Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], our distinguished colleague. (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English]. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], our distinguished conference chairman.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], our distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].

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. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have listened to some very eloquent testimony on both sides, and I think this Chamber has represented that today more than maybe most days, evidence of what our system is all about in terms of our exchanges on a bipartisan basis. But let me focus very briefly on why I think extension of normal trade relations with China is so important. If we go back to the Great Leap Forward, and that was with total government-managed control of that economy, there were 60 million Chinese that starved to death. We can condemn Deng Xiaoping for a lot of things, but one thing that he will be most remembered for is as the initiator of what he called Leninist capitalism, the ultimate oxymoron. But he did advance free enterprise in mainland China, and free enterprise has expanded so dramatically that our concern as a people, which is not the government, it is the Chinese people over there, and bear in mind that of 1.2 billion, only 40 million of them are allegedly Communists, and I think they are too bright even to be Communists, I think they are just bright pragmatists that have got a good thing going for themselves. But the fact of the matter is, more Chinese people today are enjoying a higher standard of living than ever before in the history of China, in its 5,000 years, and that is continuing to expand dramatically, and it is because of their commitment to free enterprise. Now, we want to aid and abet and help them in that effort, to be sure, and that is why maintaining our contacts and our business contacts is a good idea. As Ben Franklin said, a good example is the best sermon. We are providing the best sermon by our presence over there in mainland China, and that is continuing to improve the lot for all of the Chinese people. I would urge my colleagues to recognize that there are alternative ways to address legitimate questions that have come up about arms transfers, legitimate questions that come up about human rights violations, but harking back to the original reference to our inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, Thomas Jefferson was absolutely correct. I mean he used that phrase, ``pursuit of happiness,'' but it was property. The fact of the matter is, how do you enjoy life if you do not eat? That means having access to property and expanding and improving that access, especially in terms of food, shelter, and clothing. That is happening at an unprecedented rate over there. The last remaining issue to be addressed through that is liberty, but that is where our presence can set that good example. I would urge my colleagues to vote down the well-intentioned resolution of disapproval, and to guarantee that we continue what is sound policy into the future, and holds the greatest hope we have ever had in our post-World War II relations with mainland China; namely, normal trade relations.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach]. (Mr. Leach asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, there is an alarming trend that has occurred the past several months, led by some social conservative organizations in Washington who have called for the revocation of China's most- favored-nation [MFN] status. They argue we should revoke this status, which is simply normal trade relations between countries, to retaliate against the Chinese Government for interfering with the practice of religion. I, too, am very concerned about the persecution of anyone who practices religion in China. It is for this very reason that I have the firm conviction that MFN must be renewed. In fact, missionaries in China, who are closest to the issue, say that MFN is essential for maintaining the positive work they do. As a conservative, as a Christian, and as the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade I am absolutely convinced that by bringing the influence of the outside world into China, free trade will create opportunities for freedom of religion to take root. Trade has helped to expose millions of the Chinese people to values such as human rights and religious freedom by opening a door to the People's Republic of China. In the June 11, 1997, edition of the Wall Street Journal, Rev. Robert A. Sirico addressed many of these concerns and concluded that ``Just as religious freedom offers the best hope for Christian social influence, economic freedom is the best hope for spreading that influence around the world.'' I applaud his thinking and submit his article into the Record. I urge my colleagues to consider the points he raises here and to vote to renew China's MFN status. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 1997] China and the Trade Warriors (By Robert A. Sirico) Despite occasional tensions between social conservatives and economic conservatives, most social and cultural goals have an economic dimension about which the two camps are generally in agreement. But now a leader of the socially conservative camp has proposed that there is an issue that pits morality and prosperity irreconcilably against one another--U.S. trade with China, a nation known for human- rights violations, and particularly for religious persecution. Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council is demanding that the U.S. government wage economic war against China with sanctions, boycotts and embargoes. In his campaign for trade restrictions with China, Mr. Bauer and a few other conservative leaders are working hand in glove with labor unions and other left-liberal protectionists, normally die- hard opponents of the religious right. Barricades Have Collapsed The usual political barricades have collapsed as Mr. Bauer's comrades join forces to oppose congressional attempts to continue normal trading relations with China. In a recent letter, Mr. Bauer compares the urgency of imposing sanctions to issues such as ending slavery and defeating Hitler. How restricting trade with China will help strengthen American families, faith and morality is unclear. What is clear is that Mr. Bauer finds China's treatment of Christians morally objectionable. I do, too. And he is to be commended for his efforts at raising the public's awareness of Chinese persecution. Christians are threatened, jailed, expelled and even killed in China. Whether this occurs more or less today than in decades past is in dispute. But one human-rights violation is one too many. That's why I, along with many others, signed an open letter from the Family Research Council to Vice President Al Gore that appeared in major newspapers. It objected to Mr. Gore's failure to emphasize China's poor human-rights record during his March visit. The letter particularly highlighted China's vicious suppression of rights of Roman Catholics to worship in freedom. The letter said nothing about a broader trade agenda. I would have signed a similar letter about the appalling treatment of Christians in Egypt (which receives U.S. aid), Saudi Arabia (which the U.S. has defended militarily) and Iraq (where a Kurdish convert to Christianity, Mansour Hussein Sifer, was recently martyred). Friends of freedom should oppose restrictions on worship and religious speech anywhere they may appear, including the U.S. When I signed the letter on China, however, I did not know that it was a prologue to a full-blown political campaign that would seek to curtail commercial ties between China and the rest of the world. Mr. Bauer's position has evolved from a strong moral stand in favor of religious freedom to waging total trade war. A charge often leveled against the Christian right is that it is not sensitive to the difference between urging certain moral ends and using government coercion to bring them about. It's usually a canard: In the case of the arts, for example, the religious right seeks not censorship but an end to taxpayer subsidies for blasphemy and obscenity. I regret having to say that this time, however, the Family Research Council has lived up to the stereotype. It is attempting to enlist government power, at the expense of everyone who benefits from U.S.-Chinese commercial relations, thus choosing an inappropriate means to achieve a moral end. What's more, trade sanctions would be counterproductive. Sanctions won't bring freedom for religious expression in China. They won't end China's cruel policies limiting family size. They won't stop the horrific policy of forced abortions. They won't bring democracy. They can only further isolate China and close off avenues for greater Western influence. The growth of Western businesses in China, however, would dilute the power of China's communist rulers. As commercial networks develop, Chinese businesspeople are able to travel more freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to support evangelistic endeavors. No one understands this better than evangelical missionaries currently working in China. Mr. Bauer's passionate campaign has elicited pleas from many of them for Congress not to cut off trade. Such an action would endanger their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in Bibles and other religious materials. These missionaries understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and religious ex- changes. Why doesn't Mr. Bauer listen to those who know far more about China than Washington think tanks and labor unions do? ``They may be too close to the situation,'' he answers, somewhat flippantly. Until recently, trade warriors have cited the case of the U.S. Catholic bishops, who have opposed renewing normal trade status with China. At the same time, however, Hong Kong's official Catholic newspaper, the Sunday Examiner, reports new contacts between Beijing and Hong Kong's Catholic hierarchy. These contacts are a major step toward an official recognition of the Catholic Church on the mainland. To the Good This would all be to the good. Diplomacy and international trade strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power. Beijing has shown itself to be supremely interested in fostering prosperity at home. Christians must take advantage of this impulse, rather than recklessly treating China as a monster that must be slain. This need not be an issue that divides social conservatives from economic conservatives. Economic prosperity through free trade is the most effective distributor of wealth and power, and trade with China is the surest way to break the gap of centralized political power. Religious conservatives should broaden their focus beyond purely social and cultural issues. Mr. Bauer and his supporters are right to decry the immoral treatment of believers in China. But allowing themselves to be used by protectionist and labor lobbies is an imprudent approach. Just as religious freedom offers the best hope for Christian social influence, economic freedom is the best hope for spreading that influence around the world.