Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), our colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Coast Guard

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) another distinguished colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) our distinguished majority whip.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by saying that we all, I think, share the feelings of those who have lost jobs in the steel industry and those businesses that have suffered setbacks. I cannot personally, though my grandfather grew up near the district of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and worked for the steel mills on the south side of Chicago, but my wife's grandfather worked in Gary, Indiana Mills in the gentleman's district. So we in the Chicago area, especially on the south side where I grew up, have a special feeling about the steel industry. For all of that, though, I think this effort that we are undertaking or considering today is misguided. And I say it is misguided because we have the laws on the books and we have exercised them in a way that has had a very positive effect. Some of that our colleague from Michigan already showed in graphic form. The fact is, if we take hot rolled steel imports from the three largest exporters that were guilty of dumping in this country, namely Russia, Japan and Brazil, those are now down, from their peak level at the tail end of last year, 96 percent. Ninety-six percent. And if we take the reduction of the hot rolled imports from all countries, and this includes even those that are not subject to investigation, those have dropped since last November by 70 percent. Seventy percent. And that includes countries, as I say, that have never been charged or accused of any irregularity here. I think that we have the capability of dealing with this sort of a problem, and it is one that we have to recognize. There was a surge, and that surge was in violation of our guidelines and our regulations, but we did address it in a positive way. And so that concern of what happened in the steel industry is basically history at this moment. The fact is we are on a road to recovery already. If we look frankly at our steel production, the industry recorded last year its second highest level of production in the past 20 years. Second highest in the last 20 years was our steel production. Eleven of the thirteen biggest companies showed profits last year, notwithstanding that surge that occurred at the end of the year. We must show a concern, an appropriate concern, and I think we all do, for the loss of 10,000 jobs. But we have to recognize how that contrasts with, say, the oil and gas industry and the projected losses that have amounted this past year to almost 50,000. But keep in mind that we are at full employment, and we have now increased the number of jobs nationwide last year by 2.5 million, 2.5 million new jobs, and we are at full employment. I think it is important to recognize, too, that this can have an impact on those people who are consumers of steel products. I am thinking especially of the people who purchase steel; defense contracts and machinery, cars, construction equipment. They employ 40 times as many U.S. workers as the integrated steel mills do. We will be potentially putting their jobs at risk. I think also it is important for all of us to recognize the cost. The Congressional Budget Office, as this chart indicates, estimates that this bill will result in higher steel prices that will cost the private sector nearly $1 billion, $1 billion, over the next 3 years. I have a letter that I will refer to later in closing, but it is from Caterpillar, one of our largest manufacturers and consumers in the State of Illinois, and exporters. It is an insightful letter talking about what the damage, the overwhelming damage, could be to Caterpillar's ability to produce and to export in the world markets if we, sad to say, went along with this well-intentioned but misguided legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the CEO and Chairman of Caterpillar that I referred to earlier. I also have letters from other manufacturing companies in my general area around Chicago that I will include as a part of the Record. Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, March 10, 1999. Hon. Philip M. Crane, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Crane: As one of America's largest exporters and biggest consumers of US-made steel, Caterpillar urges you to vote against the Visclosky-Quinn Quota Bill (H.R. 975). The company strongly opposes the legislation because it not only would hurt our competitiveness in overseas markets, but would lead to direct retaliation against Cat exports. It also would establish a system that rewards countries that engage in unfair trade practices, undermines the international trading system and jeopardizes the global economic recovery. By imposing mandatory controls on steel imports from all countries--including fairly traded imports--the Visclosky- Quinn Quota Bill would severely restrict the availability of steel to U.S. manufacturers. When this type of protectionist scheme was attempted during the 1980s, it created an artificially restrictive steel market resulting in steel shortages and higher prices. At times Caterpillar had to fly- in steel from overseas just to keep our production lines running. On one occasion, we come perilously close to shutting down our largest plant while we waited for permission to import a type of steel that wasn't even made in the United States. What's equally troubling is the impact the Quota Bill could have on Caterpillar exports. Because this legislation blatantly violates U.S. international obligations, our trading partners