Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the author of this very important piece of legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 190.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in their support of House Concurrent Resolution 190. This resolution urges the President to seek a global consensus in support of a permanent international ban on tariffs on electronic commerce and an international ban on certain e- commerce taxes. The Internet and electronic commerce are vital to continued global economic growth and prosperity. Information technology is driving the U.S. economic growth, increasing profit, creating higher-paying jobs, and expanding opportunities for all Americans. As we prepare for the upcoming round of global trade negotiations to be launched next month in Seattle, we face an era of rapid change in global commerce. Increasingly, electronic commerce has supplanted the old transAtlantic cable and telephone lines, and now serves as the preferred method of communication, which in turn facilitates trade. The number of people in the world using the Internet has grown from 3 million in 1995 to 200 million users today, and may reach 1 billion by 2005. In the United States, electronic commerce totalled in excess of $50 billion in 1998, and is projected to reach $1.4 trillion by 2003. By 2006, almost half of our work force either will be employed by information technology services and products businesses, or will be intensive users of these businesses. We should refrain from taking measures that could inhibit the growth of e-commerce and access to information technology. These lines of communication should remain barrier-free, not subject to tariffs or taxes or burdensome regulations. We must seek consensus with our trading partners on this issue. I understand that some countries who are in earlier stages of economic development have concerns about establishing a permanent moratorium on such tariffs and taxation. I hope that the United States will continue to advocate a permanent ban, instead of a mere extension of the current temporary one. Our response should be to convince these countries that information technology has important applications for speeding growth in developing regions, as Internet access reduces the obstructions entrepreneurs, artisans and small businesses face in finding customers and managing paper flow. Electronic commerce puts developing countries on an equal footing with developed countries, and it leapfrogs many of the infrastructure barriers that these countries face in traditional commerce. I further note that it does not help to build this consensus when the United States seeks to put controversial non-trade issues on the Seattle agenda about which devoping countries are justifiably wary. Raising such issues means that the trade aspects of our agenda become more problematic to achieve. We must seek to develop a lasting consensus among developed and devoping countries alike for the promotion of global trade. The administration must find common ground and forge ahead to increase global trading opportunities, which in turn pave the way to greater prosperity for all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 190.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 190) urging the United States to seek a global consensus supporting a moratorium on tariffs and on special, multiple, and discriminatory taxation of electronic commerce, as amended.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, last week, Joe Lockhart, the Presidential spokesman, made a number of erroneous statements regarding the budget. Mr. Lockhart called ``absurd'' the notion that President Clinton has finally come around to the Republican way of thinking by not wanting to touch the Social Security surplus--yet--the facts state differently. The President's original fiscal year-2000 budget asked to spend some 41 percent of the Social Security surplus. The President's State of the Union address specifically stated that the President would only commit 60 percent of the surplus for Social Security. And now, the President tells the bipartisan delegation meeting over the budget that he wants to save 100 percent of the surplus. If that isn't a turnaround to support the Republican position of ``lock-box,'' protecting Social Security, I don't know what is. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record this information and other erroneous statements made by Mr. Lockhart last week in his presidential press conference, showing how these inaccuracies have attempted to bias public information against the real facts. Rapid Response From the Speaker's Press Office--Wednesday, October 20, 1999 ``Just the Facts, Mr. Lockhart'' Joe Lockhart says that the idea that President Clinton finally came around to the Congressional Republican's plan of protecting 100 percent of the Social Security surplus is an ``absurd notion.'' Fact: The President's original budget for FY 2000 spends 41 percent of the Social Security surplus. Also, the President specifically proposed in this year's State of the Union to only commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for Social Security. He told the bi-partisan delegation yesterday that he now wants to save 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. Joe Lockhart says that CBO says that the Republicans have already spent the Social Security surplus. Fact: In a September 30 letter to Speaker Hastert, CBO Director Dan Crippen clearly states that the final GOP budget plan ``will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus.'' Joe Lockhart says our budget is full of ``gimmicks'' such as using advanced appropriations. Fact: The President's own budget used $18.8 billion in advanced appropriations. Furthermore, advanced appropriations simply means that money not spent next year will not be counted towards next year's budget. If the money is not being spent until 2002, it should be counted against the 2002 budget, not the 2000 budget. That's just common sense. Joe Lockhart says that the Republican budget doesn't make the investments in education that the American people expect. Fact: The Republican budget has $300 million more for education than the President's budget. In addition, the Republican budget would let local communities spend this money how they best see fit--including hiring more teachers, if that's what the community needs.