Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, concerns about the consistency of any future drug reimportation provisions with this free trade agreement are hypothetical. The agreement has no force under U.S. law except to the extent that Congress passes an implementing bill to change U.S. law. Thus, even if Congress changes U.S. law and the new law were somehow inconsistent with the agreement, that new law would trump the agreement. The agreement cannot prevent Congress from allowing drug reimportation. The drug reimportation debate in Congress has focused on changes to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that would be necessary to allow drug reimportation, such as changing its provision that only the original manufacturer may reimport a drug. There is nothing in the Morocco FTA or the implementing bill that addresses the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for this requirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco have reached agreement on a bilateral free trade agreement. Morocco has long been a key ally in the Middle East. As many have noted, Morocco was the first country to recognize our sovereignty; and in 1786 we signed the U.S.-Morocco treaty of peace and friendship, which remains the longest unbroken treaty in our Nation's history. Once implemented, this treaty agreement will be the second of its kind between the U.S. and a moderate Muslim ally, following our trade agreement with the Kingdom of Jordan. This is an important strategic agreement. While we have had a long- standing diplomatic relationship with Morocco, the U.S.-Morocco FTA cements the economic relationship between our countries. Two-way trade between the U.S. and Morocco is significant, at nearly $1 billion per year. The United States exported over $465 million to Morocco last year, with a trade surplus of over $79 million. This FTA will eliminate trade barriers, lower tariffs, and provide increased market access for U.S. companies. By knocking down trade barriers in Morocco and in the rest of the world, we can help support even more American jobs. In fact, the International Trade Commission estimates that trade between our countries should double once this agreement is implemented. This is a strong agreement for all sectors of the U.S. economy. Under its terms, over 95 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Morocco will become duty free immediately. This follows the high standards set by recently passed trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, and Australia. This is important for U.S. manufacturers. This is also a strong agreement for the services sector of our economy, whether it be telecommunications, e-commerce for digital commerce, or new opportunities for U.S. financial institutions. The agreement also contains state-of-the-art intellectual property provisions, including commitments in trademarks, copyrights and patents, as well as tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. Taken together, these provisions continue a trade policy that best helps U.S. business compete in a global marketplace. Mr. Speaker, the Farm Bureau strongly supports this agreement, which covers all agricultural products, because for every $1 in increased imports from Morocco, U.S. farmers can expect $10 in increased exports to Morocco. In 2003, the United States had a trade surplus in agricultural products with Morocco of about $82 million, with exports of over $152 million. The Farm Bureau estimates that this agreement could increase U.S. agricultural exports to over $450 million by 2015, tripling our current exports. Furthermore, because Morocco's agreement with the European Union does not include agriculture, this FTA should give American farmers a competitive advantage over our EU counterparts. Some have questioned whether labor laws in Morocco are adequate. To that end, I would like to point out that the U.S.-Morocco FTA, like all of our trade agreements, requires Morocco to enforce domestic labor laws in accordance with the bipartisan guidance provided by the Congress in Trade Promotion Authority. Furthermore, in anticipation of a U.S.-Morocco FTA, the Moroccan government, business community, and labor force, working together in a tripartite manner, found consensus in passing a comprehensive new labor law earlier this year that is consistent with ILO standards. Accordingly, the agreement language creating an obligation to effectively enforce one's laws is, in essence, the same as an enforceable ILO standard in this agreement. I, for one, applaud Morocco for its efforts in overhauling its labor laws in anticipation of completing this important trade agreement. Some on the other side, including the Subcommittee on Trade ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Committee on Ways and Means ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), have raised thoughtful questions with regard to various provisions contained in this agreement. I think we have worked well together to address these concerns, and I am pleased that we have their support. While we may continue to disagree on certain issues, there is a lot of common ground from which to work, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to pass important trade agreements. Unfortunately, I am sure that a small group on the other side who do oppose free trade may come to the House floor today and argue that this agreement is inadequate in certain respects. I would ask my colleagues to not be fooled by this rhetoric, which we hear every time when we contemplate trade agreements. We heard it last week during debate on our Australian Free Trade Agreement, a country with which we have a $9 billion trade surplus; we heard it during debate 1 year ago regarding Chile and Singapore; and I am sure we will hear it today with regard to Morocco, a country with which we have a trade surplus. Please do not be fooled. This discomfort has less to do with the provisions of this agreement than it does their dislike of free trade generally. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle think differently. The American people know that millions of American jobs are dependent upon free trade. U.S. products exported to Morocco currently face an average tariff of more than 20 percent. This FTA will give American businesses exporting to Morocco a leg up to compete as they compete with the European Union. That means better, higher-paying jobs here at home. Perhaps that is why the U.S.