Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a minute about a bill that we will be voting on tomorrow, and that is called the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1998. The number is H.R. 2431. This has gone through the Committee on International Relations. I was on that committee. I voted against it, and it has gone to the Committee on Ways and Means for a particular issue of a sequential referral. I understand why people are concerned with persecution of individuals and various religions throughout this world, and many times it is out of a sense of compassion for these people. And yet at the same time, I think that there are ways of handling this which I do not think are being recognized here. What this bill will do, and I know things have been changing rather rapidly in terms of the terminology, is, it will establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. Think of it, an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring in our government. And that man who is in charge of that office will then recommend, in his own infinite wisdom, to the Secretary of State whether persecution is taking place throughout the world. There are various categories involved here. I will not go into the specifics, but the important thing is that if a country has been decided to be involved in religious persecution in any way, whether this is tribal or whether this is two religions, whether the country has no control over it whatsoever, that country will then have a denial of United States foreign assistance, it will be subject to various trade sanctions, denial of visas, prohibition of exports, U.S. support for multilateral bank assistance, and a whole variety of different things. I think that is the wrong way of going about it. We all in our own way and our own sense have a feeling of religion inside us, and we do not want to see anybody persecute it. The question is, really, who are the beneficiaries of this? I have talked to members of the Russian Orthodox Church. I have talked to the people who are in charge of the religious expression of a variety of different sects in Sudan. I have been to India. I have been to Zimbabwe. I have talked really recently to the National Council of Churches. And whether it was in the Middle East or whether it was somebody who represented 27 million Muslims in Indonesia, I asked the question, ``Who wants this?'' The letters that we see supporting this particular act all come out of New York or Washington. None come from abroad. ``Who wants this?'' And there was not a single affirmative answer in that whole group. So what we were doing, therefore, was literally imposing sort of a post-colonial Western sense of what is right and what is wrong on the peoples of this world. And in many cases, the governments have absolutely no control over what the religious persecution is. I know this is true in terms of Sudan. I know it is true in terms of a variety of other countries. And by the United States imposing its will upon those countries, those areas, which they really know very little about, they are going to be hurting more people than they are going to be helping. So the question is, who are the intended beneficiaries? Not many. Billy Graham does not think this is a good idea. The Dalai Lama does not think this is a good idea. The Council of Churches does not think this is a good idea. A variety of organizations, such as the American Farm Bureau, does not think it is a good idea. Why are we doing this? I think we are doing this out of a sense of compassion, but misdirected compassion. It is wrong for us to set ourselves up as the arbiter of what goes on in a country. As much as we have a feeling for this thing, we must be very, very careful not to superimpose our own standards on the rest of the world, particularly when it involves something so very, very personal such as your religious feelings.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am, obviously, honored and really moved to be here, as I was when we went on that extraordinary weekend. I think we all sort of feel that we walk in the shadow of John Lewis. We can reconstruct history. We can read about it. But to be part of history with a man like John Lewis, who was there and who suffered all the humilities and the physical beatings and the agonies of those times was really something. I mean, I do not think I will ever get over it. As I mentioned to Mr. Lewis, it was almost like my trip to the Holy Land. It was a religious experience. This was a group that did not have any legislative program. We did not want to start any new government project. But we wanted to deal honestly with ourselves. And I think Mr. Lewis will agree that we did that. I know that he has always tried to deal honestly with us, and I hope we were able to do this with him and some of his associates down there. It was extraordinary to see the people who were associated there. There was a wonderful lady. I call her lady now. But in those days, 30 years ago, she was a young girl; and when the conditions got very sad, she would break into song and pull everybody's spirits up. She did it with us. Really, it was a pilgrimage that we went through in going to those three extraordinary cities, going to the Civil Rights Museum, seeing that extraordinary civil rights piece of sculpture which Maya Lyn did, similar to the Vietnam Memorial. I think the thing that meant almost as much to me was just being with this man here and listening to him. Let me give my colleagues just a couple of statements. John said in our meeting at the airport when we were about to return, he said, You know, there are two things that sort of come to mind here. First, every so often there is an issue, it is an important issue, it is usually a social issue. And if you feel strongly about it and there is an element of evil to it, you have got to stand in the way of it, you have got to stand in the way of it. And those of us who look at it and walk around it and walk on about our daily lives, it is really a cop-out. And that is, of course, what happened. It was extraordinary to see the people who stood in the way of the civil rights issue. The other thing that I think that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) was talking about, and some of us were saying, how could you have been so patient? People were literally mauling them and beating them up. All the people we had talked to had been through the same experience. How could you show such restraint? The gentleman from Georgia said, you know, we thought about that. I think it was every Tuesday night, we used to have these sessions of training prior to the march. We were taught to consider the people out there who were full of so much venom and hate not as our enemies, we did not have time to hate people, but as victims of a culture that they did not have any part of; they could not control themselves. So with that, those two themes, the idea of standing in the way of something, standing up, doing something about it permanently, and that also doing it in this marvelous sense that Dr. Martin Luther King epitomized so well, it did something to us. It was far beyond just the race issue. I think the interesting thing, if I can talk just a second more autobiographically, that we took these dialogues on race and the discussion which the Faith and Politics Institute put into effect and took them back into our districts. There were meetings all over the country. We started talking race, but we ended up talking about ourselves and our children and our families and our communities. But we were being honest about it. It was an extraordinary transformation. I give that credit to this distinguished man standing over here, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). We are the better for it. In ending, I would just like to say, although most of us were not there with you at that time, I hope we can follow worthily where you have led the way.