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the House of Representatives to speak in strong support of funding increases for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Last month I was proud to support the passage of H.R. 2684, the FY 2000 Veterans Affairs/Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (VA/HUD) Appropriations Act. The bill contained $1.7 billion more than FY 1999 and $1.8 billion more than the President's request for FY 2000 VA Appropriations. The Veterans Integrated Services Network 12 (VISN 12) conducted a study and reported six options to save money within the VISN. Of the six options, only one would not move services from the North Chicago VA to other VA hospitals within the VISN, or completely close the North Chicago hospital. This option study was delivered to my office the day after the House passed its version of H.R. 2684, thus preventing any legislative action by the House, which could prevent any reorganization or closure within VISN 12. Today, I was pleased to read the Conference Report containing strong language to include veterans groups, medical schools having an affiliation with a VA hospital, employee representatives, and any other interested parties as stakeholders to be consulted by the Department of Veterans Affairs before any reorganization within VISN 12 occurs. Although, the VA hospital in North Chicago only borders my district, a large number of veterans from my district use the North Chicago hospital for treatment. Many of the veterans from the northeastern part of the state seek medical treatment at North Chicago, because the only other option is to travel a minimum of an hour either north to Milwaukee or south to Chicago. Unfortunately, the Conference Report to H.R. 2684 increases spending $7.5 billion over the House-passed version, but does not provide additional funding for VA programs. However, the Conference Report does spend more money on programs like NASA, $13.7 billion, $999 million more than the House approved initially, $7.5 billion for EPA, an increase of $284 million over the House version and, $438.5 million for AmeriCorps, which the House version eliminated. Finally, the Conference Report restores a $3 billion reduction to the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) borrowing authority just to name a few increases. I am very supportive of our veterans in Illinois, but because of these increases in spending noted, I am unable to vote in favor of the Conference Report to H.R. 2684.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). (Mr. ENGLISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, my State of Illinois saw its ranks of uninsured increase from 12.4 percent in 1997 to 15 percent in 1998. That is disheartening and unacceptable, and we want to see what this Congress can do to address the problem. We have before us today H.R. 2990, the quality care for the uninsured, which is intended to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. Much to the disappointment of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is not drafted to create a Federal takeover of our health care system. Rather, it is intended to help hard-working uninsured Americans afford health insurance for their families and it will solve the problem, at least better than it is being addressed today. Will it do all? Probably not. But let us give it a chance. This bill contains provisions that our small business community tells us will go a long way in bringing more Americans under the protection of health insurance so they do not have to fear financial ruin as a result of a medical crisis. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2990 and help the 44 million Americans who have been ignored for too long. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, having spent quite some time on a farm in my earlier years, I can certainly understand the concerns of those who are advocating enactment of H.R. 1402. With all the risks and uncertainties agricultural producers face on a regular and not-so-regular basis, it is hardly surprising that dairy farmers would rather not add another unknown quantity to the list of things with which they must concern themselves. Also, there is a natural tendency to fear the unknown simply because it is unfamiliar. But while it may be tempting to think that the devil you know is preferable to one that you don't, there is a problem with that line of reasoning in this instance. Should it prevail today, members of this body may have a devilishly difficult time explaining, much less justifying, it in the future. That being the case, I would urge my colleagues to consider some facts and figures before they cast their vote on H.R. 1402. Most obvious, not to mention significant, is the fact that our current system of milk marketing orders and price differentials is over 60 years old, a relic born long before the interstate highway system came into being or refrigeration trucks made their presence felt. Back then, the argument went as follows: for America's children to be able to drink wholesome fresh milk every day, dairy farmers had to be in business nearby. But now the circumstances are entirely different. Not only can milk be shipped safely over long distances but, in many cases, it can be obtained from out-of-state more cheaply than from neighboring sources. As a consequence, what once may have benefited youngsters now adds to the price their parents pay for their milk. Estimates of the cost of the present milk pricing system to consumers start at $674 million per year, with several approaching or even exceeding $1 billion annually. Not only that, but if milk price supports are extended for another year, as H.R. 1402 now provides, and the existing milk pricing system is essentially retained, America's taxpayers will be adversely affected as well. Because those provisions of H.R. 1402 will keep the price of milk consumed by participants in this nation's food stamp, child nutrition and supplemental feeding programs, they will not realize approximately $53 million a year in savings that should result from implementation of the USDA's