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Office of the United States Trade Representative [USTR] for its success in the World Trade Organization [WTO] case against the European Union's [EU] banana regime. Ruling in favor of the United States, a WTO panel recently found that numerous aspects of the EU import licensing system are squarely in violation of WTO provisions. As an institution, the new WTO offers the United States enhanced opportunities to break open foreign markets which are unfairly closed to U.S. companies. Through skilled use of the WTO dispute settlement system, Ambassador Barshefsky and her negotiators have secured a more level-playing field for U.S. businesses in the EU market. I want my colleagues to be aware that this decision against EU licensing procedures represents a big win for U.S. trade objectives. First, it will help demonstrate that trade agreements can serve as an effective means of resolving trade disputes. And, by doing so, it underscores the value of pushing ahead with new trade negotiations. The banana case represents the first U.S. victory against the EU in the WTO, and should provide renewed hope for resolving numerous contentious disputes, particularly those we have which concern protectionist EU agricultural policies. Also, in her statement yesterday announcing the decision, Ambassador Barshefsky mentioned that the report does not find that duty-free preferences for Caribbean imports are inconsistent with WTO obligations, and she pledged to support future economic diversification in the Caribbean. Finally, by giving life to some of the new WTO agreements--such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Licensing Agreement--the panel outcome will contribute to international trade rules which will be of benefit to a wide range of U.S. trade interests in many WTO disputes to come. Again, I congratulate Ambassador Barshefsky and request that my colleagues join me in calling on the EU to step up to the plate and support the new multilateral system by expeditiously bringing its unfair practices into conformity with the WTO ruling.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the President recently announced his intention to recommend the extension of most favored nation [MFN] trade status for China, a decision which I strongly support. A failure on America's part to extend MFN would be a grave error which would harm Chinese citizens, the very people MFN opponents want to help. The United States has numerous areas of conflict and disagreement with the Chinese Government, but all of these issues will be addressed more effectively in the context of maintaining normal trade relations. It is important for us to remember that, in the last 15 years, China has witnessed a dramatic improvement in its standard of living. Such improvement is due in no small part to the free-market economic reforms which are supported by our expanding trade relationship. As the House begins the annual debate on China's MFN status, I want to call Members' attention to an excellent article by Congressman David Dreier, Vice Chairman of the Rules Committee and a leader on trade matters in the House. Congressman Dreier makes a strong case in favor of promoting normal trade relations with China. The article, which was published in the May 19 issue of Insight magazine, discusses the benefits that economic reform has brought to the Chinese people and illustrates the dire need for this reform to continue. [From Insight, May 19, 1997] Sanctions Would Undermine the Market Reforms That Have Initiated Positive Change (By David Dreier) Fostering freedom and human rights around the world is a universal foreign-policy goal in Congress. That was the case in 1989, when I joined nearly a dozen of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, in a march to the front door of the Chinese Embassy to protest the brutal massacre of student protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. It remains a bipartisan priority today because support for freedom and democracy is part and parcel of what it means to be American. The current debate in Congress is not about the goal of ending human-rights abuses in China but about the effectiveness of economic sanctions as a means to achieve that goal. It would be a mistake for China's leaders to interpret this debate as a weakening of our resolve. In looking at conditions in China during the last 20 years, the path to democracy of numerous countries around the globe and the effectiveness of unilateral economic sanctions to improve human rights for people living under the boot of other repressive regimes, it becomes unmistakably clear that such sanctions will not improve human rights in China. If anything, economic sanctions will set back the cause of freedom. Achieving greater human freedom in China is an important priority if for no other reason than the fact that one-fifth of the human race lives in that vast country. Today, the Chinese people lack individual rights, political freedom and freedom of