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any great words of wisdom on this that have not already been expressed. I just can talk from my own experience. On the negative side, there is always the worry that this will put some of our textile people out of business. There is always the worry of transshipment. There is always the worry that people who already have been hit very hard and have a minority of the share of our business in this country are going to be further hurt; and they can say, If you do this to textiles, why do you not do it to the plastics industry? Why do you not do it to some other industry? I understand that. But it just seems to me in terms of the magnitude of the economic impact and also the fact that, in effect, this will be so dispersed that there will not be this transshipment issue to quite the degree that people think. So that is a negative side, but I think there is an answer such as I have just tried to explain. The other side, which I think is even more important, is this: Many times Africans, ambassadors, delegations from countries, come into our offices and say, please invest in our country. What they are really doing is thinking of foreign aid, and we do not have very much foreign aid. I have been around for a long time. It has slowly decreased bit by bit by bit. But even if it were at the old-time levels, it would not do what those nations need to have done in order to jump-start their economies. This does a very, very important, subtle thing. What it does is, it creates the atmosphere for individual and private investment. That is a multiplication investment which really is going to have the most impact on those countries. Therefore, recognizing the potential issue on the other side, but being offset by other considerations, I am strongly in favor of this bill.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of you and a bipartisan group of our colleagues, to introduce a bill to award the Congressional God Medal, our nation's highest civilian honor, to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, President of the Republic of South Africa. Nelson Mandela has dedicated his entire life to the abolition of apartheid and creation of democracy in his beloved country, South Africa. His story is familiar to us all; his impact on Members of this body and citizens of our nation--immense. This will be his final full year in office. We therefore thought that honoring him might be appropriate. For the three decades that he was in prison, Nelson Mandela never once gave up on the struggle to free South Africans from their racist oppressors. He sacrificed his life, his youth. His daughter, Zindzi, often said that she ``grew up without a father, who, when he returned, became the father of a nation.'' There is no doubt that he became and remains South Africa's best known and most beloved hero, a sentiment that exists here in the United States. As President of South Africa, Mandela's dedication to his people did not cease once the apartheid laws were lifted. He refocused his efforts toward his nation's reconciliation by creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This Commission has been a fair, no-nonsense forum to expose an uncomfortable past in a constructive--not divisive--way. When he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize with then-President FW de Klerk in 1993, he did so as a tribute to all people around the world who have worked for peace and stood against racism. This of course includes former South African Nobel Peace Laureates Chief Albert Luthuli and Bishop Desmond Tutu, and so many others, including some of our colleagues and fellow citizens. Here in the United States, I think especially of our colleague, Ron Dellums, who retires at the end of this week, as someone who fought so hard against apartheid, and worked to convince members of this body to impose sanctions on the South African government, which eventually led the events that culminated with apartheid's demise. Our bill also specifically recognizes American student Amy Biehl, and her parents, Peter and Linda Biehl. Amy lost her life in the struggle against apartheid when she was murdered by the hands of an angry, racially-charged mob, in the Guguletu township outside Cape Town. Amy was a bright young woman, full of potential. She had traveled to South Africa to help register African women to vote. Peter and Linda are extraordinary people. When they confronted Amy's murderers last year, they showed an element of forgiveness and compassion rarely seen on this earth. They are an example to us all. So, Mr. Speaker, I would especially like to express my thanks for your cosponsorship and the other Members who have joined us as original cosponsors--Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Waters, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Payne, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Dellums, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Hall of Ohio. I hope, with your help, we can assemble an appropriate number of cosponsors to move this bipartisan bill through the House and Senate--then welcome President Mandela to the United States this year and offer him this gift to recognize our immense appreciation for all he has done to rid the world of the scourge of racism.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand in strong support of H.R. 1129. It is the right bill, it is the right time. It is not enough money, but it is as good as we could possibly do under the circumstances. I think the direction is absolutely solid, right on. It complements the USAID program. I do not think there is any question about that. I believe there is no opposition to that. Mr. Speaker I would like to, if I could, just mention several names of people: Obviously, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Hall, has been a tremendous sponsor of this; and the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, and my chairman; the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, the gentleman from Indiana, Lee Hamilton, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Dick Armey, for letting us bring this thing to the floor. I would also like to mention several other individuals: The gentleman from Colorado Mr. Dan Schaefer, the gentleman from California, Mr. Esteban Torres, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jim Walsh, the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Neil Abercrombie, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Ron Lewis, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dave Bonior, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Jim McDermott, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Steve Chabot, the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Bernie Sanders. Members can see we have a real spectrum of people in support here. Also there is an important outside group called RESULTS, particularly Jo Ann Carter and Leila Nimatallah, who really have promoted this bill along and have had a great deal to do with the microcredit summit. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this original bill increased the amount of money for USAID. That was not possible because of the budget restrictions. It was pared down. Now we have a lesser amount of money. The new version of the bill does not provide any additional funds for this program. But what the bill does is to instruct the people at USAID to the best of their ability to ensure that half of these moneys go to people who are requiring $300 or less, think of it, $300 or less, to start little businesses; really, the poorest of the poor, as the chairman has mentioned. It is an absolutely great idea. The concept that Mr. Yousef in Bangladesh started is something I think that really could have enormous impact in the rest of the world. We also have monitoring positions here, and we are going to watch the implementation of the program so it does not get out of hand. So very briefly, Mr. Speaker, since so much already has been said about this, I urge my colleagues to support this bill today. It is a truly bipartisan measure.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I feel very uncomfortable supporting this measure. I do not know whether the actions of the German Government in relationship to the Church of Scientology are right or wrong. I have a sense, and this is probably presumptuous for me to say, had I been given the decision to make, I might have made it a little differently. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether we do not look just a bit pompous sitting back here with all our many moral problems in this country, to pass judgment on a nation, our friend, which is wrestling with something which we ourselves and other nations of this world are wrestling with. This is not a Martin Niemoller issue. Please let us withhold judgment. I would not support this measure.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Employee Stock Option Act of 1997, a bill designed to provide tax-advantaged stock options for more moderately paid employees. The legislation will enable these employees to participate meaningfully in their company's success.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to spend a lot of time because most of the arguments that I would use have already been used and they have been gone over and over and Members understand the merits and the demerits. I think the only thing I can say is, I have been there. I understand what the Eximbank can do. It is a little bit like the Olympics. It used to always be amateur, and then all of a sudden it changed, and then people said, gee, maybe we ought to change, too. Commercial banks used to be able to do what they are no longer able to do, and you find corporations, little companies, competing against countries. That is wrong. We can see it in the marketplace. Many times you have a good product, good service, good reputation, terrific quality, cannot sell your equipment because the financing terms are wrong. That is what the Eximbank does. I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, we are really talking about title X. Title X goes back to 1970. This is something that George Bush was very much involved in, and President Nixon signed into law. It has been very successful, as Members know, not only in terms of the things we have been talking about, but in terms of testing for breast and cervical cancer and infectious diseases. It really has been an extraordinary program. The thing I hate to do is to sort of tamper with it. I am a grandfather of 15 children. I identify with the parental understanding and consent and all things like that; but I think the thing that bothers me is that when you thrust the Government right in the middle and say, ``This is mandatory,'' it destroys the very fabric of the family. It destroys the thing which we have been trying to do. It destroys, undercuts the very statistics we are all so proud of. It seems to me that if we are going to march down this road, we want to do it in a practical, in a sensitive, in a really profamily way, so we let the families and the churches and the friends and the communities work their will and their influence on children. And therefore, I am very much in favor of the Castle amendment.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order against section 539 of the bill found on page 66, line 15, through page 67, line 22, on the grounds that it violates 5(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, clause 5(b) of rule XXI states that it shall not be in the order of the House to consider a measure carrying a tax or a trade provision not reported by the committee of jurisdiction. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the measure on the floor would preclude the President from waiving certain import sanctions against Serbia- Montenegro which are imposed pursuant to certain codified Executive orders. The provision imposes a new requirement on the President that an Executive order lifting these import sanctions cannot be issued until the President certifies to the Congress that certain democratic reforms have occurred in Kosova. This change of authority over import restrictions falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and clearly constitutes a tariff measure for purposes of rule XXI 5(b) of the rules of the House. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the point of order applies, and I urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report on H.R. 2014 includes a provision to add an exception to the definition of foreign personal holding company income which would apply to income derived in or incident to the active conduct by a controlled foreign corporation of ``a banking, financing, or similar business,'' provided the CFC was predominately engaged in the active conduct of such business. I am also pleased to note that this provision, section 1175, is based on H.R. 1783, ``The International Tax Simplification for American Competitiveness Act,'' of which I was the lead sponsor. The growing interdependence of world financial markets has highlighted the urgent need to rationalize U.S. tax rules that undermine the ability of our financial services industry--such as banks, insurance companies, insurance brokers, and securities firms--to compete in the international arena. Yet the ability of our companies to compete is impeded by U.S. tax rules that subject financial services income derived from the active conduct of a business to antideferral rules that were originally enacted to reach, and would be more appropriately limited to, passive investment activities. Section 1175, like the provision of H.R. 1783 upon which it is based, will remove that impediment. I readily acknowledge that this battle is not mine alone, and I gratefully acknowledge the support of many colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Section 1175 is a result of the efforts of many members of the Ways and Means Committee. On May 14, 1997, 23 Ways and Means members--a clear majority of the committee--wrote to Chairman Archer stating: The inequitable treatment of the financial services industry under current law jeopardizes the international expansion and competitiveness of all U.S.-based financial services companies, including commercial banks, securities firms, insurance companies, insurance brokers, and finance and credit entities. By amending the definition of ``foreign personal holding company income,'' section 1175 helps each of those types of entities to compete in international markets. Section 1175 is set to expire after 1 year. I note, however, that the sunset is a function of revenue concerns, not doubts as to its substantive merit. I look forward to working next year with the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and my committee colleagues to make this provision permanent.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, there are few indispendable people. Ham Fish was one of them. He gave something to this House, his country that was unique and powerful. We miss Ham.