Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I want to honor the accomplishments of George D. Holliday, a Specialist in International Trade and Finance at the Congressional Research Service. Dr. Holliday is retiring after 27 years at CRS and is beginning a new position at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris in July. Over the years, the Congress, and especially the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, has benefited from Dr. Holliday's expertise, in- depth analyses, and timely response on a wide range of trade issues. For example, a few years ago, he assisted the Subcommittee in preparing for the WTO's Singapore Ministerial. More recently, Dr. Holliday provided invaluable assistance to the Subcommittee in preparation for a hearing on the important issue of China's accession to the WTO. Dr. Holliday earned both a B.A. and Ph.D. from George Washington University, where his major fields of study were international economics, international affairs, and Soviet economics. In addition, he is fluent in Russian (as a linguist in the U.S. Army, he performed intelligence work in Frankfurt, Germany in the early 1960s), and reads and speaks French and German. He began his career at CRS in 1972 as a research assistant, contributing to studies on East-West trade and the economies of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China. As a specialist in international trade and finance from 1975 to the present, Dr. Holliday coordinated and authored more than 50 CRS reports and issue briefs on a variety of trade issues, all of which reflect his strong analytical and writing skills. Early in his career, his reports focused on the U.S. Export-Import Bank and export promotion, technology transfer, and East- West trade. Recent reports covered topics such as regional and multilateral trade agreements, reauthorization of fast-track authority, and the Generalized System of Preferences. Dr. Holliday was called upon many times by Members of Congress and their staffs for briefings on these issues. Dr. Holliday also served as head of the International Section of the Economics Division of CRS from 1979 to 1983 and again from 1989 to 1995. In this capacity, he helped to shape CRS's work on trade policy for the Congress. Dr. Holliday's supervision, guidance, and review of research projects contributed to the high quality of reports authored by other CRS analysts. His many outside professional activities advanced the understanding of international trade. His doctoral dissertation, Technology Transfer to the USSR, 1928-1937 and 1966-1975, was published in 1979 and remains a seminal work. He contributed to a number of Congressional publications on topics such as economic reform in Eastern Europe and the economies of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He wrote a study on East-West technology transfer, which was published by the OECD in 1984. His article, The Uruguay Round's Agreement on Safeguards, was published by the Journal of World Trade in 1995. Dr. Holliday coauthored a course guide entitled International Economies for a course sponsored by the University of Maryland in 1995-96. He participated in the U.S. Congressional Task Force for Interparliamentary Cooperation in Ukraine and Romania in 1995 and 1996. Dr. Holliday spent 1998 in Moscow, where he was a trade advisor to the Government of Russia. I want to thank Dr. Holliday for his many contributions to the Congress and wish him well in his new position at the OECD.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act of 1999, or AIR21 as it is better known. Not only does this bill permit the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to double, contrary to its other attempts to reduce air fares, but the measure will permit a substantial increase in flights to and from Chicago's O'Hare Airport and three other slot-controlled airports along the East Coast. While I can appreciate the desire of smaller cities to have more airline service to and from slot-controlled airports, H.R. 1000 cavalierly discounts the legitimate concerns of residents living near those airports about increases in noise and the likelihood of an accident. Worse yet, it does so needlessly. The district I am privileged to represent in this Congress has many such residents--hard working people, many of whom remember that the number of flight slots at Chicago's O'Hare Airport was increased by 37 just last year. That fact notwithstanding, AIR21 would either eliminate the High Density Rule (otherwise known as the slot rule) which has been in effect at O'Hare for the past 30 years or, if the Manager's Amendment prevails, phase out that rule by the year 2002. Either way, H.R. 1000 would make possible yet another increase in the number of flight operations at O'Hare, even though there is a way to address the travel needs of people in outlying areas without increasing the number of flights to and from that already crowded airport. Mr. Chairman, people of goodwill differ as to whether flight operations at O'Hare are approaching, have reached, or are now above the optimum capacity of that airport, which is located 18 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. However, there is general agreement that flight operations will exceed the optimum level significantly in the years ahead if present trends continue. In 1998, approximately 887,000 planes flew in and out of O'Hare, up from 883,000 in 1997, and if the recently announced $1 billion addition of two new airport terminals is any indication, that figure will almost assuredly rise in the years ahead. For those living near O'Hare, that means nearly 2,460 planes take off or land on a normal day, or at least one plane every thirty seconds from just after 6 a.m. to just before 10 p.m. Not only that, but roughly 10 percent of the total number of flights occur later in the evening or earlier in the morning. Put yourself in the shoes of those who are bombarded by