-Morocco FTA passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a 26 to 0 vote on Tuesday and passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 13 yesterday. I look forward to another strong, bipartisan vote today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my strong support for this agreement and my appreciation to the administration and Members on both sides of the aisle for their efforts in completing it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Edgar Uihlein of Northbrook, Illinois. I first got to know Ed Uihlein when I was running for Congress for the first time in 1969. Ed encouraged me just as he has helped other conservative candidates and organizations, including the Leadership Institute. Ed is a man of extraordinary character. He has worked by the sweat of his brow, and he has worked by the labor of his mind. He has taken care of his own, and he has fought for what was right. Ed has a spirit of adventure and courage. On an impulse, he played hooky from Princeton for a full year while he joined his father on a round-the-world tour in 1936. Ed was in the Navy in World War II, and he took care of his men. When the ship's refrigerator broke down during a long stay in a foreign port, and the crew had no fresh food for a week, he disappeared for half the day, only to return with a barrow full of fresh fish that he himself had caught. The whole ship feasted and the next day the coast where he had fished was full of American sailors trying their luck. Ed married his sweetheart Lucia in 1941, and built his family with love and care. Today, his five children have fond memories of their parents standing beside their beds, singing duets as they tucked them in. Every morning, Ed drove the children to school, and along the way he would sing to them. As the children got older, Ed would take turns reading books aloud in the evenings, and around the dinner table he would talk politics. They could see his concern, and they came to share it. In 1956, he paid his kids a penny an envelope to address, stamp and seal letters of concern that were sent to every Member of Congress with regard to the heroes of the Hungarian Uprising. Today, their five children and ten grandchildren are productive, patriotic citizens scattered around the country--but, I am happy to say, two of his sons are still living in Illinois. Ed has made significant financial contributions to individuals, to the arts, and to charities both large and small, many of which are marked ``anonymous''. I once asked his family for a photograph of him and they did not have one. Ed isn't the kind of man who would sit for a portrait photo. That modesty is another facet of his distinction as an individual. Ed, you're a great American. I am honored to call you friend.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, every year, 42,000 deaths occur on our highways. Together with 6 million accidents and 5.2 million injuries, the comprehensive cost to our Nation is more than $400 billion per year. The great cost in human lives these statistics demonstrate is the reason why today I offer bipartisan legislation that will assist in the reduction of these tragedies on our Nation's roadways. Driver error is cited as the cause of 90 percent of these accidents. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified road traffic deaths as a worldwide public health issue, and dedicated this year's World Health Day theme to road safety. A variety of technologies that could help drivers to avoid crashes have already been developed. These ``intelligent vehicle technologies'' help by warning drivers of impending collisions or compensate for other forms of driver error. While these devices are beginning to be deployed on some automobiles and commercial vehicles, this is happening far too slowly. The Federal Highway Administration's stated goal for highway safety is to achieve of a 20 percent reduction in vehicle-related fatalities and injuries by 2008. Intelligent vehicle technologies represent the single best opportunity to help us achieve that goal. The Federal Government has long invested in traditional methods of improving highway safety, through the construction of safer roads or through encouraging and then mandating the use of seatbelts. No less important is helping to ensure that automobiles and trucks on our roads are equipped with the latest in these safety technologies. That is why I have introduced the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Safety Act, which will accelerate the adoption of these technologies, not by regulation, but rather by encouraging consumers to purchase safer vehicles through providing incentives. Vehicles equipped with these life-saving technologies have been shown to reduce accidents anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent. My legislation would provide an above-the-line deduction on income tax returns for the cost of purchasing intelligent vehicle technology (IVT) equipment in their passenger vehicles. Businesses that purchase heavy trucks equipped with IVT would be allowed to exempt a portion of this equipment's cost from the Federal Excise Tax (FET). The intent of this legislation is to provide a broad based tax incentive to individuals and businesses that purchase vehicles equipped with IVT safety equipment Intelligent Vehicle Technologies comprise the range of smart products that enhance safety for drivers, including lane departure warnings, roll stability systems, automatic crash notification systems, workload managers and telematics equipment. The relatively small cost to the Treasury for this legislation is an investment that will save thousands of lives each year. Deployment of IVT will have other benefits as well: accident reduction will reduce injuries, limit property damage and mitigate traffic congestion and its accompanying pollution. To illustrate, let's take a snap shot of how these technologies could impact the every day lives of American motorists across the Nation. In the New York-Northeast New Jersey area, area residents spend on average 422 million hours each year in traffic related delays. Since 1982 the percent of daily travel time spent in congestion increased from 14 percent to 34 percent in 2001 