Final Rule on milk marketing orders and price differentials. Also, there is evidence that dairy farmers themselves would not benefit as much as they might expect if H.R. 1402 becomes law. According to a recent estimate extrapolated from data developed by the University of Iowa's Farm and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), 59% of America's dairy farmers would fare better if the USDA's Final Rule takes effect. That last figure, in particular, is a telling statistic. But it is by no means the only reason it would be best to reject H.R. 1402 for the sake of America's dairy farmers. Even more compelling, to my way of thinking, is the potentially negative impact enactment of H.R. 1402 could have on the prospects for enhancing the export of American agricultural products in the years ahead. As I need hardly remind my colleagues, this nation's agricultural producers have been disproportionately disadvantaged by foreign trade barriers for many years now. That being the case, a key objective in the next round of trade negotiations is to achieve greater market access for all United States exports of agricultural commodities and value-added foods. But how successful can we be in achieving that objective if we are perceived to be asking other nations to do things we are unwilling to do ourselves? Let me be a bit more specific. From my vantage point as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, it appears that the provisions of H.R. 1402 run directly counter to the negotiating objectives of the United States in those upcoming trade talks which get underway in Seattle on November 30th of this year. Instead of telling our would-be trading partners that we practice what we preach, those provisions would give them ammunition they could use to resist opening their markets to our exports. In the past, countries with the most troublesome trade barriers have tried to shield their unfair trade practices by continuing to define them as being within the ``blue box'' category of export subsidies that are beyond the reach of multilateral disciplines. If we insist on maintaining market distorting pricing mechanisms and commodity subsidies of our own, as H.R. 1402 would do, those countries will see little reason--and have no incentive--to change their position. The result: markets for American agricultural products will not open up as we would like, the promise of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act will not materialize as we have hoped, and American farmers will not be as well off as they have expected. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I trust we will not make that mistake. For the sake of the consumer, the taxpayer and, yes, the dairy farmer himself or herself, I hope we will not go down the antiquated, out-of- date, inconsistent with the free market path that H.R. 1402 would take us. Rather than cling to a past that was not all that kind to dairy farmers anyway, let us look to the future and to the prospect of larger, more efficient markets, not just for dairy products, but for all the exportable agricultural goods produced in this country. We have the land, the skill, the experience and the technology to feed not just ourselves, but people all over the world at prices, few, if any others, can match. Indeed, we are truly blessed and it would be a shame if we did not count our blessings and put them to the best possible use, not exclusively to serve the interests of agricultural producers, but also to benefit those who process, distribute, sell, prepare and/or consume all kinds of agricultural commodities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1402 so that the USDA's Final Rule on milk marketing orders can take effect on October 1st of this year. That Rule may not be perfect, but compared to status quo alternative contemplated by H.R. 1402, it is a significant step in the right direction.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), my friend and my next-door neighbor, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). A little more than 2 months from now, the U.S. will host a ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, the first of its kind to be held in this country. A primary goal for American farmers is the successful launch of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations at this important meeting. The United States possesses the most efficient and competitive agriculture sector in the world. Agricultural goods accounted for $88 billion in total two-way trade during 1998, up 14 percent from 1993. U.S. agricultural exports alone stood at about $52 billion in 1998. Because domestic food consumption is projected to remain relatively stable, the further elimination of trade barriers and development of new export opportunities is essential to the economic health of American farmers. United States objectives for the next round of trade negotiations are to abolish export subsidies, phase out tariffs, and reform and eliminate domestic support programs. It is never easy to achieve liberalization of agricultural trade because farming is the most sensitive and politically powerful sector in almost every country. But this difficult objective becomes impossible if the United States, the avowed champion of open trade and agriculture, takes additional steps to distort markets and increase protection for our own favored commodities. H.R. 1402 increases market-distorting subsidies, penalizes consumers, and invites our trading partners to take similar steps. H.R. 1402 enables the European Union to justify and maintain its protectionist agricultural policies which represent the single largest impediment to expanded agricultural trade worldwide. The Manzullo-Dooley amendment requires USTR to assess whether implementation of H.R. 1402 would undermine the trade negotiating objectives of the United States. Implementation of the bill's market- distorting subsidies, Mr. Chairman, would end if USTR made an affirmative finding. Mr. Chairman, as the important WTO meeting in Seattle approaches, it is completely counterproductive to U.S. negotiating objectives to pass legislation like H.R. 1402. The United States must stand foursquare for free market reforms and for free trade policy, a policy rather that benefits our farmers, processors and our consumers. We must continue to provide the international leadership for free markets that has traditionally come from America. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the Manzullo-Dooley amendment, and I urge a no vote on H.R. 1402.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report of H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. I'd like to commend our Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer and our Majority Leader Dick Armey for their leadership, not to mention the wise counsel of Speaker Hastert, who crafted this tax relief package for all Americans. I was honored to be named a conferee for the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act and am proud of the product of labors. Mr. Speaker, during my long service in this body, I have had too few opportunities to cut taxes for the American people. I had to wait 12 years, until 1981, for the first major tax cut provided by the leadership of President Reagan. It was another 16 years, in 1997, before I could vote for another major tax cut. However, this Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 is far and away my favorite. Not only is it the largest, providing $792 billion in tax relief, but it does so from budget surpluses provided by taxpayers. In effect, we're giving taxpayers a refund for overtaxing them. At the same time, we will be using the remaining surplus to pay down the national debt--as much as $2 trillion over the next decade--as we lock away $1.9 trillion to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare. However, talking about all those numbers is the stuff of Washington policy works. Let me tell the American people what this tax cut means for them. Our Republican tax plan will give all taxpayers a cut in their income tax rates. In addition, 28 million working married couples will see a substantial reduction in their marriage penalty. Our bill also repeals the alternative minimum tax on individuals that will save taxpayers money while simplifying their tax returns. This provision is similar to legislation I introduced in this Congress to abolish the alternative minimum tax. For farmers, small business owners and older Americans, our bill will reduce, then abolish, the estate tax over the next 10 years. This confiscatory tax, with rates as high as 55 percent, has forced families to sell the fruits of a lifetime of labor to pay the taxman instead of passing it on to the next generation. The growth of the capital markets has given investors from all walks of life an opportunity to invest and save for the future. To further spur growth in these investments, H.R. 2488 will reduce tax rates on capital gains from 20 percent to 18 percent and from the lower rate of 10 percent to 8 percent. In the future, capital gains will be indexed so that investors won't be paying taxes on artificial gains from inflation. I am also pleased that my provision to cut capital gains taxes on the settlement funds which pay beneficiaries of class action lawsuits was included in the final package. To further assist Americans saving for retirement, H.R. 2488 also includes $35 billion in incentives for saving with individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. Savers will be able to contribute much more--up to $5,000--to their IRA accounts. Also included among these incentives is my provision to allow IRA holders to rollover their funds to needy charities. This bill has more good tax policy than I have time to mention. I do, however, want to say how pleased I am that my provisions to simplify the tax returns of affiliated groups of life insurance companies and another to encourage more foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds were also included in the final product. I urge all my colleagues to support this tax relief package so that we may start to return the tax overcharge to the American taxpayers. Furthermore, I hope the President will not stand in the way of needed tax relief by vetoing this measure.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I oppose this amendment because of the damaging effect it would have on U.S. firms and workers whose success in export markets depends on a system of fair and transparent international trade rules. The WTO has no power to compel a change in United States Federal law or regulation or a State law or regulation. Any decision to comply with a WTO panel report is solely an internal decision of the United States. As a practical matter, this means Congress and the administration can choose to act, but only in close consultation with the States, as is required under legislation Congress passed enacting the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements and NAFTA. My colleagues should recall that Congress gave careful consideration to the interests of the States when it implemented these trade agreements. As the world's largest exporter and the greatest beneficiary of a fair and transparent set of trade rules, the U.S. cannot afford to allow a conflicting web of international trade rules at the local level. Unless trade sanctions are well-conceived and imposed in a uniform manner, consistent with our international trade obligations, the result will be a hodgepodge of trade sanctions that tells our trading partners that the U.S. does not intend to respect the international trade agreements it signs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds appropriated by this bill to challenge a State law on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement or NAFTA. This is an antitrade, anti-export amendment that would encourage States and localities to enact legislation imposing trade sanctions on trading partners, in violation of our international obligations. The House defeated this amendment soundly when it was offered last Congress to H.R. 4276 and I urge strong defeat tonight. As chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I oppose this amendment because of the damaging effect it would have on United States firms and workers whose success in export markets depends on a system of fair and transparent international trade rules. By denying the authority of the Federal Government to take legal action to enforce international trade obligations