Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on February 1, 2003, we lost seven of mankind's finest. The crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia made the ultimate sacrifice, not in a feat of arms, but in the noble quest to expand human knowledge. My deepest thoughts and prayers go to the families of those brave men and women lost in this accident. Their loved ones will be remembered with deep gratitude and admiration for their dedication towards advancing our understanding of new frontiers and discovering ways science can improve our lives. While space shuttles fly regularly, space travel itself is anything but routine. Its dangers are many but the Columbia's crew was willing to brave them. We in Congress have a duty to them and our astronauts to find the cause of this horrific accident. We can never fully eliminate the danger, but we can manage the risk. I realize that the NASA family is greiving--and they too have my sympathy--but even as we grieve Congress must be willing to ask serious questions about the shuttle program and our nation's goals for the space program. Can NASA implement the space program's goals with only 3 shuttles, and if not what next? Should a seventh orbiter be built from scratch, or should the Enterprise be rebuilt? If the space program can get by with just three shuttles should a new vehicle program be implemented? Five years lapsed between Challenger's loss and Endeavour's first mission. Could a successor program vehicle enter service in the same amount of time that it will take to bring the shuttle fleet back up to four? Columbia was destroyed on its 28th mission. Discovery's next mission will be its 31st. How many more missions does it have left in it? Then there's the International Space Station. If a shuttle is damaged prior to re-entry how much assistance could it give? Could emergency facilities be added? Will having a smaller fleet further delay it in becoming fully operational? Finally where does our space program go from here? Will we continue the trend in manned flight by going no further than low Earth orbit or will humanity again push out beyond our planet and return to the Moon or even go to Mars? I am confident that NASA and Congress will address these questions. As America's space program continues into the future, we have a responsibility to provide it direction. I believe that the space program will continue to benefit humanity, and we in Congress must do all we can to ensure the safety of our astronauts when they embark on future missions. Seventeen years ago President Reagan consoled our nation after another group of seven heroes were lost to us in similar, tragic fashion. He ended his remarks by briefly quoting from the poem by an American pilot, John Gillespie Magee Jr., who died in flight. Magee's stirring words are a fitting tribute to those who strive to explore and live in the heavens. Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings, Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds--and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of--wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long, delirious burning blue I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew. And, while silent lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand, and touched the face of God. When asked by his brother about what would happen if something went wrong Captain David Brown, a member of Columbia's final crew, replied ``this program will go on.'' He was right but it will not just be this one program that goes on. No matter what setbacks confront us humanity will explore the unknown, brave its dangers and continue our drive to create a better world.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it was 50 years ago, on January 26, 1953, that the World Customs Organization, formally known as the Customs Co- operation Council, held its first meeting in Brussels, Belgium. In recognition of this occasion, the Council observed January 26 as International Customs Day. This occasion also serves to recognize the role that customs services around the world play in facilitating trade while protecting national borders from importations posing security threats. I am particularly proud of the U.S. Customs Service for its great contributions to the Nation over the past 214 years of its existence. U.S. Customs was once the sole revenue producer for the young United States. Although that role has diminished over the years Customs collected a record $23.8 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2001. Today, Customs is still a major source of revenue for the Federal Government, returning about $8 to the taxpayer for every dollar appropriated by Congress. For nearly 125 years, Customs funded virtually the entire government and paid for the Nation's early growth and infrastructure. The territories of Louisiana, Oregon, Florida and Alaska were purchased; the National Road from Cumberland, Maryland, to Wheeling, West Virginia, was constructed; and the Transcontinental Railroad stretched from sea-to-sea. Customs collections built the Nation's lighthouses, the U.S. military and naval academies, and the City of Washington, and the list goes on. In 1835, Customs revenues alone had reduced the national debt to zero. Customs was the parent or forerunner to many other agencies. In the early days, Customs officers administered military pensions (Department of Veterans Affairs), collected import and export statistics (Bureau of Census), and supervised revenue cutters (U.S. Coast Guard). Customs also collected hospital dues to help sick and disabled seaman (Public Health Service) and established standard weights and measures (National Bureau of Standards). During the first stages of the response to the terrorist attack on September 11th in New York and Washington, D.C., U.S. Customs quickly assumed a leading role. With terrorism causing concern worldwide, the international Customs community has a vital role to play. Every administration is playing an active part in efforts to protect the international supply chain from terrorist acts, while at the same time offering improved trade facilitation. Today, the United States Customs Service will have new challenges to face as it moves from the traditional home that it has known within the Department of the Treasury to the newly created Department of Homeland Security. It will be important for Customs to continue to offer the world class level of trade service and facilitation that U.S. business has come to rely on while insuring that security needs are addressed. It will also be important to maintain the revenue collection linkage with the Treasury Department that has historically been so significant. The U.S. Customs Service represents the United States at the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC). The number of Members increased over the years, and the Council subsequently adopted the working name ``World Customs Organization'' in order to better reflect the fact that the Organization was an intergovernmental body that genuinely made the transition to worldwide status. The WCO now speaks for 161 Customs administrations drawn from every continent and representing every stage of economic development. The United States has been a member since November 5, 1970. At present, WCO Members are responsible for ensuring that more than 98 percent of international trade is conducted in compliance with national legislation and international agreements. The WCO renders technical assistance in areas such as customs tariffs, valuation, nomenclature, and law enforcement. Its objective is to obtain, in the interest of international trade, the best possible degree of uniformity among the customs systems of member nations. America benefits when both exporters and importers operate in an atmosphere of simple unambiguous customs operations around the world. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the U.S. Customs Service for its fine work both nationally and internationally, and I look forward to the completion of work within the World Customs Organization to further harmonizing and simplifying the customs rules that affect international commerce.