would feel justified in retaliating against American exports. Likely targets would be U.S. manufacturers--like Caterpillar--that export steel-intensive products. Since Caterpillar buys more than 90 percent of its steel from U.S. steel producers, such retaliation would further harm the American steel industry while severely damaging Cat's export markets. Regrettably, the Quota Bill is structured in a way that could actually reward countries that engage in unfair trade practices. Unlike trade remedy laws that attempt to neutralize the effects of dumping or subsides, this legislation would reward countries with a guaranteed share of a restricted U.S. market. As a result, much of the quota ``rent'' generated by higher prices would go to foreign steel producers. Finally, this legislation could have a catastrophic impact on the international economy. Today the U.S. economy is at full employment. Inflation is nonexistent. The Dow Jones average is near 10,000. Enactment of the Quota Bill would mandate the United States radically change the direction of its trade and economic policies. At a time when the U.S. is pressuring countries that are in far worse shape to keep markets open and free, the Visclosky-Quinn Bill would likely trigger a retreat into protectionism. Representative Crane, we know the lure of quick-fix solutions can be appealing. But protectionism isn't the answer. By now, it's clear that U.S. unfair trade laws are working. By almost all measures the crisis in the steel industry has passed. Rather than focusing on protectionist measures like the Visclosky-Quinn Bill, we urge you to support initiatives aimed at improving the competitiveness of the U.S. steel industry. That way, the steel industry, American manufacturers, and U.S. workers and consumers all win. Sincerely, Glen Barton, Chairman and CEO.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague and neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to express my appreciation on the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, for the good work they have done in putting together this year's Coast Guard Reauthorization measure (H.R. 820). As reported, this bill not only makes it easier to conduct the all- important war against drugs, which is so important to this nation's future, but it will also promote public safety in a way that is very important to a great many people in the Upper Midwest. In particular, I am referring to all those folks who fly over, or take to, the waters of southwestern Lake Michigan and the lakes and rivers north and/or west of Chicago. Mr. Chairman, over 6 million people reside in the counties of northwestern Indiana, northeastern Illinois, and southeastern Wisconsin that border on Lake Michigan. Not only do many of them own a boat or enjoy going out on someone else's, but countless residents of, or visitors to, the region take advantage of the dinner voyages and sightseeing cruises that depart from Chicago's justly famous lakefront. On top of that, literally, hundreds of thousands of people fly in and out of O'Hare Airport and a number of other airports that dot the landscape from Gary, IN, to Milwaukee, WI. In short, there are people on or over southwestern Lake Michigan and nearby waters all the time-- people who would be at risk in the event of a boating accident or an airplane crash. Thankfully, over 40 years have passed since a major commercial airliner crashed into Lake Michigan. However, that is no guarantee against such an accident occurring in the future. Moreover, smaller planes have fallen into, or collided over, the Lake since then and there have been a number of instances where boats have capsized and/or sunk, not just in Lake Michigan, but in the Chain o' Lakes region north of Chicago. In fact, 26 people were killed in those sorts of accidents from October 1, 1995 to October 1, 1996, a figure which helps explain why so many citizens in the Chicago area were so concerned when the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) helicopter rescue unit stationed at the old Glenview Naval Air Station was transferred across the Lake to Muskegon, Michigan several years back. Not to belabor the point, but those citizens had good reason to be concerned. Not only was that USCG helicopter better equipped and its crew better prepared to deal with accidents well offshore than local rescue boats and helicopters, but the unit was 15 to 30 precious minutes further removed from the northeastern Illinois shoreline than had been the case previously. Also, the fact that the unit could spend more time in the air searching for accident victims if it were closer to the Chicagoland area argued strongly for either moving it in that direction or bringing in a new USCG helicopter rescue unit to serve the region. Having joined a number of my colleagues from both Illinois and Indiana in making that pro-safety argument, I am both pleased and relieved to see that the authors of this legislation have recognized its merits and have endorsed the latter course of action. According to the provisions of Section 204 of H.R. 820, a new USCG helicopter search and rescue (SAR) unit is to be situated on the southwest shore of Lake Michigan, where it is to remain until at least September 30, 2001. In the interim, a thorough study will be conducted to determine what SAR equipment will be needed in the region after the year 2001 and a comprehensive plan will be developed for the provision of the SAR services that are deemed necessary. As for the existing unit, it will continue to be based in Muskegon until at least September 30, 2001, thereby assuring the boating and aviation populations on both sides of Lake Michigan that timely USCG air SAR services will be more readily available than they have been heretofore. Mr. Chairman, while this approach is not quite as definitive as I would have preferred, it has two major advantages that should commend themselves to my colleagues. First, by authorizing additional air SAR resources for the heavily populated (by boats as well as people) Chicago area, it addresses a very significant public safety concern. Second, by leaving the existing unit in Muskegon, MI, it means that people in that area will not face a reduction in their USCG SAR coverage similar to the one faced by Chicagoland residents several years ago. To my way of thinking, each of these advantages would be sufficient to justify enactment of Section 204 of H.R. 820. Together, they and the drug interdiction features of H.R. 820 make a compelling case for the entire measure. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 820.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my Ways and Means Committee colleague, Mr. Matsui, in introducing the Printed Circuit Investment Act. This simple and straightforward bill will allow manufacturers of printed wiring boards and printed wiring assemblies, known as the interconnecting industry, to depreciate their production equipment in 3 years rather than 5 years under current law. Printed wiring boards are those ubiquitous little green boards loaded with tiny wires and microchips which are the nerve centers of electronic items from television sets to computers to cellular phones. The interconnecting industry, as with so much of the electronics industry, has changed dramatically in just the last decade. While once dominated by large companies, the industry now consists overwhelmingly of small firms, with many of them located in my home State of Illinois. The rapid pace of technological advancement today makes interconnecting manufacturing equipment obsolete in 18 to 36 months--tomorrow's advances will further reduce that time to obsolescence. To keep pace with these advances, companies in the industry spend billions of dollars each year on capital costs. Considering that this is an industry dominated by small U.S. firms competing in ever more competitive world markets, clearly we need a Tax Code that more clearly reflects reality. The depreciation rules found in the Tax Code, of course, have not kept pace with the realities of this dynamic market. The industry currently relies on tax law passed in the 1980's, which was based on 1970's era electronics technology. Competitors to American firms in Asia, however, enjoy much more favorably tax treatment as well as direct government subsidies. We must remove the U.S. Tax Code as an obstacle to growth in this industry. The Printed Circuit Investment Act will take a step in that direction. Quite frankly though, I view this as a very modest step and would like to provide much more generous tax relief to these businesses, considering the fierce competition from foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, the Printed Circuit Investment Act will provide modest tax relief to the interconnecting industry and the 250,000 Americans whose jobs rely on the success of this industry. I urge my colleagues to join me and Mr. Matsui in providing this relief by cosponsoring the bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in opposition to the plan of the Census Bureau to use sampling techniques in the Decennial Census. The situation is clear: we must abide by the Constitution as we have in every census for over 200 years. As we all know, Article I Section II says that ``an actual enumeration'' must be done every 10 years. Now, for the first time in our history, this is not good enough. Some feel that counting part of the population and guesstimating the rest is better than actually counting the population head by head, as the Constitution requires. The Director of the Census Bureau, Kenneth Prewitt, said last Wednesday he would abide by the Supreme Court ruling by using two sets of numbers in the Decennial Census. Recognizing part of the Court's decision, Prewitt plans to use enumeration for apportionment. However, the Census Bureau plans to create a second set of numbers, using sampling techniques, for redrawing House districts. Although they were not asked to rule on the constitutionality of sampling, four Justices said that using sampling for a census is illegal. But, the Administration continues to include sampling techniques in the Decennial Census, despite the contradictory rulings of several courts. Mr. Speaker, this plan will only create more problems. Holding two censuses, which is exactly what the Bureau is doing by creating two figures, will double costs, lead to an increase in litigation with discrepancies over figures, and increase the chance that the census will not be done in a timely fashion. For the past six years, the Census Bureau was against a two-figure census for the very same reasons. This dual-track census is wrong, and they know it. We in Congress have the responsibility to stand up for the American people. They do not want two versions of how many people live in our nation, and have to deal with the resulting confusion for ten years. I encourage my colleagues to consider this dual-track census plan as we consider releasing funding for the Commerce, State, and Justice Departments that is set to expire on June 15. This may be the last opportunity to put the Decennial Census back on track.