, J.D.) This year's Superbowl, the contest between football's top American Football Conference (AFC) and National Football Conference (NFC) teams, has come and gone. But the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a bill aimed at eliminating discrimination against the disabled, may change the Superbowl as we know it, and all professional sports competition, for that matter. Though uncertain, it is conceivable that Title I of the ADA, a provision written to penalize private employers who discriminate based on disabilities, could make next year's Superbowl more closely resemble the Special Olympics, rather than the traditional contest between pro football's finest. The ADA prohibits employers from using ``selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the * * * selection criteria'' relate to ``essential functions'' of the job. The difficulty is that the courts (who may know nothing about the functions needed to be an inside linebacker), not the employers, ultimately decide the ``essential functions'' of the job. Professional sports leagues, including the National Football League (NFL), National Association (NBA), and Major League Baseball (MLB), by their very nature, are inherently discriminatory, and their discrimination is necessarily based on disability. A man with a wooden leg can't be a running back, and a man with a limp won't be much more effective. Neither will make a good kicker. And they probably wouldn't make good forwards or defensemen on the NHL ice. But what if a one-eyed man wanted to play pro hockey, or a man without use of his right arm felt qualified to be an NFL kicker, or a man with a bad back and a risky spine condition wanted to be an offensive lineman? In 1977-1979, a one-eyed hockey player, Gregory Neeld, sued both the NHL and the American Hockey League (AHL) for their refusal to let him participate in league play. The courts held that, as private employers, the leagues were not covered by federal rights laws barring discrimination against the disabled. Now, however, the ADA extends civil rights protections for the disabled to all private employers with 15 or more employees, including employers, such as the major sports leagues and teams, and their pro-athlete employees. In the Neeld case, the one-eyed hockey player presented testimony that he only needed a protective mask to shield his remaining eye and would, then, be able to play hockey at a level on par with that of other professional hockey players. Under the ADA, employers are required to ``reasonably accommodate'' disabled employees and job applicants, and most likely, a court would have required the NHL and AHL to provide Neeld with the protective mask and let him play hockey, despite the fact that his possession of only one eye put him at high risk of blindness. That may not sound so bad, but what if the NFL was required to let a man play football who needed to wear obtrusive, heavy leg and back braces on significant portions of his body? He probably couldn't run very fast, but he could still run and throw and catch the ball. Under the ADA, he could still perform the ``essential functions'' of the job. Thus, a court might force the NFL to let him play. The problem is that Congress doesn't appear to have considered professional sports when it drafted Title I of the ADA, except with regard to the issue of drug testing, and because the ADA is fairly new, it has not yet been the subject of much litigation. Therefore, its provisions as they apply to professional sports, have not been sufficiently tested in the courts. The ADA covers ``qualified individuals with a disability'' who are employees or applicants for employment, and defines ``qualified individuals'' as those who can perform the ``essential functions'' of the job, with or without ``reasonable accommodation'' by the employer. A one-armed man, for example, can arguably perform the ``essential functions'' of a defensive lineman, if he can still block the other team's players. In addition, the ADA is extremely vague and ambiguous as to whom is ``disabled,'' and, thus, covered by the Act. It seems to be overinclusive in its definition of who is an individual with a ``disability,'' and, in fact, the only individuals explicitly excluded from coverage by the ADA are transvestites and illegal drug addicts who aren't seeking rehabilitation. (Perhaps, here, the only players the leagues could fire with impunity would be Larry Johnson of the NBA's Charlotte Hornets and Alexander Daigle of the NHL's Ottawa Senators, both of whom donned women's dresses in recent endorsement ads.) Generally, when a law is vague, its definitions are refined and explained by court decisions, and because, as stated above, this law is relatively new (1990), and there have been few court cases interpreting its provisions, the sports league and their teams will have to look to court decisions involving Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, upon which the ADA is largely based, for legal precedent. In these cases, the courts have forced several high schools and universities to allow disabled athletes to participate in contact sports, including football players with one eye, one kidney, and other disabilities, regardless of the fact that they might pose a direct threat to themselves and others (because the courts felt the risk wasn't significant enough). These decisions may now be forced on professional sports. In the ADA, the courts may soon have an opportunity to rewrite the rules of football. Under Title I of the Act, though some consideration is given to the employer's judgment as to what functions of the job are essential, the NFL's determination of the essential functions of a quarterback, is not final. Rather, the court decides, and in cases interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the courts have rewritten job descriptions to their liking, as in the U.S. Supreme Court's deletion of the ability to lift with both arms as a job requirement for a U.S. Postal Service position, in Prewitt v. U.S. Postal Service, a 1981 case. In the near future, the court could decide that a man with two artificial arms could be the Dallas Cowboys' new kicker, because he can perform the ``essential functions'' of the job. As Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL) stated during the ADA debate on the Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, ``The issue * * * [is] who decides what those essential functions are. Ultimately it could be a court, it could be a lot of different folks who could decide this thing in the long run.'' This ADA provides ample opportunity for ``courts [to] arbitrarily substitut[e] their judgment for an employer's when it comes to determining the essential functions of the job.'' The current standard ``NFL Player Contract'' requires that a player be, and ``maintain himself in excellent physical condition.'' The NFL may have to do some editing and go back to the printer. Next season's Los Angeles Raiders (with the Raider pirate as their mascot) might truly resemble Long John Silver, wooden leg and all. Superbowl XXIX, beware.