of the United States, the amendment gives free reign to those supporting the proliferation of ad hoc trade sanctions at the State and local level. The Founding Fathers were clear in their view that local communities are not in a good position to legislate on international trade and foreign policy matters. The need for uniformity among the States in the conduct of international trade is enshrined in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' As Daniel Webster described, ``the prevailing motive (of Article I, section 8) was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences resulting from legislation of so many States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law.'' In cases where there is a conflict between an act of Congress that regulates commerce, and state or local legislation, Federal law enjoys supremacy. The proponents of this amendment seek to establish the ability of States and localities to pass legislation prohibiting their agencies from procuring goods and services from foreign companies that do business with target countries. The case they often site is a Massachusetts law sanctioning companies that do business with Burma. It should be mentioned that the Federal District Court has ruled that the Massachusetts Burma law is an impermissible intrusion into areas reserved for the federal government. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record a letter we received from Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky opposing this amendment. She points out that the Kucinich amendment is founded on a faulty premise. This faulty premise is that dispute settlement panels convened under the WTO have the authority to compel the Federal Government to sue State and local governments into compliance with the WTO. This is simply incorrect. The WTO has no power to compel a change in United States federal law or regulation or a state law or regulation. Any decision to comply with a WTO panel report is solely an internal decision of the United States. As a practical matter, this means Congress and the Administration can choose to act, but only in close consultation with the States, as is required under legislation Congress passed enacting the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements and NAFTA. My colleagues should recall that Congress gave careful consideration to the interests of the States when it implemented these trade agreements. The fact of the matter is that during the 50 years of operation of the GATT/WTO trading system, the federal government has never brought suit against a state or locality, or even threatened a suit, to enforce a panel report. As the world's largest exporter and the greatest beneficiary of a fair and transparent set of trade rules, the United States cannot afford to allow a conflicting web of international trade rules at the local level. Unless trade sanctions are well-conceived and imposed in a uniform manner, consistent with our international trade obligations, the result will be a hodgepodge of trade sanctions that tells our trading partners that the United States does not intend to respect the international trade agreements it signs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. CRANE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute as well to our good colleague and friend from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CRANE. 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 materials on House Joint Resolution 58.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there have been arguments raised here, ones that I think are worth listening to by all of us, regardless of our position on the issues, and I respect the disagreements that I have with some of my colleagues, but I think personally that if you examine the evidence, you will realize that the hope for mankind in the future lies in moving down this path of expanding our relationships with one another and especially expanding our economic relationships. Keep in mind, too, that as Ambassador Peterson told a group of us this morning, 65 percent of the population over there has been born since the end of the Vietnam War. The overwhelming majority of these people know nothing about it except what they have heard from those who preceded them. In that regard, I think it is important to note, too, that we have a recent report that just came out from the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, this was in July, last month, mentioning that three-fourths of the population are nominally Buddhist now, an estimated 6 to 7 million are Roman Catholics, and there are a variety of other religious affiliations, including Mormons in Vietnam. In addition to that, they are growing in population. I think further that it is important for us to recognize that in the last national election there, and that was last year, this was not an absolute Communist dictatorship in place. There were almost two candidates running in every race for their national assembly, 800, and 450 seats. The result was the election of 61 National Assembly members who are not members of the Communist party, and as indicated earlier, one of those 61 was a major in the South Vietnamese army, a former major. We have also something else, I think, to keep in mind. That is a point that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) brought up, the response he got from a Communist he spoke to while he was there who said that they cannot advance free trade because that would put him out of a job. Think about that for a moment, Mr. Chairman, a Communist cannot participate in the advancement of free trade because that will put him, a Communist, out of a job; to which I say, amen. That is a fringe benefit. The immediate benefit is the material benefits to the people of Vietnam, and the material benefits here as we advance down that path creating expanded free trade worldwide. I would remind Members also, this is not a vote on normal trade relations. This simply provides an expanded opportunity for increased business contact in Vietnam. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 58. I think it is in the best interests of our country and the best interests of the people of Vietnam.

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