speech, religion, association and the press. Even the most basic human freedom of childbearing is regulated by the authoritarian national government. When looking at repression in China, however, I am reminded of the ancient saying that, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It does no good to evaluate progress toward freedom in China by comparing it with the United States or any other democracy. Instead, a historical perspective is needed. While China offers a 4,000-year story of political repression, some of its bleakest days have come in the last generation. More than 60 million Chinese starved to death during Mao Tse-tung's disastrous Great Leap Forward, and another million were murdered by the Communists during the international isolation of Mao's Cultural Revolution. The Chinese were scarred by those brutal events, and no one wants to return to the terror of economic calamity and starvation. Stapelton Roy, the former American ambassador to China, put the current conditions in China in the following perspective: ``If you look at the 150 years of modern Chinese history . . . you can't avoid the conclusion that the last 15 years are the best 15 years in China's modern history. And of those 15 years, the last two years are the best in terms of prosperity, individual choice, access to outside information, freedom of movement within the country and stable domestic conditions.'' Today, the Chinese economy is the fastest growing in the world. While many Chinese remain poor peasants, few go hungry, and hundreds of millions of Chinese have seen their lives substantially improved through economic reform. Many enjoy greater material wealth and a greater degree of personal economic freedom. Market reform is the single most powerful force for positive change in China in this century and possibly in the country's long history. The recent economic progress, which significantly has improved living conditions in China, is a profound moral victory. Fostering further positive change is a moral imperative as well. As reported in the March 4 New York Times, Zhu Wenjun, a woman living outside Shanghai, has seen her life improve dramatically due to economic reform. Zhu, 45, quit a teaching job that paid $25 a month to work for a company that exports toys and garments that pays $360 a month. ``It used to be that when you became a teacher, you were a teacher for life,'' Zhu was quoted as saying. ``Now you can switch jobs. Now I am talking with people overseas and thinking about economic issues.'' Economic reform in China has helped to lift hundreds of millions of hardworking people from desperate poverty, giving them choices and opportunities never available before. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have access to information and contact with Western values through technologies spreading across the country, thanks to economic reform and the growth it created. This is a tremendous victory for human freedom. Americans are justified in their outrage about the Chinese government's policy methods of population control. This has led many Chinese families to abort female babies with the hope of having a son. Here again, moral outrage and economic sanctions will not be enough to end this violation of basic human rights. The New York Times reported another encouraging story from inside China that shows how economic reform undermines repression, including China's one-child policy. Ye Xiuying is a 26-year-old woman who runs a small clock shop in Dongguan, a small town in Guangdong province. Through her own entrepreneurial spirit and energy, she rose from a $35-per- month factory worker to running her own business and earning up to $1,200 a month. Along with buying a home and looking forward to traveling to the United States, Ye used $1,800 to pay the one-time government fine so she could have a second child. The hopeful stories of Zhu and Ye have been repeated many, many times across China during the last 15 years. That is why Nicholas Kristoff, former New York Times Beijing bureau chief, said, ``Talk to Chinese peasants, workers and intellectuals and on one subject you get virtual unanimity: `Don't curb trade.' '' The Chinese are learning firsthand one of the great truths of the late 20th century: Market-oriented reforms promote private enterprise, which encourages trade, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political repression. While full political freedom for the Chinese may be decades away, other hopeful signs of change exist. Today, 500 million Chinese farmers experience local democracy, voting in competitive village elections in which winners are not Communist candidates. The Chinese government also is recognizing that the rule of law is a necessary underpinning of a true market economy. Furthermore, the Chinese media, while strictly censored, increasingly are outside the control of the party and the state. In particular, the spread of communications technology throughout China, including telephones, fax machines, computers, the Internet, satellites and television, is weakening the state's grip on information. The evidence that market reforms are the main engine driving improved human rights in China is mirrored around the globe. South Korea, Taiwan, Chile and Argentina all broke the chains of authoritarian dictatorship and political repression during the last 25 years primarily because their respective governments adopted market-based economic