and peak travel in the same time period congestion increased from 28 percent to 69 percent. This increased congestion represents an $8.4 billion annual cost in delay and wasted fuel, specifically--696 million gallons of fuel on New York City area roads and highways. Over 67 percent of this cost is due to delays caused by driving accidents. And the most sobering statistic of all is the 1,458 traffic deaths that occurred on New York City roadways in 2001. Intelligent Vehicle Technology could reduce congestion costs by $2.8 billion each year, reduce wasted fuel by 238 million gallons each year and reduce congestion by 34 percent. In our Nation's heartland, the statistics also support the need for measures to be taken to reduce accidents on our roadways. The numbers point to the urgent need for a reduction in the costs to the American people's time, money and quality of life. In the Chicago area, residents spend 27 hours each year in traffic-related delays. Since 1982, time spent in congestion increased from 23 percent to 40 percent in 2001 and for the same time period peak travel congestion increased from 46 percent to 81 percent. If you place dollars to this delay, it costs Chicago area residents $4.1 billion each year in delays and wasted fuel--340 million gallons of wasted fuel to be exact. Once again over 56 percent of this cost is due to driving accidents and related delays. Chicago area accidents in 2001 alone tragically ended the lives of 1,418 motorists. It is estimated that IVT technology could reduce Chicagoland's congestion costs by $1.2 billion each year and save 97 million gallons each year. It is further estimated that IVT technology could also translate into a reduction in the time spent by area residents in traffic congestion by 29 percent. To illustrate that this is a nationwide problem, fewer residents are harder hit by this ``epidemic'' than those of the Los Angeles, California area. Residents there collectively spend 667 million hours in traffic-related delays. The percent of daily travel spent in congestion has increased from 31 percent in 1981 to 44 percent in 2001, and peak travel time congestion in the same time period increased from 62 percent in 1981 to 88 percent in 2001. This increased congestion costs residents $12.9 billion each year in delays and wasted fuel to the tune of 996 million gallons of fuel, with nearly 55 percent of this cost due to driving accidents. Most alarming is the number of annual fatalities; in 2001 the number of motorists who lost their lives in traffic accidents was 3,753. This is certainly a human tragedy in addition to a significant drain on area commuter time and money. In the Los Angeles case, research shows that IVT technology could potentially reduce congestion costs by $3.6 billion each year and reduce the number of gallons of fuel wasted in traffic by 279 million gallons. In terms of quality of life, IVT could give back local residents over 28 percent of the daily travel time they currently spend on the roadways of Los Angeles. The benefits of IVT technology are not limited to our Nation's commuters. Commercial trucks and trailers are responsible for moving nearly 3.5 trillion tons of freight each year. The reliable and timely transport of goods is vital to the health of our Nation's economy. However, accidents involving commercial trucks cost over $24 billion each year in lives lost, medical and emergency services, and property damage. Fatal accidents cost more than any other accidents when heavy trucks are involved, the average cost being $3.54 million per accident for trucks with multiple trailers. Statistically, over the past 10 years, accidents involving large trucks increased by over 15 percent. The deployment of IVT technologies to the trucking industry could also greatly reduce accident rates, cost per accident, and the resulting traffic congestion. Application of these technologies to commercial trucking is a vital part of increasing our nation's roadway safety and ensuring the cost effective and timely transportation of goods throughout the United States. America leads the world in the development of IVT technology, which comes as no surprise. However, what is surprising is that Europe and Japan lead in deployment of these technologies. It is clear from the statistics above that accidents, congestion, and related loss of life are nationwide problems that need to be addressed by the deployment of these life saving technologies here at home. The goal of my legislation is to jump start the deployment of these safety technologies so that associated benefits become more universally experienced through its widespread use here in the U.S. It is intended to encourage consumers at all income levels to purchase IVT equipped vehicles. As we continue to consider various legislation this year, I believe it is also important to look at additional innovative ways to address the unacceptable levels of highway deaths and injuries. The Intelligent Vehicle Highway Safety Act will promote safer vehicles. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4056, which urges the President, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with the protection of commercial aircraft from MANPADS attacks. I want to commend my colleague from Florida for introducing this critical legislation that not only protects commercial aircraft here in the United States but also takes an aggressive step to encourage the rest of the world to increase their own safety measures concerning air travel. It is imperative that we in Congress realize that heat-seeking infrared surface-to-air missiles currently held by terrorist organizations pose an imminent threat to commercial aircraft. The terrorist use of MANPADS has resulted in the deaths of more than 350 innocent people. When in possession of those intending to inflict harm, MANPADS are extremely effective and extremely dangerous. An estimated 27 terrorist organizations are known to have heat-seeking missiles, and over 500,000 produced worldwide can easily be purchased on the black market for $25,000 to $50,000. Last year, I worked with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security to secure funds for this crucial program to be applied on commercial aircraft. Chairman Rogers generously provided $60 million for fiscal year 2004 and has added funds again in