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened today to learn of the death of one of my colleagues from the ``Class of '69,'' Wilmer Mizell. We served together in the 91st, 92nd and 93rd Congresses. Popularly known as ``Vinegar Bend,'' he showed the same deep commitment to doing his best for the people of the 5th District of North Carolina as he exhibited in 1960 when he pitched to a 13 and 5 record to help the Pittsburgh Pirates win the National League pennant. During his tenure in Congress, ``Vinegar Bend'' was an advocate for the consumer, the farmer and the factory worker. He compiled a conservative voting record that he was very proud of. His slogan, ``You've got a friend in Vinegar Bend,'' was well known around his District. After his defeat in 1974, in the wake of Watergate, he was appointed Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. In 1982, President Reagan appointed him as an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Governmental Affairs--effectively sending him back to his friends in the House and Senate as the Administration's leading spokesman on the promotion of its agricultural policies. He served President Bush as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs and as Executive Director of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Described as a ``real gentleman'' and ``a class act'', Congressman Mizell was both of those at all times, and I shall miss him. Our prayers are with all his family and friends.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as the impeachment trial to President Clinton approaches its final act, I want to pay tribute to the managers on the part of the House, led by my distinguished friend from Illinois, Henry Hyde. I thank them for enduring vitriolic attacks by the media, the President's minions, their constituents, and, sadly, some of their colleagues as they defended the law. Few of us have been put to a such a severe test as these manager-colleagues to prove allegiance to our sworn oath to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' I worry about the moral health of our country when the modern-day justice system seems incapable of holding accountable celebrities who murder and presidents who lie. As has been asked so many times in recent weeks: ``What do we tell our children?'' Thankfully, we can hold up to the children men like our House managers as examples of Americans willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of our great nation. I was unable to witness the closing arguments made by Mr. Hyde, but instead read his script. I consider him to be the House's finest orator and, as I read his statement, I imagined with my mind's eye his passionate call to duty. I only hope that his speech similarly stirred our Senate colleagues to ``Let right be done.'' I commend the entirety of Mr. Manager Hyde's closing argument to the attention of my colleagues. Closing Argument of Representative Henry J. Hyde, Impeachment Trial Manager Mr. Chief Justice, learned counsel, and the Senate, we are blessedly coming to the end of this melancholy procedure, but before we gather up our papers and return to the obscurity from whence we came, please permit me a few final remarks. First of all, I want to thank the chief justice not only for his patience and his perseverance but for the aura of dignity that he has lent to these proceedings, and it has been a great thrill really to be here in his company as well as in the company of you distinguished senators. Secondly, I want to compliment the president's counsel. They have conducted themselves in the most professional way. They have made the most of a poor case, in my opinion. Excuse me. There's an old Italian saying, that has nothing to do with the lawyers, but to your case, and it says: ``You may dress the shepherd in silk, but he will still smell of the goat.'' But all of you are great lawyers and it's been an adventure being with you. You know, the legal profession, like politics, is ridiculed pretty much, and every lawyer feels that and understands the importance of the rule of law--to establish justice, to maintain the rights of mankind, to defend the helpless and the oppressed, to protect innocents, to punish guilt. These are duties which challenge the best powers of man's intellect and the noblest qualities of the human heart. We are here to defend that bulwark of our liberty, the rule of law. As for the House managers, I want to tell you and our extraordinary staff how proud I am of your service. For myself, I cannot find the words to adequately express how I feel. I must use the inaudible language of the heart. I've gone through it all by your side, the media condemnations, the patronizing editorials, the hate mail, the insults hurled in public, the attempts at intimidation, the death threats, and even the disapproval of our colleagues, which cuts the worst. You know, all a congressman ever gets to take with him when he leaves this building is the esteem of his colleagues and his constituents. We've risked that for a principle and for our duty as we've seen it. In speaking to my managers of whom I am terminally proud, I can borrow the words of Shakespeare's ``Henry V,'' as he addressed his little army of longbowmen at the battle of Agincourt, and he said: ``We few--we happy few, we band of brothers. For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. And gentlemen in England now abed will curse the fact that they are not here and hold their manhood cheap when any speaks who fought with us on St. Crispin's Day.'' As for the juror judges, you distinguished senators, it's always a victory for democracy when its elected representatives do their duty no matter how difficult and unpleasant, and we thank you for it. Please don't misconstrue our fervor for our cause to any lack of respect or appreciation for your high office. But our most formidable opponent has not been opposing counsel nor any political party. It's been cynicism--the widespread conviction that all politics and all politicians are by definition corrupt and venal. That