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak on behalf of House Concurrent Resolution 99. I also would like to, before I begin my brief remarks, thank very much the original cosponsors, the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Alcee Hastings], and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Tony Hall], and also I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Ed Royce] and the entire membership of that committee; also the former head of that committee, the gentlewoman from Florida, [Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen], and our chairman, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Ben Gilman]. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad resolution in a way because it was barely a year ago that we stood here and talked about the great strides toward a free and democratic government which the people of Sierra Leone had made. This really was the first time in over 30 years that they had had any elections. But now the whole world has changed, and they have been taken over by a band of thugs. It is sad. It happened this year on May 25. What we are trying to do is to sponsor a resolution which really signifies not only to the people of Sierra Leone but the other nations around the world who believe in the great strides they have made prior to May, that it is important to end violence, to restore the democratically-elected government led by President Kabbah, and also make sure the protection and safety of international aid workers are ensured. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and members on the other side. I want to also put in a special word of appreciation to Ambassador John Hirsch and Ambassador George Moose.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rarely speak from the well of the House, and I even more rarely speak about a procedural issue, but in this case I feel I must. This is a bad rule and it should be defeated. If we stand for anything, we stand for openness. Frankly, that is why I am here, to be able to use this voting card, to be able to express my opinion. We are going to be prevented from doing that. It is the heart of this Congress, it is the heart of the forum, where we express our feelings as Republicans and Democrats. This rule suppresses that discussion. If the NEA cannot stand on its own and stand the test of debate, it should go down, but let us have a vote on it. I am a Republican, I am a proud Republican, and we Republicans, when we assumed leadership in the House, promised we would not shut off debate on critical issues. We preach this. Now let us practice it.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today a bipartisan group of colleagues and I have introduced a bill condemning the recent military coup d'etat in the Republic of Sierra Leone. The coup caused a great setback for democracy in this small West African nation. Let me explain. On February 26, 1996, Sierra Leone held their first democratic elections in nearly 30 years. There had been a military coup less than a month before the election, and a civil war was still taking place in the countryside. A runoff election to choose between the two frontrunners in the presidential race occurred on March 15, 1996. Despite some minor inadequacies, a group of international observers deemed the elections to be free and fair. On March 29, 1996, Ahmed Tejan Kabbah of the Sierra Leone People's Party was sworn in as the President of Sierra Leone. This peaceful transition from a military regime to a freely elected civilian government was a tremendous step onto the road to democracy. Not long after the inauguration, I came to the floor with some of my colleagues to congratulate President Kabbah and the people of Sierra Leone through House Concurrent Resolution 160. The bill passed unanimously through both the House and Senate. Things were going well in Sierra Leone during their first year as a democracy. For example, when there were problems in neighboring Liberia, Sierra Leone allowed the United States Marines to use their airport as a base to evacuate American citizens from Monrovia. Unfortunately, on May 25, 1997, an unruly gang of thugs staged a coup d'etat, taking many of us by surprise. Johnny Paul Koroma and his Armed Forces Ruling Council took responsibility for the coup. President Kabbah and members of the government were forced to leave the country as the United States Marines arrived to the country again--this time to evacuate our citizens and other foreign nationals from Sierra Leone. Those who had to stay behind were subject to rampant killing, looting, raping, and a disruption of critical relief supplies throughout the country. It is because of all this that a group of our colleagues, specifically Alcee Hastings, Tony Hall, Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Bob Menendez, and the entire membership of the House Subcommittee on Africa, decided to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing our concern for the people of Sierra Leone. In the resolution, we call for an end to violence, restoration of the democratically elected government, the protection and safety of international aid workers who remain in the country, and what is most important, a peaceful resolution to the conflict. So, it is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and all of my colleagues in the House and Senate will join us in support of democracy and order in Africa--specifically in the Republic of Sierra Leone.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Matsui and I, introduced H.R. 531 on February 4, 1997. The legislation will add two amendments to the generation-skipping tax [GSTT] law which we believe were unintentionally omitted by Congress at the time the original provisions were enacted. The changes recommended by H.R. 531 were adopted by Congress as section 11074 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which was eventually vetoed by the President. The legislation concentrates on the ``predeceased parent exclusion'' of the GSTT law, which provides that GST tax is not applied to direct gifts or bequests made by a grandparent to a grandchild where the grandchild's parent--the transferor's child--is deceased at the time of the transfer. When this situation occurs, there is no generation-skipping, since the child-- grandchild's parent--is dead; therefore, it is not appropriate to add GST tax on top of ordinary estate or gift taxes, and the predeceased parent exclusion properly excludes such transfers from the GST tax. Our bill would expand the predeceased parent exclusion to apply to gifts by persons without lineal descendants and to trust gifts. First, gifts or bequests by a childless individual to collateral descendants would be treated as the same as transfers by persons with lineal descendants. Accordingly, the exclusion would be extended to apply to transfers made by a childless individual to his or her grandniece and grandnephew in the situation where the individuals siblings and nieces and nephews are all deceased at the time of transfer. Second, the bill applies the predeceased parent exclusion to transfers made through a trust. Under current law, the predeceased parent exclusion is limited, unintentionally, we believe, to direct gifts and bequests, and does not apply to trusts gifts even if the parent of the receiving beneficiary was deceased at all relevant times. In addition to other trusts, this provision particularly affects certain charitable trusts where the charity would have an interest for a period of years before distributing property to the individual beneficiaries. In the situation where the beneficiary's parent is dead, and was dead when the trust was created, there is certainly no generation skipping involved which would justify the levy of an additional tax. It