reforms. As a result, each country grew wealthier and more open and each eventually evolved into democracies. The cause of human freedom advanced in those instances in which the United States did not employ economic sanctions against dictatorships. In contrast, decades of American economic sanctions against Iran, Iraq, Libya and Cuba, while merited on national-security grounds, only have led to greater economic and political repression. The real-world failure of economic sanctions to result in human-rights gains has left proponents of sanctions groping for new arguments. The argument du jour is that China is our next Cold War adversary, and since the United States used trade sanctions against the Soviet Union in a successful Cold War campaign, the same strategy should be applied to China. This line of thinking is fundamentally flawed. A Cold War with China is unthinkable absent the support of our international allies, and the simple reality is that a Cold War strategy would garner no support. During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the world's democracies by and large saw an aggressive military opponent bent on undermining democracy around the world. Today, China is not viewed as a similar threat to democracy nor to international peace and security. China's neighbors, while concerned with that country's evolution as a major economic and political power, do not advocate Cold War-style confrontation. The United States' closest allies in Asia--Japan, Korea, Australia and Thailand--strongly oppose economic warfare with China. They see economic reform as a condition of peace and security in the region. The unwillingness of our allies to join us in a crusade against China largely is based on the fact that China has not earned international enmity. The Soviet Union conquered its neighbors in Eastern Europe and imposed puppet regimes on previously independent countries. They invaded Afghanistan and instigated violent insurrections throughout Africa, Latin America and Asia. The Soviet Union earned the Ronald Reagan label, ``evil empire.'' Chinese foreign policy, even with its distressing proliferation policies, is in a different league altogether. The national-security rationale for anti-China sanctions is as weak as the human-rights arguments. Just as economic engagement consistently has proved to be the best human- rights policy, Cold War-style economic sanctions are national-security fool's gold. Imposing economic sanctions on China would throw away the real progress of the last 15 years and send 1.2 billion people to the darkest days of Maoism. When Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall,'' he demanded freedom for Eastern Europeans to mingle with the West--just the opposite of the spirit of trade sanctions against China, which attempt to erect new walls around the Chinese people. Economic sanctions, especially when imposed unilaterally, are not an effective tool to promote human rights. Economic sanctions against China would undermine the market reforms that have been the single most powerful force for positive change in that country. They could shatter the hopes and dreams of 20 percent of the human race seeking to rise above the poverty and oppression that have been staples of Chinese history.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, remember that old excuse ``the check is in the mail''? In days gone by, that excuse could be used more easily than today because no other options were available to pay bills or to send written messages. With the telecommunications, computer, and information technology revolution, however, there are a variety of options at the public's fingertips to send documents and payments, such as e-mail, electronic financial transfers, and facsimile transmissions. As these technological advancements are used more routinely in everyday life, it is putting increased downward pressure on the U.S. Postal Service's [USPS] revenue stream. Unless we take action to unleash the Postal Service from its current restraints, it is likely to become, to the 21st century, what the horse drawn carriage became to the 20th century. It is clear that we live in a rapidly changing world. In recent years, we have witnessed an explosion of technological innovations that have enabled people to do much more at home and at work faster than they ever could before. In today's highly competitive global economy, those who can do more, faster, have an edge over their competition. And so, market forces drive the computer and information technology revolution to continue to surpass previous limitations and speeds. As the world continues to seek ways of getting the job done more efficiently, traditional mailbox delivery service is being left behind. In fact, in a 1995 speech, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon said that the legislative framework governing the USPS is no longer in tune with the Nation's long-term postal needs. A major reason cited by the Postmaster General was the competition the USPS is facing from e-mail, electronic financial transfers, and fax machines. He went on to point out that the USPS had already lost 35 percent of its financial mail in the previous 5 years and 33 percent of its business mail to alternative forms of communication and transmission. Even the Federal Government has recognized the advantages of alternative methods of making payments and issuing benefits. By the end of 