cynicism is an acid eating away at the vital organs of American public life. It is a clear and present danger because it blinds us to the nobility and the fragility of being a self-governing people. One of the several questions that needs answer is whether your vote on conviction lessens or enlarges that cynicism. Nothing begets cynicism like the double standard--one rule for the popular and the powerful and another for the rest of us. One of the most interesting things in this trial was the testimony of the president's good friend, the former Senator from Arkansas. He did his persuasive best to maintain the confusion that this is all about sex. Of course it's useful for the defense to misdirect our focus toward what everyone concedes are private acts and none of our business, but if you care to read the articles of impeachment, you won't find any complaints about private, sexual misconduct. You will find charges of perjury and obstruction of justice which are public acts and federal crimes, especially when committed by the one person duty bound to faithfully execute the laws. Infidelity is private and non-criminal. Perjury and obstruction are public and criminal. The deliberate focus on what is not an issue here is the defense lawyer's tactic and nothing more. This entire saga has been a theater of distraction and misdirection. Time-honored defense tactics when the law and facts get in the way. One phrase you have not heard the defense pronounce is the ``sanctity of the oath,'' but this case deeply involves the efficacy, the meaning and the enforceability of the oath. The president's defenders stay away from the word ``lie'' preferring ``mislead'' or ``deceived,'' but they shrink from the phrase ``sanctity of the oath,'' fearing it as one might a rattlesnake. There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug, or under the bed for that matter. They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people. As that third grader from Chicago wrote to me: ``If you can't believe the president, who can you believe?'' Speaking of young people, in 1946 a British playwright, Terence Rattigan wrote a play based on a true experience that happened in England in 1910. The play was called ``The Winslow Boy.'' And the story, a true story, involved a young 13-year-old lad who was kicked out of the Royal Naval College for having forged somebody else's signature on a postal money order. Of course, he claimed he was innocent, but he was summarily dismissed and his family of very modest means couldn't afford legal counsel, and it was a very desperate situation. Sir Edward Carson, the best lawyer of his time--barrister I suppose--got interested in the case and took it on pro bono, and lost all the way through the courts. Finally, he had no other place to go, but he dug up an ancient remedy in England called ``petition of right.'' You ask the king for relief. And so Carson wrote out five pages of reasons why a petition of right should be granted. And lo and behold, it got past the attorney general and got to the king. The king read it, agreed with it, and wrote across the front of the petition: ``Let right be done--Edward VII.'' And I have always been moved by that phrase. I saw the movie, I saw the play, and I have the book, and I am still moved by that phrase ``let right be done.'' I hope when you finally vote that will move you, too. There are some interesting parallels to our cause here today. This Senate chamber is our version of the House of Lords, and while we managers cannot claim to represent that 13-year-old Winslow boy, we speak for a lot of young people who look to us to set an example. Ms. Seligman last Saturday said we want to win too badly. This surprised me, because none of the managers has committed perjury, nor obstructed justice, nor claimed false privileges. None has hidden evidence under anyone's bed, nor encouraged false testimony before the grand jury. That's what you do if you want to win too badly. I believe it was Saul Bellow who once said, ``A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.'' And those words characterize the defense in this case--the need for illusion is great. I doubt there are many people on the planet who doubt the president has repeatedly lied under oath and has obstructed justice. The defense spent a lot of time picking lint. There is a saying in equity, I believe, that equity will not stoop to pick up pins. But that was their case. So the real issue doesn't concern the facts, the stubborn facts, as the defense is fond of saying, but what to do about them. I am still dumbfounded about the drafts of the censures that are circulating. We aren't half as tough on the president in our impeachment articles as this draft is that was printed in the New York Times. ``An inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House which was shameless, reckless and indefensible.'' I have a problem with that. It seems they're talking about private acts of consensual sexual misconduct, which are really none of our business. But that's the lead-off. Then they say the president ``deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials in all branches of the United States government.'' This is not a Republican document. This is coming from here. ``The president gave false or misleading testimony and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings.'' Isn't that another way of saying obstruction of justice and perjury? ``The president's conduct demeans the office of the president as well as the president himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land.'' Future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable, but bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust, and respect--but not loss of