is important to note that these trusts are significant sources of financial support for many charities, and should not be discouraged, unintentionally, where not necessary for the policy of underlying tax provisions. The bill would remove this obstacle. The terminations, distributions, and transfers to which this bill would apply are those occurring on or after the date of enactment, which would be generation-skipping transfers as defined in section 2611 of the Internal Revenue Code and subject to the GST tax, except for the application of the predeceased parent exclusion as amended by this legislation. The proposed legislation has substantial support from charities, both large and small, and of all types, such as: social services providers, museums, libraries, hospitals, and universities, from around the country. We urge our colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Levin in introducing legislation to simplify and reform our current international tax laws. As all of you know, we are in a period of fundamental re-examination of the Internal Revenue Code. One of the most complicated and impenetrable areas of the Code and most in need of change is the foreign area. Our international trade laws have gotten ahead of our tax laws for this area. We consider our bill to be a down payment on needed changes in this area. The focus of the legislation is to put some rationalization to the international tax area. In general, the bill seeks in modest but important ways to: (1) simplify this overly complex area, especially the foreign tax credit and the various antideferral mechanism; (2) encourage exports; (3) provide incentives for performance of R&D in the U.S.; (4) enhance U.S. competitiveness in other industrialized countries. And it seeks to achieve these objectives in a revenue- conscious manner. For some period of time, the Committee on Ways and Means has been considering issues relating to international competitiveness and proper taxation of U.S. based multinational corporations. In 1991, the committee held 10 days of public hearings on the issues: international competitiveness including tax, trade, education, technology and other important issues affecting the nation's ability to compete internationally. In 1992, two former members of the Ways and Means Committee, Messrs. Rostenkowski and Gradison, introduced H.R. 5270. It attempted to address many of the same issues included in our bill. More recently, the Department of Treasury introduced a new tax simplification package which included provisions similar to those contained in our legislation. Now as we begin the process of re-examining in fundamental ways our income tax system, we believe it imperative to address the area of international taxation. In an Internal Revenue Code stuffed with eye- glazing complexity, there is probably no area that contains as many difficult and complicated rules as international taxation. Neither one of us is under any illusion that the measure which we introduced removes all complexity or breaks bold new conceptual ground. We believe, however, that the enactment of this legislation would be a significant step in the right direction. The legislation would enhance the ability of America to continue to be the preeminent economic force in the world. If our economy is to continue to create jobs for its citizens, we must ensure that the foreign provisions of the U.S. income tax law do not stand in the way. The law as now constituted frustrates the legitimate goals and objectives of American business and erects artificial and unnecessary barriers to U.S. competitiveness. In addition, the law stands as a monument to the fact that the conceptual complexity of man as applied to the Internal Revenue Code knows no limits. Neither the largest U.S. based multinational companies nor the Internal Revenue Service is in a position to administer and interpret the mind numbing complexity of many of the foreign provisions. Why not then move toward creating a set of international tax rules which taxpayers can understand, and the government can administer? In summary, therefore the proposed changes we believe represent a creditable package and a down payment on further reform in the international tax area. We ask you to join us, in this bipartisan effort, by supporting our legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Rangel, in introducing legislation to renew the Work Opportunity Tax Credit [WOTC]. This program was first enacted last year after extensive consultations between the Congress and administration. It replaces the old targeted jobs tax credit and is designed to address the major criticism raised against that program by requiring employers to prescreen for eligibility based predominantly upon participation in means tested public assistance programs. The WOTC helps provide transitional assistance for those going from welfare to work by giving businesses incentives to offset the added costs of hiring them. Unfortunately, the participation and outreach by employers has not reached the level we anticipated, and falls far short of what is needed if we are to achieve the goal of moving millions of Americans from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency. Many companies are fast concluding that the hiring and training costs are too high, and the risks of working with those on public assistance too great, to justify their participation in WOTC. After nearly 6 months the business community has told us that there is good news and bad news. The good news is that under WOTC nearly two- thirds of those hired come from welfare--under TJTC nearly 60 percent were youth and only 20 percent were from the welfare rolls. The bad news is that the new rules we adopted last year are too restrictive and need to be modified if WOTC is to be effective in achieving the goals of welfare to work. The legislation we are introducing today addresses these concerns. Many people want to know why we need to pay companies to do their part for welfare reform. To answer that question, we have only to look at the challenges faced by employers who hire public assistance recipients. These individuals often lack a work ethic and basic job skills; they cost more to train; and, because of low self-esteem, they see failure in the work place as a viable and even likely option. Additionally, businesses that hire public assistance recipients have to assume indirect costs such as accommodation of complex work schedules, child care, transportation needs, and contact with multiple social service agencies. Any business, especially one that is willing to assume the additional costs of hiring and training welfare recipients, must remain profitable if they are to play a role in welfare reform. To respond to the real world concerns expressed to us, Mr. Rangel and I propose the following modifications to WOTC which will improve its effectiveness and viability. First, our bill would modify the minimum number of hours of work required for WOTC eligibility. Currently, those eligible for WOTC must complete 400 hours of work in order for the employer to receive any tax credit. However, since many entry level workers tend to switch jobs voluntarily as they seek their place in the work force, they do not meet the 400-hour requirement. In those cases, employers never see a tax credit to offset the costs that they incurred in hiring and training these workers. A more equitable sharing of the costs must be developed, or the pool of employers willing to take this risk will continue to decline. The current tax credit provided to employers for hiring those eligible is 35 percent of the first $6,000 in wages, but only when the employee completes 400 hours of work. Those