1999, the U.S. Department of the Treasury plans to collect $1 trillion in tax payments via computers. Already, the Treasury Department says that 55 percent of all payments made by the Federal Government are now sent electronically. In less than 2 years, all current and future Social Security beneficiaries will have their money directly deposited into their bank accounts. The savings to the taxpayers from these electronic transfers become apparent when you consider that it costs the Government 43 cents to send a payment by check versus 2 cents per payment to send funds electronically. In the economy overall, a recent study, by Arthur D. Little, forecast that by the year 2000, electronic correspondence and transactions may overtake traditional mail in market share. Clearly, fundamental change is necessary to enable the USPS to adapt and compete in a rapidly changing environment. Generally speaking, I am convinced that the vast majority of USPS employees are conscientious, hard-working individuals, who want to provide competitive, top notch service. For the most part, the problem is not so much with them as it is with the system in which they have to work. Put simply, the system lacks the incentives necessary to bring about the gains in productivity and customer service that are essential for the USPS to live up to the public's expectations and needs. For one thing, the USPS is insulated against competition in the delivery of first-class mail, which means customers need not be won over, but can be taken for granted. For another, it is subsidized by the Federal Government, through its ability to borrow from the Federal Treasury when it loses money and the fact that it does not have to pay taxes, which means there is less pressure to be efficient. A third reason lies in the fact that the USPS does not have to operate under any bottom- line incentives, such as a profit motive, which serve as the underlining motivator in making private companies so productive. For this reason, I am reintroducing legislation today which would convert the USPS into a totally private corporation owned by postal employees. My bill calls for this transition to be implemented over a 5-year period, after which the USPS' current monopoly over the delivery of first class mail would end. To make the prospects for success of the new private corporation even more likely and attractive, my legislation calls for the cost-free transfer of the assets held by the USPS to the employee-owned corporation. Not only would a privatized Postal Service inherit a tremendous infrastructure advantage to assist in this transition, it would be free to develop entirely new products and services quickly to respond to market needs and demands. Moreover, as owners of the Postal Service, the employees would benefit from having a stake in the corporations success and profitability. In the past, the major objection that the USPS has raised to privatization and the repeal of its monopoly has been that it would result, allegedly, in cream skimming by USPS competitors of metropolitan areas, leaving the USPS with the financially troublesome prospect of being left with only rural and bulk mail to deliver. However, the logic behind such an argument overlooks the significance of the telecommunications and computer revolution underway. With the rapid growth in the use of facsimile machines, modems, internet, electronic mail, the truth is the USPS is more likely to be left with rural and bulk mail to deliver if it does not privatize than if it does. For this reason, I hope that the fine men and women of the USPS might seriously consider this proposal and examine its merits. I hope, too, that my colleagues might join me in this effort because only by keeping up with the times and the competition can the USPS hope to thrive in the future.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 408. This is a unique opportunity to approve legislation that would meet our environmental concerns over dolphin mortality, put us in compliance with our international obligations, and use multilateral standards for the imposition of sanctions, instead of unilateral standards that violate the WTO. This bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means to address its trade aspects. We reported it out as approved by the Committee on Resources without further amendment and a strong bipartisan vote. I support the bill because it would replace the current use of U.S. unilateral standards as a trigger for an import ban of tuna caught with purse seine nets with multilateral standards agreed to as part of the Panama Declaration. If countries are in compliance with the multilateral standard for the fishing of yellowfin tuna, then the import ban would not apply. Any use of unilateral standards for the imposition of sanctions is troubling. In fact, a GATT panel has found our current law to violate our international obligations. Instead, enforcement actions are most effective when they are based on international consensus, as this bill would establish. Such consensus is more constructive to effective management of the ETP tuna fishery by all countries concerned. I believe that these standards will serve as a positive incentive to reduce dolphin mortality, while at the same time putting the United States in compliance with international agreements. Proof of the benefits of H.R. 408 is the fact that this legislation is supported by the administration