the resulting noise and I think you can understand why they are saying enough is enough. Making matters worse, the noise problem around O'Hare--which is owned by the city of Chicago rather than any of the sixteen neighboring villages--is anything but new. For years now, residents of communities up to 15 miles away have been begging for relief from the roar of airplanes flying overhead, only to have their pleas fall on seemingly deaf ears. So frequent and so loud is the noise that many people cannot get a good night's sleep, carry on an uninterrupted conversation, or make enjoyable use of their own back yards. Worse yet, none of the remedies attempted to date--such as the Night Time Tower Order instituted in January 1984 and the Fly Quiet program initiated in June 1997--has brought about the desired relief. To the contrary, during the first half of 1998, noise levels increased from 1% to 9% at 23 of 28 noise monitors located at various places around the 7,700 acres on which O'Hare International Airport is located. For good reason, much has been made of the fact that, by the year 2000, all Stage 2 jet aircraft operating in and out of U.S. airports are to be replaced by Stage 3 airliners that are 5-10% quieter. In theory at least, completion of that transition should provide a modicum of noise relief for those who live near O'Hare Airport, as could the use of fewer but larger aircraft on routes now served by multiple flights. But, as a practical matter, that relief will never materialize if the number of landings at, and takeoffs from, O'Hare continues to rise as a result of the immediate or phased elimination of the High Density Rule. Instead, the noise reduction benefits associated with the use of quieter and perhaps bigger aircraft will be offset--or more than offset--by the numerical increase in the number of flights. To the extent that it resulted in a diversion of flights away from O'Hare, construction of a new regional airport at Peotone, Illinois could also abate the noise problem plaguing Chicago's northwest suburbs. Conceptually, the relief this project promises could be even more pronounced than that attributable to advances in aircraft acoustics technology. But, here again, the theory is at odds with the reality. Not only is the city of Chicago opposed to the project, but so too are the major airlines serving the city. Furthermore, the FAA has taken the Peotone airport proposal off its planning list, all of which suggests that a new airfield at Peotone is many years away, if indeed one is ever built there at all. Meanwhile, over 400,000 people around O'Hare will be exposed to increasing levels of aircraft noise unless action is taken promptly to address their concerns. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, permit me to suggest to my colleagues that AIR 21 is seriously misdirected, not just on PFC's, but as it relates to air service to and from Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Instead of allowing for any increase in the number of flights to and from O'Hare, what H.R. 1000 should do is impose a permanent ban on flight operations at O'Hare at the current level, or better yet at the 1997 level, and assign any additional flights destined for O'Hare to other nearby airports, two in particular. That way, extra air service could be provided to the Chicago area from smaller communities in the Midwest without compromising safety or aggravating the very serious noise problem that deserves to be addressed without further delay. Are those two steps practical, given the fact that one of those alternative airports--75 year old Midway Airport (all 640 acres of it)--is a very busy place already? Quite simply, the answer is yes, since Midway's terminal facilities currently are in the process of being expanded and since there is another airport in Illinois, within 60 miles of O'Hare, that is not only capable of, but interested in, handling additional flights. That airport, located near an interstate highway (I-90) that also serves O'Hare, has a 10,000 foot runway (the second longest in the state), an 8,200 foot runway, a 65,000 square foot passenger terminal and considerable experience handling large jets as well as major shipments of cargo. The name of that facility, which serves the second largest city in Illinois: the Greater Rockford Airport. Adding to its potential as an alternative to O'Hare is the fact that approximately one million residents of the Chicagoland suburbs can also be served by the Greater Rockford Airport, roughly twice the number of people likely to use the proposed airport at Peotone. Also, this under-utilized, 3,000 acre airfield could accommodate additional flights in short order and at little extra expense unlike a new airport at Peotone area, the cost of which could run from $300 million to nearly $3 billion depending upon its ultimate size. Given Greater Rockford's existing facilities and tremendous potential, my feeling is that it and Midway can handle all the extra flights to and from O`Hare that might result from the immediate or phased elimination of the slot rule. But even if that assumption is incorrect, there are several other air terminals within 100 or so miles of Chicago--in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Gary, Indiana for example-- which could accommodate flights added for the purpose of increasing air service to smaller communities. In short, there is simply no justification for allowing an increase in the number of flight operations at O'Hare at the expense of thousands people already afflicted by excessive noise. The air service objectives of H.R. 1000 can be achieved admirably by other means. All that being the case, I urge my colleagues to vote against AIR21 so long as it allows for a doubling of the PFC and makes possible an increase in the number of flights to and from O'Hare Airport. Instead, let us develop a less-taxing alternative, such as making increased use of the Greater Rockford Airport, that will accommodate those who wish to visit the great city of Chicago without making life even more miserable for thousands of long suffering people who reside in its northwest suburbs. They deserve a better fate.