job. ``Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the office of the president; whereas he has violated the trust of the American people (see Hamilton Federalist Number 65), and he should be condemned in the strongest terms.'' Well, the next-to-the- strongest terms--the strongest terms would remove him from office. Well, do you really cleanse the office as provided in the Constitution? Or do you use the air-wick of a censure resolution? Because any censure resolution, to be meaningful, has to punish the president--if only his reputation. And how do you deal with the laws of bill of attainder? How do you deal with the separation of powers? What kind of a precedent are you setting? We all claim to revere the Constitution, but a censure is something that is a device, a way of avoiding the harsh Constitutional option, and it's the only one you have, either up or down on impeachment. That, of course, is your judgment, and I am offering my views for what they're worth. Once in a while I do worry about the future. I wonder if after this culture war is over that we're engaged in, if an America will survive that's worth fighting to defend. People won't risk their lives for the UN or over the Dow Jones averages, but I wonder in future generations whether there'll be enough vitality left in duty, honor and country to excite our children and grandchildren to defend America. There's no denying the fact what you decide, will have a profound effect on our culture as well as on our politics. A failure to convict will make a statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided is not all that serious. Perhaps we can explain this to those currently in prison for perjury. We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the president. Wherever and whenever you avert your eyes from a wrong, from an injustice, you become a part of the problem. On the subject of civil rights, it's my belief this issue doesn't belong to anyone. It belongs to everyone. It certainly belongs to those who have suffered invidious discrimination and one would have to be catatonic not to know that the struggle to keep alive equal protection of the law never ends. The mortal enemy of equal justice is the double standard and if we permit a double standard, even for the president, we do no favor to the cause of human rights. It's been said that America has nothing to fear from this president on the subject of civil rights. I doubt Paula Jones would subscribe to that endorsement. If you agree that perjury and obstruction of justice have been committed, and yet you vote down the conviction, you're expending and expanding the boundaries of permissible presidential conduct. You're saying a perjurer and an obstructor of justice can be president in the face of no less than three precedents for conviction of federal judges for perjury. You shred those precedents and you raise the most serious questions of whether the president is in fact subject to the law, or whether we are beginning a restoration of the divine rights of kings. The issues we're concerned with have consequences far into the future, because the real damage is not to the individuals involved, but to the American system of justice and especially the principle that no one is above the law. Edward Gibbon wrote his magisterial ``Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' in the late 18th century. In fact, the first volume was published in 1776. In his work, he discusses an emperor named Septimus Severus who died in 211 A.D. after ruling 18 years. And here's what Gibbon wrote about the emperor: ``Severus promised only to betray; he flattered only to ruin: and however he might occasionally bind himself by oaths and treaties, his conscience, obsequious to his interest, always released him from the inconvenient obligation.'' I guess those who believe history repeats itself are really onto something. Horace Mann said: ``You should be ashamed to die unless you have achieved some victory for humanity.'' To the House managers, I say your devotion to duty and the Constitution has set an example that is a victory for humanity. Charles de Gaulle once said France would not be true to herself if she wasn't engaged in some great enterprise. That's true of us all. We spend our short lives as consumers, space occupiers, clock watchers, spectators--or in the service of some great enterprise. I believe being a Senator, being a congressman, and struggling with all our might for equal justice for all is a great enterprise. It's our great enterprise. And to my House managers, your great enterprise was not to speak truth to power, but to shout it. And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and oh yes, let right be done.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, joined by my Ways and Means Committee colleague, Mr. Matsui, I introduced legislation today to prohibit the Department of the Treasury from issuing any regulations dealing with hybrid transactions under Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code. The bill will further instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study of the tax treatment of hybrid transactions and, after receiving input from the public, to submit his findings to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. This legislation is identical to a bill we introduced in the 105th Congress. During the last Congress, most members of the House Ways and Means Committee expressed their concern over the policy changes to Subpart F suggested by Treasury in Notice 98-11. Both Chairman Archer and Ranking Democrat Rangell wrote Secretary Rubin to express their concerns with both the policy changes pursued by Treasury as well as the means by which Treasury implemented the