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as the new majority in Congress, we face tough decisions in following through with our promises to the American people. My friend and constituent, Mr. Bill Zimmerman from Gurnee, IL, provided me with a poem that describes the traits Americans expect from their legislators. I include a copy of ``God, Give Us Men'' for the Record, and commend it to the attention of my colleagues. God, Give Us Men! (By Josiah Gilbert Holland) God, give us Men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Men who can stand before a demagogue And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog In public duty and in private thinking; For while the rabble, with thumb-worn creeds, Their large professions and their little deeds, Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps, Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's Presidency brought a fresh breath of renewed freedom to this country shackled by regulation, inflation, high interest rates, and higher taxes at the time of his first inauguration. It was the policies of Ronald Reagan which brought about the greatest national upset of the century--the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan toppled the reign of an evil empire which its own citizens sought but who were helpless to free themselves from--the dictatorship which Lenin and Stalin had set upon them. He kept his faith in America. Ronald Reagan gave this country its biggest tax cut in the first year of his presidency. The Reagan cut stimulated the dynamic growth of the decade that followed, an explosion which created 20 million jobs. Ronald Reagan adhered faithfully to traditional American family values. He was adamant against abortion. It was Ronald Reagan who touched off the debate on free trade. His leadership in this area brought about our first free-trade agreement with Canada. The NAFTA pact followed. I personally have been a Ronald Reagan supporter for over a quarter of a century. I battled in vain to gain him the Republican nomination for President in 1968 in Miami Beach, and in 1976 in Kansas City. When I withdrew from the presidential campaign in 1980, I threw all my support behind him. Ronald Reagan--a native of my own home State of Illinois--was ever the optimist who recognized that the United States still represents the world's best hope.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act. As a supporter of the line-item veto since the 98th Congress, I believe that floor consideration of such legislation is long overdue. While Congress has failed to address its wasteful spending habits, our annual deficits have routinely exceeded $200 billion. Inaction is no longer an option. When our Founding Fathers wrote article I, section 7 of the Constitution, they provided for the means by which a bill becomes law. According to section 7, legislation passed by both Houses of Congress shall be presented to the President for approval. If the President does not approve of the bill, he may return it to Congress, with his objections. I provide this history lesson because some of my colleagues who oppose H.R. 2 apparently believe that Congress would somehow abdicate its constitutional obligations to the Executive by enacting a line-item veto. Clearly, the Executive plays a vital role in the process by which bills become law. I assure my colleagues that the line-item veto is completely appropriate, and, in fact, would argue that it has always been a legitimate prerogative of the Executive. national debt, will provide an important check on wasteful pork-barrel spending. When combined with the balanced budget requirement just passed by the House, we will finally be able to tilt the effort of the Federal Government away from the profligate spending habits that have left us with a $5 trillion debt. The benefits of a line-item veto have been demonstrated by 43 of the Nation's Governors who have this prerogative. One study has estimated that if the executive branch had exercised such fiscal restraint, the budget deficit for 1995 would be almost $23 billion smaller. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked for a leave of absence after 5:30 p.m. to conduct business in my district in Illinois. Because I was in the district I was unable to cast my vote on three amendments. Had I been present I would have cast my vote against the Mink amendment, rollcall No. 77; against the Beilenson amendment, rollcall No. 78; and against the Moran amendment, rollcall No. 79.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, after receiving assurances that we would not be voting on final passage of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act tonight, I am keeping a commitment I made many months ago to travel back to Illinois to speak before the Barrington Chamber of Commerce. I regret that I may miss a number of votes relating to amendments to this legislation. However, regrettably, it has become clear from the proceedings of recent colleagues on the other side of the aisle may be dilatory in nature, and are designed to simply slow down the process. In any event, my engagement in the district is important to my constituents, and I will make clear in the Record tomorrow how I would have cast my vote on any recorded votes I may have missed. Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1995 No. 19 House of Representatives