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the debate in the House, all of us have serious concerns about the espionage activities that resulted in the theft of U.S. military secrets. On a daily basis, as Chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I discuss, and contemplate, the complex but critically important issues involving the United States and the People's Republic of China. In my discussions, I try to articulate what I believe should be our response to the situation in which we find ourselves. However, I had not found a written piece that provided a reasoned and concise response to the allegations of spying until I read an opinion written by former President Jimmy Carter in the May 28th edition of USA Today. I completely agree with his views and I strongly urge my colleagues to read his comments which I have included for the Record. [From the USA Today, May 28, 1999] Let's Keep Chinese Spying in Perspective (By Jimmy Carter) Recent revelations about Chinese espionage are a justifiable cause for alarm among all those who are concerned about the protection of America's military secrets. But it is also important to keep this issue in perspective as it affects already strained U.S.-Sino relations and to remember how nations traditionally react to security breaches. The bipartisan report of the House select committee, which seems to be thorough and accurate, warrants immediate corrective action and, as a secondary priority, an effort to affix blame on those who may have violated the law or been derelict in their duties. However, the revelations have also aroused reactions that are ill-advised, counterproductive and could subvert the potential benefits of the committee's good work. There are unfounded allegations by both Democrats and Republicans against each other, obviously designed for partisan advantage. Some other American leaders, who have habitually demonstrated animosity toward the People's Republic of China, have attempted to drive a deeper wedge between our two countries at what is already a troubled time. A confused policy toward China At best, U.S. policy toward China is very confusing, at least to the Chinese, both because of uncertainties within the administration and because of highly publicized differences between the White House and Congress on how to address the issues of Taiwan, human rights, trade and the sharing of political responsibilities in Asia. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, has further exacerbated the troubled relationship. This regrettable incident also has injected China, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, into the potential role of negotiating a peaceful resolution of the Kosovo crisis. It is clear that much is at stake--for both U.S.-China and global relations. So let's consider some facts about espionage. There are few, if any, nations that would not take advantage of opportunities to learn withheld secrets that could contribute to their military, political or economic advantage. In fact, although the select committee's attention was focused exclusively on China, it would be surprising if Russia and other nations have not also benefited from the lax policies at our nuclear research laboratories. The United States certainly seeks to learn what other nations are doing, and we use surreptitious means, if necessary, to glean this information. Only recently, the celebrated case of Jonathan Pollard has proved this premise. Pollard was found guilty of delivering, over a period of years, some of our most valuable secrets to Israel, our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. The standard reaction to cases of this kind is to arrest and punish severely American citizens who have committed such treasonous acts, but not to impose penalties on the country that benefited from them. If a foreign spy is caught in our nation, the response is to expel the guilty person and perhaps to include others who are suspect or diplomatically sensitive. When I was president, we even swapped guilty Soviet spies for the freedom of some human-rights heroes who were incarcerated in Siberia. In addition to spying among nations, a major field of espionage is in the commercial world, where France and other advanced nations avidly seek secret information from American business firms--and vice versa. Handle guilty parties as in the past In the current case, no one has been arrested for espionage, and there is no indication that such arrests are imminent. If guilty parties are revealed, they should be handled in the time-honored way. This still leaves the question of China's improper use of the secret information, either to threaten us directly or to channel advanced weapons to others who might attack the United States. The House committee leaders make clear that the Chinese have not tested or deployed missiles or warheads that include the most advanced technology. In fact, the People's Republic of China has committed itself to complying with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and any testing of warheads would be considered a serious violation of international law. Revelations of spying should lead to legal action against any convicted American spies and to the treatment of international relations in a customary and historical manner. The past 20 years of diplomatic relations have been extremely valuable to both our nations and to peace, stability and economic progress in Asia. These advantages must not be endangered as we correct the mistakes that have been made by both Democratic and Republican administrations. My hope is that our government can exhibit as much wisdom, judgment, effectiveness and bipartisan cooperation as has been demonstrated by the select committee.