changes. Mr. Matsui and I, along with 31 other Committee members, also wrote Treasury asking them to withdraw the regulations in order for Congress to have an opportunity to review the issues. We hoped that Treasury would do this in consultation with members of our Committee. The provisions of Subpart F of the Code have a direct impact on the competitiveness of U.S. businesses operating in the global marketplace. Congress historically has moved carefully when making changes to those sections of the Code relating to international taxation. Unwarranted or injudicious action in these areas can have a substantial adverse impact on U.S. businesses operating abroad. Treasury issued Notice 98-11 to restrict the use of hybrid entities. After input from Congress and the business community, Treasury issued Notice 98-35, which withdrew Notice 98-11. However, Notice 98-35 still left Treasury with the option of issuing binding rules regarding hybrid transactions. And, although the rules will not be finalized before January 1, 2000, they will be effective for certain payments made on or after June 19, 1998. I am concerned that Treasury's actions, in effect, legislate in this area. Our bill will protect Congress' Constitutional prerogative. With regard to the policy, I am concerned that the proposed changes would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage in world markets by subjecting them to more taxation by foreign governments. This raises the question as to why the U.S. Treasury Department is so concerned about helping to generate revenue for the coffers of other countries. Furthermore, Notice 98-35, or similar regulations, is at odds with changes Congress recently made to Subpart F in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. I look forward to further study and input from Treasury on the issue of modifications to Subpart F. However, we must not allow Treasury to implement regulations in this area until Congress determines the appropriate course of action. The bill we introduce today will allow for that judicious process to go forward and I urge my colleagues to join with us by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. CRANE

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 435) to make miscellaneous and technical changes to various trade laws, and for other purposes.

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. 435.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in reintroducing the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999. We introduced this legislation on January 19, 1999, as H.R. 326. This legislation is a package of miscellaneous trade provisions and other technical and clerical corrections to the trade laws. This package introduced today contains a revenue provision which was not contained in H.R. 326. This bill, including the revenue provision, is essentially identical to H.R. 4856 that the House passed in the 105th Congress on October 20, 1998, and which received broad support in both the House and the Senate in the last Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on H.R. 4856 on the last day before Congress adjourned because of issues totally unrelated to the substance of the bill. This bill contains over 140 provisions temporarily suspending or reducing duties on a wide variety of products. A number of the duty suspensions relate to different chemicals to make anti-HIV, anti-AIDS and anti-cancer drugs. In each instance, there was either no domestic production of the product involved or the domestic producers supported the measure. By suspending or reducing these duties, we can enable U.S. companies that use these products to be more competitive and function more cost efficiently. This would help create jobs for American workers as well as reduce costs for consumers. This bill also contains a number of technical trade corrections and miscellaneous trade provisions that receive broad bipartisan support. One technical trade provision would correct outdated references in the trade laws. Other provisions would extend trade benefits to jewelry makers in the insular possessions of the United States, provide duty- free treatment to participants and individuals associated with world athletic events, including the 1999 Women's World Cup Soccer, which, incidentally, will be held in our home State of Illinois, Mr. Speaker. Other provisions refer to a wide variety of trade issues, including Customs preclearance activities and Customs user fees. This package of trade bills had been thoroughly evaluated and commented on by all concerned parties, including the U.S. Customs Service, the Department of Commerce, the International Trade Commission, the United States Trade Representative, and firms which may be affected by a tariff suspension on a product they produce domestically. The provisions that remain in the bill are completely uncontroversial. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this package and pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from our home State of Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on the other side of the aisle. As I told him before we started our colloquy here, that we have been blessed by enjoying probably the greatest degree of collegiality on trade issues of anything that comes before this floor. So I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty). Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