this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill. There are MANPADS defense systems in development right now across the country including a facility in Rolling Meadows, IL, which is in my district. This system is already being used and has been proven to be effective on our C-17 military aircraft. In order to protect our larger military aircraft, the Department of Defense has already spent close to $1 billion developing and deploying systems that defeat this threat on numerous large body aircraft. The Commercial Aviation MANPADS Defense Act of 2004 takes the next step in the process of ensuring that every commercial aircraft is equipped with these antimissile devices. The bill readies our airports for the implementation of these defense systems and goes even further in the defense against MANPADS attacks by establishing programs to reduce the number of MANPADS worldwide so that fewer of these missiles will be available for trade and sale. Once again I would like to commend Representative Mica for introducing this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for yielding this time to me and for helping me in getting this bill explained and passed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4840, the legislation I have introduced that will simplify the Tax Code for small businesses. Nearly seven in 10 new jobs are created by small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. The Tax Simplification For America's Job Creators Act helps small businesses in three ways: First, it extends section 179, small business expensing, for 2 years, through 2007. This provision allows small businesses to immediately deduct the cost of up to $100,000 in expenditures for new equipment. Failure to extend this provision will result in an effective tax increase of about $1 billion on small businesses seeking to make critical investments that expand their businesses and create jobs. Second, my legislation will allow small businesses to take advantage of the cash method of accounting. Under current law, subchapter C corporations cannot use cash accounting, which allows them to deduct expenses in the year paid and report income in the year received, if their gross receipts exceed $5 million. H.R. 4840 indexes the $5 million threshold for inflation, which ensures that more small businesses are not forced to use the more complex, costly, and time- consuming accrual method of accounting. This provision saves business taxpayers roughly $120 million. Third, H.R. 4840 eliminates from the Tax Code a number of dead-letter provisions, which serve no purpose other than to clutter an already overly complex set of laws. My constituents tell me that passage of this legislation will mean more jobs and increased economic growth in the Chicagoland area. I am also pleased that some of the Nation's leading small business associations, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, strongly support the bill. Mr. Speaker, my legislation is not a panacea for small business. The government can only do so much. As always, it is the hard work and ingenuity of the American people that lead to expanded growth, job creation, and prosperity. However, taxpayers with business income pay about 55 percent of all income taxes. This bipartisan legislation will not only simplify the Tax Code; but by returning over $1 billion to business taxpayers, it will also let our job creators know that Congress means business when it comes to lowering their tax burden. It is the least we can do. While I am extraordinarily pleased that we are acting today on much- needed simplification for small business, I want to take a moment to mention the need for greater simplification in the tax laws. I, for one, intend to be dogged in my pursuit of this goal. To give one example, I have long championed an effort for many years to address a complex and unfair provision in the consolidated return rules. These rules were enacted so that corporate groups could pay tax on the net income of all their affiliated companies. Generally, the rules accomplish this goal, unless one of the affiliated corporations in the group is a life insurance company. Twenty Members of the Committee on Ways and Means have cosponsored legislation I have introduced, H.R. 2228, that reforms the consolidated returns to address this inequity. Similar legislation passed both the House and Senate in 1999 as part of a larger tax bill that, unfortunately, was vetoed by President Clinton. I would expect that with the appropriate amount of effort, this legislation, as well as other meritorious simplification, can and will be enacted in the near future. Finally, Mr. Speaker, to continue on the theme of tax simplification, in 2002, the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2002-28 to allow subchapter S corporations to use cash accounting if their gross receipts do not exceed $10 million. That ruling provided useful clarification for taxpayers. I believe the service should go one step further and make this guidance a formal regulation so that in the future America's small business owners can rely on a simple method of accounting. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of the NFIB's petition to the IRS asking for a final rule to address this issue. NFIB Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, July 20, 2004. Petition for Rulemaking Before the Internal Revenue Service Hon. Mark W. Everson, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Commissioner: The National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation (``NFIB Legal Foundation'') submits this petition to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551 et seq. Petitioners request a rulemaking to incorporate Revenue Procedure 2002-28, with three requested modifications, into a formal regulation. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 555(e), petitioners request prompt consideration and response to this petition. The NFIB Legal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm, is the legal arm of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which is the nation's oldest and largest organization dedicated to representing the interests of small-business owners throughout all 50 states. The approximately 600,000 members of NFIB own a wide variety of America's independent businesses from restaurants to hardware stores to bowling alleys.

