Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my friend and associate.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), distinguished Majority Leader.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the assistant majority whip.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I just have a few brief words at the end. I think our side is done. I think we have expressed our feelings. But I would just like to say one more thing. William Archer's example, not what he has done, because what he has done is very significant, his example is one of the finest I have ever seen, and he represents the greatest, I think, the greatest characteristic that this country has to offer.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. This will be the shortest endorsement ever, but I would like to second the words of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). He has explained the importance of the Harriet Tubman legacy, and what this is is really a resources bill, a study bill. This is an extraordinary woman who had a great record in saving many, many lives, and the whole thrust of this thing is to be able to study the various institutions and the buildings and the area not only in New York, but also in Maryland. Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank Senator Schumer for his endorsement of this. I would like to thank Vince DeForest of the National Park Service and also Mike Long of the Auburn City Planning. They have done a wonderful job in trying to espouse this whole project. As the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has said, Ms. Tubman was an extraordinary historic figure. She served as a nurse and a guide and did all sorts of things for saving the lives of people and also educating them later on, so we have this opportunity to preserve such a tremendous legacy. I would like to ask the House to join in voting for this bill.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I've introduced the Southeast Europe Trade Preference Act (SETPA), a modest yet important bill that was originally introduced in the Senate by the Senior Senator from New York. This bill is designed to promote meaningful economic development and stability in Southeast Europe through additional trade benefits targeted to certain countries in Southeast Europe. The bill, modeled on the recently passed Caribbean Basin Initiative, with some key changes. The bill authorizes the President to proclaim duty-free treatment for all eligible articles from the following countries, subject to specified conditions: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Mr. Speaker, this is a timely piece of legislation, especially when considering the changes occurring right now in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). As you know, following the recent elections and yesterday's uprising in Belgrade, Vojislav Kostunica is the president- elect of Yugoslavia and international war criminal Slobodan Milosevic has apparently been ousted. This is terrific news for the region, and the world. The SETPA would extend duty-free treatment to products that are currently not eligible under the GSP program, including certain iron and steel products, certain agricultural products, footwear, glassware, ceramics, automobiles, bicycles, clocks and watches. The only product that would not receive additional coverage is textiles, in order to protect that fragile industry here in the United States. It is important to note that the bill contains common sense protections for U.S. industries such as a provision that prohibits the President from designating any country a beneficiary country of the bill if that country has seized ownership of any property owned by a U.S. citizen or corporation, or has taken steps to do so. That important provision can be waived if the President reports to Congress that compensation has been or is being made to the owner, or good-faith negotiations to provide such compensation are in progress. If the country is otherwise taking steps to discharge its obligations under international law; or a dispute over compensation for such a seizure has been submitted to arbitration under the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, the provision may also be waived. Other grounds which could disqualify a country for designation as a beneficiary include a failure to recognize or enforce arbitral awards in favor of U.S. owners, the preferential treatment to the products of a developed country other than the United States, with significant adverse effect on U.S. commerce, the broadcast of copyrighted material belonging to U.S. copyright owners by a government-owned entity without the owners' express consent, or the absence of a treaty or other agreement regarding the extradition of U.S. citizens. Failure to take steps to afford workers in the country certain internationally recognized worker rights will also disqualify a country, as does membership in the European Union. The President is, of course, able to waive these prohibitions should he report reasons for doing so to Congress, except in the case of membership in the European Union. Importantly, the bill sets specific conditions for the beneficiary designation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). With the sweeping changes now occurring in that nation, we want to be certain that the Administration is free to act accordingly should the FRY take the steps necessary for beneficiary designation. A number of reports are necessary, and thus would be required after passage of the SETPA, to be sure that the bill does no harm to the United States. Section 8 of the bill requires the U.S. International Trade Commission to report to Congress and the President on the economic impact of this Act on U.S. industries and consumers, and Section 9 directs the Secretary of Labor to review, analyze, and report to Congress on this Act's impact on U.S. labor, as well as developments in labor conditions in the beneficiary countries. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that this bill is good for the people of Southeast Europe, and good for the people of the United States. It will promote economic and political security in this important area of the world following the recent devastating conflicts of the area, and will enhance the economic and national security interests of the United States in Europe. I know that it's late in the session--really too late to consider the bill this year--but I would hope that we can take this bill up at the earliest possible opportunity in the 107th Congress.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a solid, basic bill--with a great purpose. It is to help honor and remember those Americans who used solid, basic values to perform exceptionally and serve great purposes on behalf of our nation. Now veterans are modest people. They don't boast. They are matter-of- fact. They feel they ``did their job''. But the fact is that they did remarkable things--things that we must always remember. This project will see to that. How? Simply put, history often records the momentous events. But those momentous events are made up of countless individual storylines. Individual storylines that couldn't all fit into current history books or TV documentaries--stories that need their own archive. This bill will allow the Library of Congress to create such an archive--an archive of videotaped testimonials of the veterans themselves, telling their own stories. If those stories are not told, recorded, studied, preserved--we risk losing them, and all that they teach us. This project will seize the moment before us--before too much time has gone by--to go to our veterans and learn of duty, heroism, sacrifice, fear, humor, patriotism, comradeship, compassion . . . and of darker things and times, almost unspeakable things--and how ordinary Americans stood up to resist them. Those are lessons we must impart to the next generation. Today, we are helping to see that great purpose is served.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Senator, it is hard for me to stand up here and talk to you, of all people, who are so eloquent and has given so many wonderful and meaningful things to us over the years. Also I think of the words of John Lord O'Brien, who you remember was the great lawyer from Buffalo and was the head of probably the greatest law firm in the history of the country, which was the War Production Board during World War II. Somebody was saying very nice things about him one time, and he says, ``I accept that and I appreciate it. The problem I have is not inhaling them.'' You have had so many nice things said about you, I know it must be very difficult. But as you know, no one person is indispensable, clearly you nor I nor anyone around here. But if anyone comes close to indispensability, it is you. I think of that wonderful story that Archibald McLeash told at one time. He was talking to a group of students, and one of the students said at the end of the lecture, ``Mr. McLeash, would you try to sum up what you have said?'' And he said, ``Yes, I will try.'' He said, ``Don't forget the thing.'' And the student said, ``What do you mean, Mr. McLeash, by `the thing'?'' Mr. McLeash said, ``I will tell you what `the thing' is. You know, so many times in life we judge ourselves, are we a Congressman, a Senator, a head of this or in charge of that, what we do. The thing is not what we do, but what we are.'' And what you are and what you are to us and will continue to be, this is not a finite thing, it is more than I can express. Obviously there are things that are important to me, what you have done in terms of our transportation in upstate New York, Route 17 or I- 86, to be exact, extraordinary. Not only have you been able to do things which have really helped and opened up what could be an economic wasteland, and is not because of your efforts; but you put it all in perspective, such as many times in discussions we have, going away back, 30, 40 years, Governor Dewey and some of the things he was trying to do. It was very, very helpful. I also remember being I think it was in the Cannon Caucus Room when Bob Dole decided he was going to step out of the race in 1988. And who was there from the other side? It was you. You did not have to be there. I do not know whether anybody asked you, but you were there to lend support to your colleague. Also I remember the times that we have been at Seneca Falls and the Women's Hall of Fame and the importance of women's issues in this country. I could go on and on, but I want to go back to what Mr. McLeash said, it is what you are, rather than what you have done. There was a wonderful statement that George Patton made to the Third Army in 1945, and it goes this way: ``The highest honor I have attained is that of having my name coupled with yours in these great events.'' I echo that now with you, sir.