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 inject just one thought here from a colleagues of ours, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who was unable to make it over here to make a presentation on behalf of the provision in this bill, and it is the one that extends nondiscriminatory trade treatment, normal trade relations, to Mongolia, and I would simply like to commend him for his position on it. In addition to that, we have another colleague from Utah (Mr. Cook), who I do not think is here yet. He is trying to run to get here to the floor before we have to yield back our time. But he wanted to come over here and speak very briefly on the provisions in the bill that provide duty free treatment to all participants and individuals associated with the 1999 International Special Olympics. I mentioned earlier the 1999 Women's World Cup Soccer which is going to be held in our home State of Illinois, and also the 2001 International Special Olympics, and the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and the 2002 Winter Para-Olympics games. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah has arrived. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I join with 65 of my colleagues in reintroducing bipartisan legislation that the House passed last year to firmly establish sub-Saharan Africa on the U.S. trade and investment policy agenda. Overall, the African Growth and Opportunity Act represents a trade- centered approach to development that will complement traditional forms of assistance. Increased U.S.-African trade and investment is a win-win proposition, one that can facilitate and strengthen the development of sub-Saharan African countries and create opportunities for U.S. firms and workers. Already, U.S. exports to the sub-Saharan region exceed by 20 percent those of all the former Soviet states combined. Sub-Saharan Africa is a continent with vast opportunities for U.S. companies and many U.S. businesses are poised to increase trade and investment in sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, a strong trade and investment relationship between the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and the United States will reduce poverty and expand economic opportunity in Africa. Moreover, a stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in our mutual fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease, and environmental degradation. Some 30 sub-Saharan countries have begun dynamic economic reform programs, including liberalizing exchange rates and prices, privatizing state-owned enterprises, ending costly subsidies, and reducing barriers to trade and investment. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is designed to complement economic reforms such as these which African nations have decided to pursue by creating greater opportunities for partnerships between Americans and Africans. Specifically, the bill offers increased access to the U.S. market for non-import sensitive goods and increased dialogue with the United States on deepening our trade relationship. The benefits available under the bill provide incentives for the most aggressive reformers to liberalize their markets even further. This legislation would not impose new conditions for maintaining existing trade and aid benefits. However, to qualify for enhanced trade benefits, the African Growth and Opportunity Act requires that countries make continual progress toward achieving the bill's market-based criteria. For countries that choose to follow this course, the bill requires the President to develop a plan to solidify our economic partnership through the creation of a United States-Sub-Saharan African Free Trade Area. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is strongly supported by political and economic leaders across sub-Saharan Africa. Every African Ambassador in Washington, D.C. has endorsed this bill. Never before have the 48 diverse nations in the region been united in support of such an initiative. In addition, the African Growth and Opportunity Act has a high profile throughout the continent and the response has been clear--Africans want to be trading partners with the United States and the world. In order to continue to grow, African economies need to have enhanced access to U.S. markets, capital, management expertise, and technology. The bill is the first step toward making that happen and is a long overdue response to change led by Africans themselves across the continent. I urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation when it is considered on the House floor in the coming weeks.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, The World Customs Organization [WCO] designated January 26 as International Customs Day, a time to give recognition to customs services around the world for the role they play in generating revenue and protecting national borders from unauthorized imports. The U.S. Customs Service represents the United States in the World Customs Organization which, since 1953, has grown into a 142-member international organization. The WCO's purpose is to facilitate international trade, promote cooperation between governments on customs matters, and standardize and simplify customs procedures internationally. It also offers technical assistance in the areas of customs validation, nomenclature, and law enforcement. The organization's objective is to obtain the highest possible level of uniformity among the customs systems of its member countries. The involvement of the U.S. Customs Service in the WCO reflects the recognition that our country and its trading partners benefit when international trade is facilitated by simple, unambiguous customs operations around the world. I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the World Customs Organization on its past accomplishments and wish it well in its ambitious efforts to further harmonize and simplify customs regulations. I also congratulate the U.S. Customs Service for its many years of fine work both domestically and internationally.