who qualify include persons on AFDC for 9 consecutive months out of the previous 18 months; 18- to 24-year-olds who live in empowerment zones [EZ] or enterprise community [EC]; 18- to 24-year-olds who are members of families on food stamps for the last 6 months; veterans on food stamps; vocational rehabilitation referrals; low-income felons; and 16- and 17-year-olds in EZ's and EC's are eligible for summer employment. We propose to create a two-tiered credit: 25 percent of the wages earned from the date of hire for those who work between 120 hours and 399 hours, and 40 percent of wages earned from the date of hire for those who work at least 400 hours. This would result in a more equitable distribution of the risk due to the fact quite often entry level employees use the training and experience by their first employer to advance into jobs that are better paying, provide longer hours, or which are more conveniently located. The second change to WOTC that this legislation provides would be to redefine the period during which a person must be receiving public assistance in order to qualify. The current interpretation requires an employee to have spent 9 consecutive months out of the last 18 months on welfare in order for a business to receive the hiring tax credit. We propose to change that requirement to any 9 of the previous 18 months. Such a change would allow for the short periods of time off welfare or food stamps which often results from a failure to comply with regulations such as filing updated paperwork or appearing for an interview. It makes no sense to deny employers willing to hire those on public assistance a tax incentive merely because the job applicant was off welfare for a short period of time. The third and final change we propose is a 3-year extension of the WOTC Program. This will provide employers with the continuity they need to justify the investment of time and resources necessary to have a successful welfare to work WOTC Program. These changes, taken together, should help to level the playing field which is currently so tilted against those on welfare that most employers are unwilling even to consider hiring them because of the extra costs and difficulties involved. Without a strong public-private partnership built on an improved WOTC Program, employers will be inclined to stand on the sidelines and leave the welfare to work challenge to others.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to help me pay tribute to Dr. Arthur Perry ``Pete'' Darling, who today celebrates his 80th birthday. Pete Darling lives in Corning, NY. He came there in 1952. For the last 45 years he has been an essential, constant, vital part of our small town. He is a true American original, and his story is part of the bedrock upon which this Nation is built. His children have this to say about their father: Our dad endured a childhood of poverty--the sort of poverty it's better to read about in Horatio Alger than to experience. He lost his mother while he was still a small boy, and in the midst of the depression Dad got himself through Williams College on a scholarship that didn't include money for books, so he never bought any. After graduation he spent a year working 18 hour shifts as a bellhop to earn the tuition for medical school, and though he interrupted his studies to enlist in the Army during World War II, he was eventually able to finish his surgical internship and residency at Columbia University and the University of Chicago. Do you measure a man's value by his work? Dad is a brilliant surgeon. He brought a level of talent, innovation and skill to our hometown that saved countless lives. Sometimes we went with him on his housecalls, helping to carry his black bag. We've heard countless stories about how he listened to his patients, demanded the best from the hospital and its staff, and never accepted any of the endless offers that came his way to practice in other places. Or is a man judged by his courage? We've never found a braver man than our father. At the height of his career, Dad lost his sight. His surgical career ended overnight. At a time when most men are contemplating retirement and solitude, he built a new life for himself at the age of 61. He gave up the practice he loved without a backward glance, and went to work at Corning, Inc., building a first-rate medical department. He raised the money to found a low-vision clinic, a clinic that today offers those with limited sight the practical advice and tools they need to make a full, independent life possible. Dad eventually retired at the age of 70, and finally had time for the things he loves--fly fishing, scotch, golf, good food, good conversation, a good joke. More than anything on earth, though, he loves our mother, Anne, his wife of 37 years. A local mechanic, speaking with them about the loss of his own wife, said wistfully, ``I'd like to think we had the same sort of marriage you two have,'' and with those words he spoke for everyone who knows our parents. They have talked, laughed, loved and occasionally fought their way through nearly four decades of marriage, and no invention of Hollywood could ever tell a finer story. Together they raised five children, creating a secure haven of love and stability in the midst of turbulent times. All five of us have grown and gone now, and have established careers of our own in education, business, finance, law, politics and religion. Each child has at least one degree, some have two, one is working on her third. We are making our mark from New York to San Francisco, and trying to set the same standards in our chosen fields as our parents did in theirs. It's a hard act we're following, but if you asked Dad what he takes the most pride in, we suspect he would point to our independence, even if it does occasionally drive him wild. Mr. Speaker, those children, their spouses, and Pete's grandchildren will all arrive in Corning in a few days, to celebrate this special birthday and this special man. His has been a life of service, courage, and love. I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleagues, including Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Crane, Mrs. Kennelly, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Herger, in introducing legislation to permanently extend the 10-year grandfather for publicly traded partnerships [PTP's]. This legislation applies to those PTP's that were in existence at the time the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 was passed. Publicly traded partnerships were first created in the early 1980's for the purpose of combining the traditional limited partnership form with the ability to still have the partnership units freely traded on an established securities market or are readily tradable on a secondary market. Section 7704, which was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, provides that certain publicly traded partnerships shall be taxed as corporations. However, the 1987 act completely exempted certain types of PTP's from the reach of section 7704. To be an exempt PTP, 90 percent or more of the partnerships gross income must be qualifying income. In other words, income derived from resources such as timber, oil and gas, minerals and real estate. Further, an exempt PTP need not have been in existence in 1987 when section 7704 was enacted. In addition, other PTP's in existence when section 7704 was enacted were grandfathered, but only for 10 years, through 1997. Our bill would extend this grandfather provision permanently. I can foresee that some people might view this proposal as special interest legislation. I strongly disagree. Had we chosen in 1987 to provide a permanent grandfather for existing