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I salute his efforts in trying to get a balanced budget amendment finally passed in this Congress that imposes some discipline with regard to the question of escalating taxes. I came here in 1969. The last time we had a balanced budget was that year. In the years since, we cut taxes once, very significantly, in 1981. Ironically, it produced almost a doubling of revenues in the course of the ensuing decade, but the spending has been out of control, and I hear a lot of good rhetoric on how we have got to discipline ourselves on spending. But we must remember that when you do not have some discipline from the standpoint of imposing restrictions on constantly raising taxes, we could be confronted with what we went through in 1993 with passage of the biggest tax increase in the history of civilization, and it still was not addressing that question of spending. We are being overtaxed currently. We have got to get it under control. The supermajority requirement is a perfect way of approaching it. I urge my colleagues to support Barton.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to salute the gentleman for the introduction of this resolution and try to clarify apparently some misunderstandings about where Republications are coming from. We appropriately have taken the Social Security trust fund off budget and that is where it should always reside. That does not mean it is a sacred trust, because we have to remember that we have done this with other trust funds and we must remember our Democratic colleagues slashed $56 billion out of Medicare funding and we have got to remember our Democratic colleagues put that tax increase on Social Security without a single Republican vote in support of either of those two positions. So, we are going on record, we have made it clear where we are coming from, and I simply want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], for introducing this resolution.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks opponents of the NAFTA have tried to use the devaluation of the Mexican currency as a way to revive their efforts to undermine this historic trade initiative. To be sure, the devaluation of the peso is of great concern to our country because of the economic dislocation it is causing in Mexico. The devaluation will have the unfortunate effect of raising the price of United States exports to Mexico, and will tend to reduce the trade surplus the United States built up with Mexico during 1994, the first year of the NAFTA. The current situation facing Mexico is unfortunate, but the United States has a strong interest in helping Mexico weather this downturn in its economy. The United States shares a 2,000-mile border with Mexico and our economies are closely linked. Total trade between the United States and Mexico is in the range of $70 billion a year. Without NAFTA the current economic situation would be much worse for U.S. businesses and workers. As a comprehensive bilateral free-trade agreement, NAFTA obligates Mexico to solve its economic crisis in ways that ensure that United States products and services will not be shut out of Mexico's market. In the past it was not unusual for Mexico to try to address its currency problems and fiscal difficulties by nationalizing banks and other industries, and otherwise closing the Mexican market to United States goods and services. Because the NAFTA obligates Mexico to maintain an open market, the agreement will serve as a stabilizing force to minimize the effect of Mexico's economic problems on the United States. United States trade policy towards Mexico as symbolized by the NAFTA, helps to steady a volatile situation for U.S. businesses and workers. NAFTA ensures that President Ernesto Zedillo will address the current situation through greater, not less liberalization of the Mexican market. NAFTA is by no means a cure-all, but it is a highly advantageous agreement for U.S. workers and businesses in this current climate of uncertainty in the economy of our southern neighbor.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, continuing a tradition begun in the 98th Congress, I have once again reintroduced legislation which reaffirms the commitment of this body to protect the second amendment to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized the right of men to defend themselves, and guaranteed Americans that this right would be preserved by the second amendment. At the time of our Nation's founding, guaranteeing this right was an idea foreign to the monarchies that ruled most of the world. James Madison noted this when he wrote that the right to keep and bear arms was an advantage ``which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.'' During the 103d Congress, we witnessed an assault on the right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms. Both the Brady bill and the ban on certain semiautomatic guns were ill-conceived legislative attempts at crime control. Actually, both had the effect of usurping the rights of Americans while doing little to help crime in America. Gun control laws have never worked to reduce crime in America. Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in America, yet leads the Nation in per capita murders. My own State of Illinois has some very tough standards before its citizens can legally possess firearms, yet since those laws went into effect, the crime and murder rates have dramatically increased. I find it necessary, therefore, to remind my colleagues that our Nation's crime problems cannot be solved by infringing upon the rights of peaceful Americans to own arms. Furthermore, because of the recent congressional assaults on this right, we must demonstrate to Americans that we are resolved to protecting this right by supporting my resolution to reaffirm the second amendment and the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. I include, for the Record, the language of the resolution and commend it to the attention of my colleagues with the hope that they will consider becoming a cosponsor. H. Con. Res. 5 Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in the pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors. Whereas the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States conveys an inalienable right to all American citizens, such right occupying the same preferred position as all other constitutional rights; Whereas unconscionable abridgements of the second amendment have been undertaken over the years by State and local governmental bodies, and have been allowed by the courts to stand uncorrected; and Whereas the Framers of the second amendment to the Constitution and those who ratified the second amendment intended that the individual retain the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect life, liberty, and property and to protect our Nation from those who would attempt to destroy our freedom: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the Constitution provides that all individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, which right supersedes the power and authority of any government.