and key environmental groups such as National Wildlife Federation, Center for Marine Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund. In addition, our tuna fishing industry supports the bill and our trading partners have indicated that they believe implementation of the bill would put us in compliance with our international obligations. With such a strong and diverse coalition behind this bill, we should strongly support it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 84, the fiscal year 1998 Budget Resolution Mr. Chairman, in my years of service in this august body, I have found myself in this position too many times. I appreciate the fact that compromise is necessary to do the peoples' business when the executive branch is controlled by one party and the legislative body is controlled by another. Congress and the President over the years have negotiated for long hours behind closed doors, and, after heated debate, much ballyhooed budget deals were announced. In recent years, these budget deals have all attempted to reduce the size of the budget deficit and the federal debt. Unfortunately, they did not accomplish their desired goals. In 1990, President Bush caved in to the Democrat-controlled Congress to reduce the budget deficit by raising taxes on the American people. Joining my colleagues who now comprise our House Leadership, I opposed our Republican President and his tax increases. The American people expressed their opinion of this deal by electing a new President in 1992. In 1993, although Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the much-hearalded budget again tried to slow our runaway deficits by enacting the largest tax increase in the history of our Republic. Ironically, in my statement of May 27, 1993 opposing the budget, I reminded my colleagues that the budget deals are usually too good to be true. In that statement, I recited the promises of the 1990 budget deal which were never fulfilled. This year's budget deal is also too good to be true. Although House Concurrent Resolution 84 projects a budget surplus in 2002, I have more faith that my grandchildren will see their Social Security benefits than I have faith that, based on these assumptions, we will balance the budget in five years. This year, our budget deficit is expected to be roughly $67 billion. Under the budget resolution, the deficit will jump to $90 billion in fiscal year 1998 and will remain in excess of $80 billion until 2001, when the deficit will fall some $30 billion. Then to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit will have to be cut another $54 billion to achieve the projected $1.3 billion surplus in 2002. History has again repeated itself. The failing of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals was that Congress refused to cut spending to balance the budget, always putting the hard choices off to a future Congress. This budget resolution also contains no substantial spending reductions to realistically balance our budget. While the spending increases take effect next year, spending cuts are put off until 2001 and 2002. In short, President Clinton appears to have won the budget debate. He secured the spending increases he desired in exchange for spending cuts which will take place, if they ever do, after he leaves office. Republicans won modest tax cuts of between $85 and $135 billion in exchange for spending $18 billion more than the President requested in his fiscal year 1998 budget! Just two years ago, the Republican Congress proposed a tax cut package of $345 billion. After negotiations with the other body, the tax relief package that went to the President shrunk to $226 billion. President Clinton prevented that tax relief from reaching the American people by using his veto pen. Now we are willing to abandon any hope of enacting spending cuts in return for a relatively modest tax relief bill. The justification for this small amount of tax relief is that Congress cannot ``afford'' more money for this purpose. How much longer will this continue? Big government supporters in Washington are generally not concerned whether taxpayers can afford to be the most heavily taxed generation in American history. I argued earlier this year that the budget deficit is only a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself. The disease afflicting our great nation is a federal government that has grown to a size and scope that would be incomprehensible to our Founding Fathers. Our federal debt has not resulted from Americans being taxed too little, it is because our government has spent too much money. Balancing the federal budget is not a worthy goal unless we are simultaneously reducing the size of the behemoth government. To gain my support for a budget resolution, I would challenge my colleagues in this way--instead of waiting until 2002 to enact $54 billion in deficit reduction, we should make the necessary cuts in fiscal year 1998 to cut the deficit by that figure. This would establish a natural glide-path to balance in 2002, rather than shirking our responsibility onto future Congresses. I appreciate the hard work put in by our Republican leadership in the budget negotiations. The propensity of this President to simultaneously take both sides of an argument makes negotiating very difficult. Unfortunately, I cannot accept this agreement as the best the American people can expect from a Republican-controlled Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution so that we may return with a budget along the lines of the conservative substitute that I supported. Even with minor modifications, we can cut the excess spending increases in order to allow the American people to keep more of their own money. We can show our constituents that we are serious about fulfilling the promise of ending the era of big government. The American people deserve no less from us.