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing three bills which reflect my long-time interest in helping the economy and the people of Puerto Rico. Rather than spending taxpayer money on government programs, these bills will provide tax incentives for the private sector to help the economy of Puerto Rico. In 1996, Congress phased out Section 936 over my objections. As a result, the economic incentives for U.S. companies to do business in Puerto Rico have dwindled, negatively impacting the economy. In an effort to reverse that trend, the Government of Puerto Rico reduced their tax burden by 19 percent in recent years. However, they need more help. We in Congress can play an important role in that effort by putting in place long-term tax incentives to spur private sector growth on the Island. The first bill, the Puerto Rico Economic Activity Credit Improvement Act of 1999, will modify and extend the existing economic credit, which is due to expire at the end of 2005. My bill will build upon the replacement for Section 936, Section 30A, by extending the wage tax credit until the economy in Puerto Rico meets certain economic objectives designed to bring the Island up to a level more on par with the mainland. The credit will also be available to new companies locating in Puerto Rico. Companies already in Puerto Rico and utilizing the existing income credit will be given a one-time option to switch over to the wage credit before the termination date of the income credit. The second bill will make the research and development (R&D) tax credit available to companies operating in Puerto Rico. The R&D credit has never been accessible in Puerto Rico, but, until the demise of Section 936, the lack of an R&D credit was of little tax consequence to companies operating on the Island. My bill will provide this small, but important, tax credit for Puerto Rico and the other U.S. possessions as a matter of fairness. The third bill will repeal the limitation of the rum tax cover over. Under current law, a tax is collected on rum entering the U.S. mainland from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A portion of this tax is returned (covered over) to the governments of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Because of a dispute in 1984, the cover over was limited to $10.50 of the total $13.50 per gallon tax. My bill will restore the cover over to the full amount. In particular, the government of the Virgin Islands desperately needs the revenue from the full cover over as they are currently in critical economic straits. In addition to restoring the cover over, this bill will also provide funding for the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico. The Fund has been very successful in preserving the natural resources of the Island for the people of Puerto Rico. In conjunction with the Governor of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of the Interior, we developed a plan to direct 50 cents of the per gallon rum tax to the Trust Fund for 5 years. This funding would allow the Trust to finish building their endowment in order to fund their operations in perpetuity. I want to thank my colleagues who have lent their support in different ways to these proposals: Charlie Rangel, Carlos Romero- Barcelo, Jerry Weller, Donna Christensen, Nancy Johnson, Phil English, J.D. Hayworth and Mark Foley. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support us in these efforts.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to encourage the establishment of free trade agreements between the United States and certain Pacific Rim countries. H.R. 1942 directs the President to initiate preliminary consultations with the governments of each eligible Pacific Rim country to determine the feasibility and desirability of negotiating the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers in the context of a bilateral free trade agreement. If a positive determination is made, the President shall request a meeting at the ministerial level to consider the conditions under which formal negotiations regarding a free trade agreement could be commenced. The countries that may be considered for eligibility are the members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Group (APEC.) Because open markets increase competition, eliminate inefficiencies, and result in lower costs to consumers and manufacturers, trade liberalizing agreements improve our prosperity and encourage the creation of secure, higher wage jobs. Sadly, the President's failure to support the passage of trade negotiating authority in this Congress has crippled the United States trade agenda and has brought a halt to the expansion of international markets for U.S. exports. This legislation responds to the President's inaction by calling on him to investigate opportunities for negotiating free trade agreements with long time U.S. allies in working to increase economic growth through trade liberalization, both in the World Trade Organization and in APEC. Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, because of the largely open nature of their economies and their track record of supporting United States trade negotiating objectives, are countries which would be eligible immediately under the criteria established in this bill. Building closer ties and coordinating with countries whose interests are largely friendly to the United States will have immense payoffs as trade negotiations in APEC and the World Trade Organization proceed. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreement negotiations, such as the NAFTA, have been shown to exert constructive pressure on multilateral and regional trade negotiations. Bilateral trade talks enlarge common areas of agreement on trade rules and disciplines which can then be advanced more successfully in the context of larger negotiations among additional trading partners. This bill is all about finding opportunities wherever we can to break down barriers to United States exports and keep the trade agenda moving forward. The real advantage of this legislation is that it will improve and expand our trade ties with countries in the Pacific Rim region and reassure countries that the United States, despite the absence of trade negotiating authority, is not turning inward and adopting a trade policy defined by narrow and inward-looking special interests. H.R. 1942 would direct the President to pursue aggressively more open, equitable, and reciprocal market access for United States goods and services. Continuing the pursuit of lower economic barriers and standardized rules and procedures governing international business will yield enormous benefits to our firms and workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1833, the Trade Agency Authorizations, Drug Free Borders, and Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 1999 contains budget authorizations for the United States Customs Service, the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission. H.R. 1833 also reforms Customs inspectors overtime and shift differential pay. H.R. 1833 passed the committee unanimously by a vote of 36-0. H.R. 1833 authorizes the President's budget request for USTR and the ITC, but goes beyond the President's request for the Customs Service in order to provide more funding for drug interdiction, child pornography prevention initiatives and Customs automation. Illegal drugs are killing our youths. Sex predators stalk our children on the Internet. We must protect our children from the scourge of illegal drugs and on-line sex predators. H.R. 1833 aims to do just that. Today is Missing Child Day. It is tragic that we need to recognize such a day. H.R. 1833 would authorize $10 million for the Customs Cyber-smuggling Center so that customs can step up protection of our children from on-line predators and pedophiles. Part of this authorization would go to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's cyber tipline that handles calls and on-line reports of sexual exploitation of children. While I am on this portion of the bill, I would like to pay tribute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) because she was the one that was in the vanguard of incorporating these provisions dealing with trying to monitor pornography on the Internet. She deserves the overwhelming credit of one and all on a bipartisan basis for her work. She will elaborate more fully later. H.R. 1833 also includes more than $400 million over the President's budget request for drug interdiction in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. This funding would allow Customs to purchase drug detection equipment and hire additional inspectors to keep illegal drugs from crossing our borders into our children's hands. Customs must also keep our trade moving smoothly. Customs current Automated Commercial System, ACS, is 16 years old and on the brink of continual brownouts and shutdowns. This costs the American taxpayer millions of dollars. Customs has begun building a new system, Automated Commercial Environment, ACE, but the President did not see fit to request funding for ACE for fiscal year 2000. Instead, the President requested a fee that the administration did not justify. The American public cannot wait for the President, so Congress must take action. H.R. 1833 does just that. It authorizes $150 million for ACE in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. H.R. 1833 also makes common-sense changes to Customs officers overtime pay and nighttime pay. The legislation maintains, and even increases, some benefits to Customs inspectors in recognition of their hard work and the valuable services they perform. The revisions also correct some anomalies in Customs officers' overtime and differential pay. Under H.R. 1833, officers would be paid overtime only for overtime hours worked. Also, officers would be paid shift differential only for night work instead of daytime work under the present system. This saves the American taxpayer money. In short, this legislation will help prevent illegal drugs from crossing our borders, prevent on-line child pornography, prevent waste of taxpayers' dollars and prevent delays in moving our trade. Finally, I note that at the request of the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight we had to drop a provision in the bill that would put the Commissioner of Customs at the same pay level as other Treasury Department bureau heads. That provision is the only provision within the jurisdiction of that committee. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this package and pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1833) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the United States Customs Service for drug interdiction and other operations, for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, for the United States International Trade Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1833.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in response to some of the concerns registered, and I can certainly sympathize with our distinguished colleague, but I do think that we have put together here a good bill, and it is one that in committee the total package enjoyed the support of both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly. But we are, I think, making some common sense changes, and at the same time we are maintaining and even increasing some benefits as Customs inspectors or to Customs inspectors in recognition of their hard work and the valuable services they perform. These revisions are identical to those that this committee and the full House passed overwhelmingly last year. The night pay reform still keeps Customs officers in a better position than other federal employees, and the bill does not change some of the other special benefits that Customs officers receive. For example, Customs officers receive twice the hourly rate for overtime while FEPA employees receive only one and a half times the hourly rate. The night pay reform is not meant to penalize our hard-working Customs officers. Instead, it is designed to advance common sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), our colleague who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year in committee we considered identical provisions on reforming pay, and my colleagues across the aisle did not move to strike. I find it difficult now for them to say that we are being unfair today. The irony of the current system is that one can receive night pay for the entire noon-to-8-p.m. shift, but one would receive no night pay for working a 4-a.m.