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Caribbean Basin Economic Security Act. This bill would grant tariff treatment equivalent to that accorded to members of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA], to Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries, for a 6- year period, pending their accession to NAFTA. This bill would also direct the USTR to meet on a regular basis with trade ministers of countries in the Caribbean to discuss the likely timing and possible procedures for initiating negotiations for beneficiary countries to accede to NAFTA. Finally, as a way to encourage the administration to give a high priority to expanding trade with the Caribbean, the bill requires annual reports to Congress which: One, assess progress toward economic development and market oriented reforms in the Caribbean, and; two, analyze beneficiary countries with respect to their ability to undertake the trade obligations of NAFTA. First proposed by the Reagan administration in 1982 and passed by the Congress in 1983, the Caribbean Basin Initiative [CBI] program is based on the understanding that the United States has a special responsibility to help the small, poorer economies which are our neighbors in the hemisphere. Because of the Caribbean's close proximity to the United States, Congress agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that it was in the best interest of the United States to encourage the development of strong democratic governments and healthy economies in these countries, through the expansion of trade. Made permanent in 1990, the Caribbean Basin Initiative extends duty- free treatment to a wide-range of products imported from beneficiary countries. The program has served as a text-book example of the job- creating effects of promoting increased trade. As a result of the CBI, thousands of new jobs were created in the Caribbean. Even more remarkable was the increase in U.S. exports to the region during the life of the CBI program. They grew from $5.8 billion in 1983 to $12.3 billion in 1993. This represents a 112 percent increase, a rate three times the growth rate of U.S. exports to the world. The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that the value of the U.S. commitment to the Caribbean contained in the CBI is not eroded over time. An unfortunate result of the passage of the NAFTA, enacted in 1993, is that some investment is being diverted from the Caribbean to Mexico. This bill is designed to remedy the negative effects of NAFTA on the Caribbean by putting these countries on a clearer path toward eventually assuming the reciprocal trade obligations of NAFTA. For that to take place, the USTR must meet regularly in ministerial meetings with these countries in order to analyze and assess how they can best reform their economies in preparation for NAFTA membership. For some of the poorest countries, especially those in the Eastern Caribbean, this will require strong leadership from the United States, and longer transition periods during which NAFTA obligations can be phased in. I am aware that the administration and possibly some U.S. industries will have concerns regarding the unilateral nature of the trade benefits in this bill. To them I would emphasize that the unilateral benefit in my bill is for a temporary period of 6 years so as to give these small economies time to develop and to undertake structural reforms. I believe it is important that we start with the goal of achieving full NAFTA accession for CBI countries, because the standards of NAFTA, I believe, represent clear guide posts for charting trade expansion in the Western Hemisphere. My bill would allow for the negotiation of separate bilateral free-trade agreements, if necessary. In my view, USTA should work with Canada and Mexico to ensure that CBI countries can be early partners with NAFTA members in the upcoming negotiations aimed at establishing the Free-Trade Agreement of the Americas [FTAA], announced at the recent Summit of Americas meeting in Miami. As followup to the Summit of the Americas, the administration will be working to negotiate the accession of Chile to NAFTA this year. I believe it is equally important to work out a consensus with countries in the Caribbean regarding a procedure for expanding NAFTA which will include them. The Ways and Means Committee plans to consult closely with the administration in the coming weeks to achieve this goal. Having been considered during approval of the NAFTA and Uruguay round implementing bills, NAFTA parity legislation represents unfinished business from the 103d Congress. It is my intention to seek swift approval of this bill by the Trade Subcommittee as soon the Contract With America schedule will permit.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Ed Madigan's unexpected passing away came as a shock to all of us who regarded him as our friend. Had he lived, he would have celebrated his 59th birthday the day after tomorrow. Ed Madigan served the citizens of his district in north-central Illinois for almost two decades. And he served them well. His legislative career began in 1967 in Springfield where he served in the Illinois State House of Representatives. He brought his many talents to Congress in 1973 after 6 years in the Illinois General Assembly. Ed's many Springfield honors included being named Outstanding State Legislator. His legislative abilities became apparent to those of us in this Chamber shortly after his arrival in Washington. He was a master of working out compromises where others failed to make progress. Ed was ranking Republican on the House Committee on Agriculture at the time of his resignation. He was also serving at that time as Chief Deputy Minority Whip. Ed Madigan willingly sacrificed the position he loved so much in this House of Representatives to heed the call of President George Bush to become a member of the President's Cabinet. He was the Nation's 24th Secretary of Agriculture. Ed Madigan was a fine son of the State of Illinois. He was our colleague, and most important, he was our friend. Ed Madigan will be missed. In closing, I would like to extend our sympathies to his wife, Evelyn.