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three very special business leaders and one special community leader in my district who will be honored today by the Rolling Meadows Chamber of Commerce. Daniel Sawusch, President of Citadel Management and general partner of Woodfield Gardens Apartments, will be honored as the 1996 Business Leader of the Year. Under Dan's guidance, Woodfield Gardens has been turned into the showplace it now is. In addition to receiving the Exemplary Business Partnership Award from Governor Edgar and the C.A.M.M.E. [Chicagoland Apartment Management and Marketing Excellence] Award for its ongoing public relations programs, Woodfield Gardens has been awarded the Grand C.A.M.M.E. Award for property excellence for being the best in the business. Mr. Philip Burns, Fire Chief of Rolling Meadows, will be honored as the 1996 Community Leader of the Year. Aside from serving residents as Fire Chief, Mr. Burns has belonged to, and held positions in, a wide range of local and State organizations. Over the years he has served as President of the Rotary, President of Great Lakes Division of the international Fire Chiefs, and Chairman of the Resource Committee of Illinois Fire Chiefs. Other activities that have benefited the community include his involvement with Community Make a Difference Day and Clearbrook Olympics and Tag Day. Meadows Funeral Home will be honored with the 1996 Business Beautification Award. Bill Haberichter, proprietor of Meadows Funeral Home, took an unattractive, undeveloped piece of property and transformed it into an attractive, functional building and grounds that serve the community well. The funeral home is on approximately 2 acres of land which required 11,000 yards of fill to bring the parcel of property up grade level. G.L. Technology also will be honored as the Small Business of the Year for 1996. Company president Samuel Kim has over 20 years of product design and development experience in the coin-operated and consumer electronic industries. To date, Mr. Kim has been issued 35 patents for his designs. G.L. Technology is a leading developer and manufacturer of sports games which are distributed throughout the U.S., Canada, and over 20 other countries worldwide. The success of G.L. Technology's games has earned the company a reputation for being able to develop innovative games that people enjoy playing. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate these leaders of Rolling Meadows for their hard work and dedication. Rolling Meadows and the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois is a better place to live because of them.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1463, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the U.S. Customs Service, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the International Trade Commission. I would first like to note that a full authorization for these three agencies has not been achieved since 1990, and that those authorizations expired in 1992. I was therefore pleased that the President's modest budget submission for 1998 for these agencies could be well received by the Committee on Ways and Means. This prudent approach allowed the committee to work in a bipartisan manner to authorize appropriations which matched the President's request. Passage of H.R. 1463 will send a strong message to our colleagues in the Senate to develop the same bipartisan view that the committees of jurisdiction must reassert their authorities over these agencies through the budget process. The bill will also provide a guideline for the appropriations committees as they consider the levels of funding necessary for these agencies to fulfill their statutory functions. H.R. 1463 produces no increase in the Federal deficit. While H.R. 1463 does not exceed the President's overall budget submission, the Committee on Ways and Means has made one important amendment to the authorizations for the Customs Service. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has acted to allocate additional resources within the Customs budget to that agency's law enforcement profile by authorizing appropriations over the next 2 years for additional equipment and Customs special agents to fight the war on drugs. The role of the Customs Service, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission in advancing our bipartisan agenda for free and open trade should not be underestimated. I am proud to support H.R. 1463 and the statement it makes in continuing the work of these agencies. 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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 1463.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1463) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the Customs Service, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the International Trade Commission, as amended.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins]. [Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.]