PTP's, no one would have batted an eye. Instead, a permanent grandfather in 1987 would have been an appropriate decision for Congress to make based on the extent to which PTP's relied on the law that was in effect when they were created. The fact that the decision was initially made in 1987 should not stop us from revisiting the issue so long as the original decision has not yet taken effect. We in Congress are called on to make decisions about appropriate transition relief in virtually every tax bill. Indeed, these types of decisions are ones that are particularly suited for the Members of Congress to make, since they generally involve the balancing of competing interests rather than technicalities of tax law. Our proposal is different only because it is separate in time from the 1987 act. On the other hand, the proposal is generic in scope, applying to any PTP fitting the criteria. We believe that it is fair, before the 10-year grandfather expires, to determine whether the previous decision was proper or whether a permanent rule is a better choice. Generally, Congress does not place time limits on grandfather provisions, other than what might be called project-specific provisions. The reasoning behind this policy is that if taxpayers were justified in relying on the law in effect at the time the taxpayer took action, then the taxpayers deserve relief from the change in the law, not just for a limited period but as long as the taxpayer's circumstances do not change. reasons for a permanent grandfather Some may wonder why these PTP's should be permanently grandfathered. After all, if they were taking advantage of so large a loophole that Congress had to shut it down, why should they benefit merely because they got in under the wire? The truth is that these PTP's did not take advantage of an egregious loophole. PTP's are structured no differently from other types of limited partnerships. They merely combined that basic limited partnership structure with the ability for the units to be readily traded. The problem was thus not a loophole in the Tax Code that needed to be closed retroactively. These PTP's relied on the law in effect before passage of the 1987 act, and that reliance was completely reasonable. The first proposal directed toward PTP's surfaced in 1984, but President Reagan chose not to forward it to Congress in his tax reform recommendations and we did not independently take up the idea in 1986. It was only when Treasury proposed section 7704 in mid-1987 as part of a list of acceptable revenue raisers that the proposal received any official endorsement. By that time, most of the affected PTP's were already in existence. This raises what I believe is the most important issue in this debate: fairness to the PTP's and, more important, their owners. The process of converting from a corporation to a PTP is a costly and time- consuming one, easily taking over 1 year. The conversion process involved consultation with investment bankers, appraisals, planning by corporate finance, securities and tax lawyers, multiple filings with the SEC and State securities agencies, proxy statements and shareholder votes, etc. This process would not have been started or completed had there been any reasonable prospect that a change in the tax law would have applied retroactively or after a limited period of time. To make matters worse, many of these same costs will be incurred once again if the 10-year grandfather is not made permanent. Grandfathered PTP's will be forced to convert to corporate form on January 1998. To do so, however, will require lengthy planning, and the same investment banking advice, appraisals, and attorney fees. The need for extensive, advance planning makes it essential that the matter be resolved this year. More important, is the effect that loss of the grandfather will have on PTP investors. It is a virtual certainty that the value of PTP units will be affected adversely if the grandfather expires. Thus, the investor will suffer the most. Who are these investors? Most are average, middle-class taxpayers who have invested in PTP units because of their high yield, many before the 1987 act was passed. We do not achieve any tax policy goal by honoring the 10-year grandfather. That goal was fully achieved by making section 7704 apply prospectively. Instead, all we would accomplish by retaining the 10- year grandfather would be harm to these PTP's and their investors. There is no doubt what our decision should be. In conclusion, I want to note the diversity of the PTP's that would benefit from permanent extension of the grandfather. The PTP's affected are involved in a wide variety of industries, from motels and restaurants to chemicals, financial advising and macadamia nuts. Undoubtedly, these businesses operate in many of our districts. Of course, our districts are the homes to the individual investors in these PTP's. The most recent court indicates that there are well over 300,000 individual investors. The 10-year grandfather hangs like a sword of Damocles over each one of these PTP's. We in Congress have the ability to remove that sword and there is no reason why we should not do so. We urge our colleagues to join with us to support this bill.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Tony Hall, and a bipartisan group of over 20 other Members, to introduce the Microcredit for Self-Reliance Act of 1997. The goal of this bill is to help impoverished people around the world achieve dignity and economic independence for themselves and their families through microenterprise--a program designed to help provide people with small, low interest loans to start a business and bring themselves out of poverty. Specifically, the Microcredit for Self-Reliance Act is a vehicle through which the United States can give a higher priority to microcredit internationally, and work toward the goal of the 1997 Microcredit Summit--to reach 100 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women of those families, with credit for self-employment and financial and business services by 2005. Our bill builds upon the successes of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, which was started by Mohammed Yunus in 1983. I'd recommend that each of my colleagues read the book ``Give Us Credit,'' by Alex Counts, which eloquently tells the story of how Mr. Yunus brought so many of his fellow citizens out of poverty through microlending. The U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID], under the able leadership of Brian Atwood, has also been involved in microenterprise for awhile now, and has been doing a good job at it. Also, groups such as Results, a grass roots support group headed up by Sam Daley-Harris, has worked tirelessly in promoting the ideals of microcredit, culminating in their successful Microcredit Summit, which was held here in Washington last month. Mr. Speaker, this bill calls for no new funds. Rather, we're calling for more of our existing funds to be used to support microcredit programs. Specifically, the bill asks for $170 million for fiscal year 1998 and $180 million for fiscal year 1999 to be allocated to USAID for microcredit assistance. Half these resources, at least $85 million for fiscal year 1998, and $90 million for fiscal 1999, would go to institutions serving the poorest 50 percent of those living below the poverty line, especially women, with loans under $300. In addition, we'd like to provide $20 million for special initiative within the International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD] to support community based micro-finance institutions that serve the very poor in rural areas. Why Microcredit? Well, the World Health Organization reports that poverty is the leading cause of death worldwide. Over 1 billion people--or one-fifth the world's population--live in extreme poverty. Microcredit is one of the most effective antipoverty tools in existence, allowing people to eradicate poverty and hunger in their own lives. The microcredit program enjoys broad bipartisan support. These programs not only help millions work their own way out of poverty, but also recycle foreign aid dollars through loan repayments. Microcredit loans are self-sustainable. They are easily replicable and powerful vehicles for social development. Mr. Speaker, I hope you'll join me in support of the Microcredit for Self Reliance Act of 1997.