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Mr. Matsui, in introducing the Universal Employee Stock Option Act of 2000. The bill would add another leg on the stool for employee retirement by providing another means of accumulating assets. What does the bill do? The bill would add two incentives to encourage the granting of stock options to all employees. First, the proposal provides for a tax deferred form of employee stock options, which are only taxable when the stock is sold--a combination of ordinary income and possible capital gain accumulated after the option is exercised. The deferral aspect would provide a powerful incentive to the employee to hold the stock for the longer term. Importantly, the employee pays for the stock, through payroll deductions, with pre-tax dollars--not unlike a section 401(k) plan. The maximum employee pre-tax contribution to an option plan would be $10,000 per year. Second, the bill would provide a deduction to the employer for the fair market value of the stock at the time of exercise--the exact same amount the employee would report as ordinary income when the stock is sold. The deduction by the employer at the time the option is exercised is offset by the ordinary income reported by the employee at time of sale. There would be a revenue cost associated with the deferral of reporting of the ordinary income until sale, versus the deduction by the employer at time of exercise. Of course, any gain to the employee at sale which exceeds the ordinary income portion would be taxed as capital gains. The bill provides for adequate safeguards and procedures to track the sale of stock and reporting thereof to the IRS. Why do we need such a change? As article after article has pointed out, executive compensation keeps accelerating at a much faster pace than regular compensation. The market place will, as time moves along, maintain some control over the executive compensation. But this proposal is a way to help the ordinary working person. In the 105th Congress, I introduced a stock option bill. I believe this new bill is an improved version because (1) the new bill covers substantially all employees, (2) the total deferral of the tax to the employee, plus purchase with pre-tax dollars, strongly encourages participation and long-term retention of the stock, and (3) the bill encourages employers to offer the tax-deferred compensation in the form of stock options by giving the employer a deduction for the value of the stock at the time of exercise. The approach in this bill is primarily designed to attract the non- highly compensated employee, and would be an effective way to address the compensation gap and provide long-term security for the employee. We encourage our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his leadership here. I also want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Clearly the work is going to be done in conference, and that is the important thing. The fact that the gentleman is going to support this, is willing to work, that is good enough for me.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4762) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 527 organizations to disclose their political activities.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4762.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and it has been a long day, but I frankly thought I would be here tonight talking about another bill, H.R. 4717. It has a long title, the Full and Fair Political Activity Disclosure Act of 2000, but this is not the case. As it turned out, it was not the right time, either. This is a fact, and we now move on to H.R. 4762, an entirely different bill. Furthermore, it is the way our democratic process works. One shoots as high as they possibly can and ends up with something the majority feels is the best practical solution at the time. Personally, I wanted to do two things. One is to get something done, which means produce the first piece of campaign reform legislation that will pass not only this House but also the Senate in years. Secondly, to make it bipartisan this bill, 4762, is the base McCain- Feingold-Lieberman bill with strong inputs from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). We changed the Senate sanction provision to apply 35 percent tax rate against nondisclosed amounts, and that is all. So I just have to feel that passing this bill on suspension will send a signal that, yes, that we can do something on campaign finance reform, just as the Senate did. This is not the end. It is the first step and a big one; and we still need to move forward on better disclosure, but that will come. First, we must pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I would just like to say one other thing. I am proud to be a Member here, and I am proud to have friends such as everyone. The Chamber badly needs to pull itself together, to work together, to craft legislation together and finally feel good about something they have done together. So through this bill, H.R. 4762, I would like to feel we can reinforce that process. If I believed half of what I have heard about the Full and Fair Political Activity Disclosure Act of 2000, I would have to vote against my own bill. Some have said that the bill requires disclosure by too many organizations. Some say it should be expanded. Others have said that the bill is too narrow. Some say it is unfair to labor; others that it lets labor off the hook. Still others claim the bill is unconstitutional, but somehow would pass muster if its provisions applies 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Or 60 to 90 days. Take your pick. It becomes difficult to separate the fact from fiction. Fiction: This issue is so politically charged that Congress should simply require disclosure by Sec. 527 organizations, period. Fact: Some of us feel we need the ``disinfectant of sunshine'' regardless of the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code that confers tax-exempt status on a group trying to influence an election. If we limit disclosure