Mr. CRANE

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. 4759, the bill just passed.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just reiterate in closing that this is an important agreement, and Australia is a close ally and friend of the United States. As the Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile has said, this FTA is the commercial equivalent of the ANZUS treaty on security issues signed in 1951. This agreement represents the best FTA ever negotiated regarding industrial products, over 99 percent of which will become duty free immediately. And it is estimated that U.S. exports to Australia support more than 150,000 jobs currently. And in addition, Australian farms in the U.S. employ over 85,000 Americans. The U.S. already enjoys a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia, and this agreement is clearly in our national interest; and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this agreement. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4759.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Australian government prohibits the export of drugs from Australia. They subsidize drugs for their own people, and they prohibit the export of those drugs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart). This is not a repeat. This is his younger brother.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for his commitment to these fundamental principles that are involved here in the best interest of this country as well as our good friend and ally Australia for all these years. I thank him. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a comment I made earlier from the Dear Colleague released yesterday by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And it says: ``The patent provision will not have a practical effect due to the fact that Australia's domestic law prohibits the export of drugs purchased through its government-subsidized program which accounts for over 90 percent of all drugs sold in Australia.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to congratulate my colleague from North Dakota on his support for this Free Trade Agreement and also explain to folks that Australia is the third largest market for North Dakota goods exports, with total exports valued at over $47 million in 2003. North Dakota's exports to Australia include tractors, front-end loaders, beans, and agricultural sprayers. These exports support approximately 220 jobs in North Dakota. The Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement provides tremendous opportunities for North Dakota businesses, offering them preferential access to a strong economy and growing market. And I think the gentleman's folks back home will particularly appreciate his support, as do all the rest of us, for this important Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Australia is the 15th largest market for New Jersey goods exports, with total exports valued at nearly $307 million in 2003. New Jersey primarily exports high-valued products to Australia such as pharmaceuticals, printed media, medical equipment, perfumes, and chemicals. If the FTA was in place in 2003, 99.44 percent of New Jersey's exports would have entered Australia duty free. New Jersey's exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,400 jobs. Additionally, there are 13 Australian-owned companies in New Jersey, employing 900 people. Seven hundred of these positions are manufacturing jobs. Trade with Australia supports numerous other high-paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance, and advertising. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4759, which will approve and implement the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement as signed by the United States and Australia on May 18 of this year. The U.S.-Australia FTA advances U.S. national economic interests and meets the negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in the Trade Act of 2002. The agreement enhances our close trade relationship with Australia and will further open Australia's market for U.S.-manufactured goods, agricultural products, and services. As soon as the FTA enters into force, tariffs will be eliminated on nearly all manufactured goods traded with Australia. In addition, Australia will eliminate tariffs on all exports of U.S. agricultural products. The U.S.-Australia FTA further solidifies our relationship with an important partner in the global economy and a strategic ally. It sets a strong example of the benefits of free trade and democracy. Opening markets is part of the President's six-point plan for continuing to strengthen America's economy and to create more opportunities for American workers and farmers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. I am sorry I cannot yield my time, but I will, Mr. Speaker, use some of my time at the present moment.

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