-to-noon shift, even for those brutal hours between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., and that makes no sense. This bill would fix this problem. Our goal is not to penalize Customs officers, but to correct an anomaly in the law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reassure my colleague that we will look into it. This is the first I have heard of it, and it does sound a little bizarre, and I hope it is just a parochial, isolated case and not universal.

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Treasury Inspector General issued a very rigorous recommendation to end the night pay anomaly back in 1996. The Inspector General went further and asked for a 10 percent pay differential. Our bill does not go so far and preserves a 15 to 20 percent differential, better than any other Federal employee, in recognition of the hard work by our Customs employees. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the recommendation of the Inspector General, since my colleague on the other side of the aisle thinks this came from us. He said, ``The Assistant Secretary (Enforcement) should direct Customs to seek legislation that would lessen the number of hours available for Customs officers to earn night differential and reduce the night work differentials to a 10 percent premium on base pay.'' As I said, that is in contrast to our 15 to 20 percent. ``The change to the COPRA should create a night differential payment package that would more accurately reimburse Customs officers for hours actually worked at night, as was done previously under the FEPA. We believe guidance similar to the FEPA would accomplish this purpose.'' So this is not new. That was 1996 when that recommendation was made. Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly recite some other facts of the Customs bill that deals with trying to curb the abuses by pedophiles on the Internet. In the United States alone, law enforcement has confiscated more than 500,000 indecent images of children, some as young as 2 years old. Since January 1 of last year, Federal law enforcement has arrested over 460 adults for Internet-related child sexual exploitation offenses, and according to some police estimates, as many as 80,000 child pornography files are traded online every week. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), our distinguished colleague who is responsible for that precious component of this legislation.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my final 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to commend and thank the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for the good work they have done in assembling this year's version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). As reported, H.R. 1480 authorizes numerous flood control, navigational improvement, beach restoration and ecosystem enhancement projects that will be of significant benefit to millions of Americans. Let me cite one example with which I am particularly familiar. Thirteen years ago, the Des Plaines River, which flows through my congressional district in northeastern Illinois, went on a rampage, flooding over 10,000 homes and businesses, forcing 15,000 people to flee to drier ground, and causing at least $35 million in damages. A year later, there was another major flood along the Des Plaines and several times since the waters of that river have spilled over their banks. Just this past week, in fact, residents in the area were reminded of the threat posed by the Des Plaines, when a pair of rainstorms caused the river to crest 1.4 feet above flood stage in Gurnee, IL. Much to my relief, and not just to mine alone, sections 101 and 408 of H.R. 1480 address this flood threat by authorizing (subject to the timely completion of the final Corps of Engineers report) the construction of the first phase of the Des Plaines River Flood Control Project and an expanded study of the options for Phase II. Assuming their wording remains unchanged and H.R. 1480 is enacted into law, those provisions will allow the Corps of Engineers to proceed expeditiously with work on three floodwater storage areas, the construction of a pair of levees, the raising of an existing dam and development of additional flood control alternatives. As a result, a 25-percent reduction in Des Plaines River flood damages can be expected when the authorized construction work is complete, the benefits of which are anticipated to exceed the costs by a ratio of 1.7 to 1. Furthermore, the groundwork will have been laid for the implementation of additional flood prevention and/or reduction measures. In short, these efforts to mitigate, if not eliminate, flood damages along the Des Plaines are a win-win proposition. Thousands of people in the northern Chicago suburbs will profit because they will not suffer the same, or as severe, disruptions as they have in the past and millions of taxpayers will benefit because they are less likely to be asked to repair the damages that future flooding episodes would otherwise cause. Moreover, the same can be said for a number of the other projects in the bill, one reason being that, much to its credit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes very seriously its obligation to determine that water-resource projects under its jurisdiction have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. Also, it should be noted that H.R. 1480 contains a number of provisions aimed at making future flood control and water resource projects as environmentally friendly as possible. To sum up, what we have before us today is a long-awaited bill which authorizes projects that promise substantial and cost-effective returns on the financial investment being made in them. With that thought very much in mind, let me reiterate my thanks to our Transportation and Infrastructure colleagues for bringing this WRDA99 bill before us today and let me urge my colleagues in the House to give H.R. 1480 their full support. It deserves no less.