to Sec. 527 groups alone, the money will certainly flow to other tax-exempt groups. Section 501(c) organizations will become the new haven for those who wish to avoid scrutiny. Our approach is fairly straightforward: if you are tax-exempt and intervene meaningfully in an election, you disclose. Fiction: The Houghton bill applies to lobbying. Fact: This is a real red herring. The bill does not impact lobbying by anyone--unless an ``issue ad'' identifies a candidate for office, or otherwise tries to influence the election of a person. The right to know your accuser is a basic element of American fairness. If your ad attacks a candidate, the public should know who's paying for it. Fiction: The bill is too vague. It isn't clear what must be disclosed. Fact: For 25 years, Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code has provided the definition of political activity for tax law purposes. That's the same definition in our bill as well as the Doggett bill. Tax-exempt social welfare organizations (sec. 501(c)(4)), labor unions and agricultural organizations (sec. 501(c)(5)) trade associations, and chambers of commerce (sec. 501(c)(6)) have been interpreting and complying with this law for 25 years. Fiction: The bill's disclosure requirements are overly broad. Less disclosure should be required of 501(c) organizations. Fact: Our basic approach here is what's good for the goose . . . . If we have a strict set of rules for Sec. 527 organizations and a loophole-ridden set of rules for other tax-exempt organizations, it isn't too hard to figure out where the money and the activity will go. Fiction: The bill is unconstitutional. Fact: Because we have no way of knowing how the courts will rule on any legislation we consider in Congress, this is always the perfect excuse for doing nothing. Some of the bill's critics believe its provisions are constitutional on some days, but not on others, depending on proximity to an election. I'm not a lawyer but it is clear that no group has a constitutional right to tax-exempt status. There is no question that Congress has the right to impose conditions on such privileged status. And our bill is severable; if one part is found unconstitutional, the rest will stand. It's that simple. Fiction: (1) The bill is unfair to organized labor. (2) The bill gives labor an unfair advantage. Fact: Presumably, these claims are mutually exclusive. Apparently, some would prefer to shield a number of labor's political activities from sunshine while others would like to impose unreasonable disclosure requirements on unions. Let me be clear: the bill imposes exactly the same disclosure requirements on organized labor as it does on Sec. 527 political organizations, social welfare organizations, and chambers of commerce and trade associations. Fiction: The bill will have a chilling effect on participation in the political process. Fact: The bill simply requires disclosure, nothing more, by tax- exempt organizations which attempt to influence the outcome of an election. The bill should not have a chilling effect unless someone has something to hide. Public Citizen, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Campaign and PIRG have lobbied Congress to pass Sec. 527 disclosure. If disclosure is good for one group, why not all? Fact: This is not a perfect bill. There is no perfect bill. But this bill, I hope, strikes a difficult balance of promoting meaningful disclosure without creating unwarranted burdens for people who want to participate in the political process. Senator John McCain is absolutely right. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

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

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to complicate this, because everybody has expressed themselves adequately and there has been a lot of emotion and a great deal of coverage here. I just think there are three things: One, do you believe in the arts? Secondly, do you believe in the government being in the arts? And thirdly, how much money is involved? I do not think there is any question about the first issue. I do not think anybody who is adamantly opposed to the government being in the arts opposes the arts. I mean, it is clear that there is tremendous benefit to our society, to our children, all of the richness of our lives. So the second thing is, should the government be in the arts? I really think it should. I will tell my colleagues why. I will give an example of a particular program that years ago was trying to start up an arts camp in Massachusetts. They could not get any money. It was unproven. They were not sure it was the right thing to do. So they finally got a 5-year grant, I think it was $5,000 a year, from the NEA, which clearly was not enough to cover the program but it was enough to signal to the other program on the outside, this is really worthy of something because the National Endowment for the Arts of the United States is supporting this. The end result of this is they got the money, that people, individuals, corporations and foundations supported this thing and as a result, there are 40 to 45 of these camps literally touching the lives of thousands of students. That never would have been possible had it not been for that authenticity. The third area is how much. I do not know how much. I do not know if there should be an increase of 15 for the NEA, five for the NEH and two for the Museums or whether it should be more or less. I do know, though, the trend has been going in the wrong direction. Somehow if we believe in this, then we must reverse it, and the numbers expressed here today make a great deal of sense.