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, before I talk I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania did his job well, as did Governor Ridge. It was an honor and a pleasure to be with him. Thanks very much. Maybe New York will be the hospitable State the next time we have a meeting. Mr. Speaker, my friends, I would like to talk just a second about the bipartisan retreat. It was a wonderful experience. I am not going to duplicate the comments that my bosses, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] have mentioned, but I would just like to add one or two comments to something which was really I think really a definitive moment in the history of this Congress. Here we were, 220 of us, approximately 550 people up there, talking as we should talk, talking to citizens, talking as concerned citizens. Maybe one of the most impressive things as far as I am concerned was the inclusion of the spouses. You know, many times life, whether it is in politics or business, whatever it is, it is sort of a solo act; but here we were as families talking and expressing ourselves and sharing ideas. It was enormously healing. You know bit by bit, whether it is again in a family or a business or something else, we sort of drift apart, and all of a sudden we realize that this thing has been apart and we are looking down into a chasm. We have got to pull it back together, and I think that is what happened: Very, very important. I got a letter prior to going there from some people out in Washington near Seattle, St. Stephen the Martyr Roman Catholic Church, and let me just read a little bit about it because this is sort of the genesis of what we were doing out there. It said: ``Dear Congressman, as the new term of office begins it is our desire that all of our elected leaders strive to work together.'' Now, this was not prompted at all. ``Regardless of political alliance, the potential for stalemate and impotence in leadership decisions exists due to separate party agendas. It is necessary in the best interests of your country, of my country, that there be teamwork and compromise and strength of purpose. You are paid by us. We expect you to behave with dignity and integrity.'' Now, I am not going to read the rest of this letter, but you get the gist of it. I mean, these people are involved right here with us every day. They see us, they send us here, they expect us to deal in the same manner that they would deal with their parishioners, or with their family or with their fellow citizens, and that is why this thing was so special. Let me just say one other thing. I had a wonderful opportunity this morning to go down to the Mall and see the opening of the World War II memorial. Bob Dole was there, the first public appearance I think he has made since the election. He gave an enormously effective and emotional speech, and I hope that other people will be able to read it or listen to it. One of the things he said is that ``you know we here represent young people who died for a future they will never realize.'' You know, I just thought of that because of the responsibility it puts on all of us. Here were those young people in with World War II, as there have been in other wars, who risked their lives, lost their lives for a future they would never be able to experience themselves. It gives us a tremendous sense of obligation to do what is right here, and so I was proud to be a part of this experience. I hope it is not a flash in the pan. I hope it will continue. I hope the whole spirit of Hershey will be a spirit that we can look back on and say it was well worth our while.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would like to rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 18. Mr. Speaker, we wrestle with problems both real and self-imposed in this Chamber day after day. It is nice for a change to be able to celebrate and to thank and to support one of our neighbors, which we are doing here not only with Guatemala but also now with Nicaragua. I would also like to associate myself with my chairman the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], and also with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], who have been cosponsors of this particular legislation. This resolution really does three things: First of all, it congratulates the Republic of Nicaragua on holding free and fair elections for the second time in its history. Second, it recognizes the contributions of an extraordinary woman, the former President of Nicaragua, Violeta Chamorro, a person I call the great healer, who has had an impact far beyond the borders of Nicaragua. It also celebrates the peaceful swearing in of the new President, President Arnoldo Aleman. Mr. Speaker, I have been associated with Nicaragua for several years. In 1988, a group of us from my district went down and established an educational program, all privately funded for this great country. I think we added a bit to the whole relationship between our countries at that time. This is before Violeta Chamorro was elected President. Then in 1990, we went down and were there for the election. It was an extraordinary time. As I mentioned yesterday at the Committee on International Relations meeting, I can remember, with Elliot Richardson, we were part of a United Nations team picking up a young woman and her baby who had walked 30 miles to vote and then was going to walk back, just because she felt this was such an important time. Then in 1993, my wife and my grandchildren and others went down there to see, personally and on a personal visit, this extraordinary country and what has happened to it. The Chamorro administration really did extraordinary things. I mean here is a lady who was not prepared for leadership. Her husband had been tragically assassinated there. All of a sudden she developed this tremendous rapport not only with the people but also with the critical issues there. The gross domestic product when she took over, after 20 years, was lower than it had been in 1970. Hyperinflation of about 40,000 percent, imagine, think of it, 40,000 percent a year. And the foreign debt amounted to more than six times the value of the total gross domestic product. Far-reaching privatization programs, preventive health care, primary education changes, and an extraordinary story in this tiny little country, all due to the leadership and this wonderful ambiance of an extraordinary lady, Violeta Chamorro. The election took place. Over 80 percent of the people voted. It was not a perfect election, but the observers, both elected representatives and staff, felt it was a free and fair election. Now, starting on January 10, there was a peaceful transition to President Aleman and the power of the presidency is now in good hands. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues and hope others will join with us in congratulating the people of this extraordinary nation of Nicaragua on the success of their elections and wishing President Aleman the best in the years to come.