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the Tax Equity Preservation Act of 1999, H.R. 1561, to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, the AMT, on individuals. The AMT must be one of the most perverse provisions found in the entire complex of the Internal Revenue Code. Like many of the taxes designed to make Americans pay their ``fair share'' to the government, the AMT is very inefficient and subjects taxpayers to a form of double jeopardy. Over the last few months as Americans prepared their 1998 tax returns, they faced an array of tax deductions, exclusions and exemptions which, depending on their circumstances, they could use to legitimately reduce their tax burden. For example, the Code includes personal and dependent deductions. In addition, Congress recently provided parents with a tax credit for each of their children to help with the cost of raising the kids. There are yet other tax credits available to help offset the cost of education such as HOPE Scholarships and Lifetime Learning credits. Taxpayers may also deduct their medical expenses when they exceed 7.5 percent of their income. More and more taxpayers are finding that, after they fill out their tax forms and take all their legitimate deductions and exclusions, Uncle Sam is telling them that they did not pay enough taxes. They must then start all over with a new stack of tax forms and compute their Alternative Minimum Tax. Unfortunately, many of the deductions, exemptions and credits available under the ordinary income tax are not available, or are reduced, under the AMT. For example, taxpayers subject to the AMT may not take personal and dependent exemptions. State and local taxes are exempt under the ordindary income tax, but not under the AMT. Tax credits for children and education credits cannot be used to reduce the AMT burden. Even the deductibility of medical costs is more restrictive under the AMT, with only expenses exceeding 10 percent of income eligible for deductions. Although designed to prevent ``rich'' taxpayers from avoiding taxes, becuase the AMT exemptions and deductions have not kept pace with inflation, more and more middle income taxpayers are falling victim to the AMT. The AMT exemption amounts are only $33,750 for single filers and $45,000 for married couples filing joint returns. Congress last updated these in 1993 and did not index them for inflation. The Tax Equity Preservation Act will relieve taxpayers from the burden of filling out two separate stacks of tax forms and paying higher taxes. Although we could help middle-income Americans by increasing the AMT exemptions and indexing them for inflation, that would only add more complexity to the Code. The better way to preserve tax equity is to simply abolish the AMT. I commend H.R. 1561, the Tax Equity Preservation Act of 1999, to the attention of my colleagues and ask them to join me in the effort to repeal the AMT on individuals by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment, and it is just to reinforce the importance of preserving the process for a post-census local review on the part of local governments. I have a community in my district that sent a letter out. It was actually to all of the Congressional Members from our Illinois delegation, but it is a village in my district, Elk Grove. Back in 1990, Elk Grove village reviewed the Census Bureau's preliminary count, they say, and village staff found that a newly constructed subdivision had failed to be counted which included 349 residents. Furthermore, based on the per capita revenue dispensed by the State of Illinois, Elk Grove village would have lost over 35,000 in annual revenue, almost 250,000 in total, had the review process not existed. To be sure, that sounds nickel, dime in this town and in this body, but it is vitally important to local communities. For that reason, I urge that we follow the process of continuing that but simultaneously expanding to 45 days the consideration for review.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my Ways and Means Committee colleague Mr. Neal in introducing the IRA Charitable Rollover Incentive Act. This bill will allow Americans who have reached age 59\1/2\ to donate their IRA assets to a charity without incurring income tax on the distribution. Under current law, distributions from IRA's are taken in as income to the account holder and taxed. This proposal will allow the assets in the IRA to pass directly to the charity without being taken in and taxed as income. However, the donor may not also claim a charitable contribution deduction as the IRA assets represent previously untaxed income. The IRA Charitable Rollover Incentive Act has come about thanks to the valuable input from hundreds of charitable organizations across the country. I want to specifically thank Northwestern University President Henry Bienen for bringing to my attention the problems the current laws governing IRA's have created for donors who wish to transfer their assets to charities. This bill has the potential for unlocking significant financial resources for charitable organizations. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort by cosponsoring the IRA Charitable Rollover Incentive Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my Ways and Means Committee colleagues Messrs. Coyne and Herger and Mrs. Thurman in introducing the Charitable Giving Tax Relief Act. Identical to a bill we introduced in the 105th Congress, the Charitable Giving Tax Relief Act will allow taxpayers who do not itemize their tax returns to deduct a portion of their charitable giving. Specifically, non-itemizers whose cumulative annual charitable donations exceed $500 will be able to deduct 50 percent of any charitable donations over that amount. Under current law, non-itemizers receive a standard deduction while only taxpayers who itemize their deductions receive a direct tax benefit for giving to charity. Non-itemizers make up the vast majority of tax filers with two and a half times more returns than itemizers. Moreover, non-itemizers are typically middle to lower middle income level taxpayers who, despite their modest earnings, still give quite generously to charitable causes. In fact, non-itemizers earning less than $30,000 give the highest percentage of their household income to charity. I believe these individuals deserve a tax break for their generosity. This idea is not new. In the early 1980s, non-itemizers did enjoy the ability to deduct a portion of their charitable giving. In the last Congress, thanks to the support of the not-for-profit community, especially Independent Sector and its member organizations, 144 colleagues cosponsored my bill. I hope to build on that success and have this legislation included in any major tax bill that we might consider during this Congress. As direct federal subsidies to non-profit organizations are being reduced, the private sector must fill the gap to provide the necessary resources. The Charitable Giving Tax Relief Act will help in that cause by rewarding those taxpayers standing in the gap. Independent Sector believes that this bill may even encourage more giving to charitable organizations. In fact, one study projects that giving could increase by $2.7 billion a year. Americans have traditionally been the most generous people in the world. From churches to schools, the arts to social services, we fund and support all types of charitable causes. I believe altruism is the basis for that generosity. However, I realize that those who give can be sensitive to tax considerations. My ultimate goal is to remove the tax code as an obstacle to charitable giving. I encourage my colleagues to join Mr. Coyne, Mr. Herger, Mrs. Thurman and me in our effort to reward and encourage the American tradition of philanthropy by agreeing to sponsor the Charitable Giving Relief Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to join with so many of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis in reintroducing legislation, the ``Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights through Sanctions Reform Act,'' intended to establish a common sense procedural framework for consideration of future U.S. unilateral sanctions. Sanctions reform is necessary because the proliferation of unilateral economic sanctions is causing lasting damage to America's reputation as a reliable supplier in the global marketplace. It is estimated that U.S. sanctions cost $15 to $19 billion annually in lost U.S. exports and over 200,000 high-wage U.S. jobs. Moreover, experience has shown us that unilateral sanctions don't work. A wide variety of leading U.S. foreign policy experts, think tanks, and government studies have concluded that unilateral sanctions are costly and counter-productive, particularly in a global economy, where technology, capital equipment, financing, and farm commodities are freely available from U.S. competitors. Last year, the Glenn Amendment, which required the President to impose sanctions in response to India and Pakistan's nuclear tests, showed the weakness of relying on unilateral sanctions as an all- purpose foreign policy tool. The threat of sanctions, which were U.S. law prior to the testing, failed to deter India or Pakistan from conducting their tests, but would have cost the United States a major wheat sale if Congress had not intervened last year to grant the President waiver authority. The legislation I am introducing today seeks responsible reform of the decision making process associated with U.S. unilateral sanctions. The bill's primary goal is to ensure that Congress and the Administration have better information for more informed decision- making on sanctions bills and initiatives. Before imposing a unilateral sanction, the bill requires Congress and the President to request relevant information and address certain common-sense questions. Among them are the following. Is the proposed unilateral sanction likely to be effective? Is the sanction aimed at a clearly-defined and realistic objective? What are the economic costs for American industry and agriculture? Will the sanction undermine other U.S. security, foreign policy, and humanitarian objectives, such as relations with our key U.S. allies? Have potential alternatives, such as multilateral sanctions or diplomatic initiatives, been tried and failed? My colleagues and I who are sponsoring this legislation today intend to work quickly to move the legislation through the legislative process. Without the information that this bill would provide us about future sanctions, we risk taking action that is not in our interest and has a very small chance of success. This bill is about establishing effective procedures that will lead to effective results in the way we respond to behavior by nations with which we have concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) who is a member of our Committee on Ways and Means, who on this special day just reminded me that he is Irish notwithstanding his surname, which is ``English.''

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to control the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).