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 114, to provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. While I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops to such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to protect U.S. national security interests. The events of September 11th showed us that we are not protected from an attack on our homeland. A first strike made with weapons of mass destruction can result in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared to act preemptively. I did not reach this conclusion easily, Mr. Speaker. But in a world with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, a first strike capability carries with it the possibility that it will be the last strike, with millions left dead in its wake. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein possesses and continues to cultivate weapons of mass destruction; the U.N. weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq four years ago for a reason. In addition, we know that he is violating the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to the tune of several billion dollars a year; rather than feeding innocent Iraqi citizens, this is money that is undoubtedly being spent on the development of weapons of mass destruction. And we know that if he is able to buy a softball-sized amount of plutonium on the black market, he will have a nuclear weapon within a year. Some of my colleagues ask why we must act against this threat in particular, when there are many other threats of a grave and serious nature confronting us as we wage a global war against terror. The answer is that this threat is unique; an evil dictator has gathered together the most serious dangers of our time in one place. In Iraq we see Saddam stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and I trust I need not remind anyone that he has used such weapons already, against his own people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East, 2nd has struck other nations in the region, including our ally Israel, without warning. Some of my colleagues have suggested that disarming Hussein will dilute the war against al-Qaeda, but I believe that the opposite is true; these dual goals are inextricably linked. We know that Saddam has harbored and trained high-level al-Qaeda who fled to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan. Indeed, there can be no doubt that Saddam and al- Qaeda share a common enemy: The United States of America, and the freedom we represent. And let me be clear: either could attack us at any time. Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam Hussein cannot carry out such a first strike against the United States or our allies. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues object to this Resolution because we do not have a groundswell of international support for military intervention. The distinguished Chairman of the international Relations Committee has highlighted the key question as regards this issue: on whom does the final responsibility for protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours or do we share it with others? While there is no doubt that unqualified support from the United Nations is preferable, we must be prepared to defend ourselves alone. We must never allow the foreign policy of our country to be dictated by those entities that may or may not have U.S. interests at heart. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution before us does not mandate military intervention in Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear authority to invade Iraq should he determine that Saddam is not complying with the conditions we have laid before him. Chief among these conditions is full and unfettered weapons inspections; if Saddam fails to comply, as has been the unfortunate historical trend, we will have no choice but to take action. Our security demands it. Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not conclude that respectful disagreements on the Floor of this House divide us; on the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look no further than to Iraq to understand why. Let us not forget those who continue to suffer under the evil hand of Saddam. To take just one example, the more than one and a half million Assyrians in Iraq have been displaced from their ancestral homes, tortured, raped, murdered and caused to suffer every conceivable degradation at the hands of the Hussein regime. They have much to lose in any failed effort to remove Saddam, yet they fully support President Bush. And they certainly will not stand alone. As President Bush noted in his address to the nation on Monday, ``When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.'' In other words, as in Afghanistan, when given hope, an oppressed people will rise up and seize the opportunity for freedom. At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I have no doubt that the world will witness the same expression of unity as was demonstrated by Americans across the country following the attacks on September 11th. I find comfort in the knowledge that this unity represents a promise that we will never back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our homeland from those who wish to destroy us, and our way of life.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114 to provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. While I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops to such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to protect U.S. national security interests. The events of September 11 showed that we are not protected from an attack on our homeland. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein possesses and continues to cultivate weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq 4 years ago for a reason. A first strike made with weapons of mass destruction can result in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared to act preemptively. Some ask why we must act against this threat in particular. The answer is that this threat is unique. I need not remind anyone that Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction already against his own people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East and has struck other nations in the region, including our ally, Israel, without warning. Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam Hussein cannot carry out a first strike against the United States or our allies. Mr. Speaker, while there is no doubt that unqualified support for military intervention from the U.N. is preferable, we must be prepared to defend ourselves alone. We must never allow the foreign policy of our country to be dictated by those entities that may or may not have U.S. interests at heart. The resolution before us does not mandate military intervention in Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear authority to invade Iraq should he determine that Hussein is not complying with the conditions we have laid before him. Chief among these is full and unfettered weapons inspections. If he fails to comply, we will have no choice but to take action. Our security demands it. Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not conclude that respectful disagreements on the floor of this House divide us. On the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look no further than to Iraq to understand why. At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I find comfort in the knowledge that this unity represents a promise that we will never back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our homeland from those who wish to destroy us.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5385, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2002. Every 2 years, Congress takes up this legislation that includes hundreds of trade provisions. Needless to say, this is an enormous task. However, this undertaking results in a set of consistent guidelines for addressing miscellaneous trade proposals. The duty suspensions have been publicly vetted, cost less than $500,000 a piece, and are administrable. This legislation does three very important things: one, it enables U.S. companies to more efficiently produce goods which allows them to be more competitive and function more cost efficiently. Two, it helps create jobs for American workers; and, three, it reduces costs for U.S. consumers. For example, one bill in our package would benefit businesses such as one in Evanston, Wyoming, called Carbon Fiber Technology that employs 46 people and manufactures acrylic fiber used in the production of carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is used in many graphite products including the shafts of golf clubs. Since 1999, finished carbon fiber has entered the U.S. duty-free while Carbon Fiber Technology has been paying a duty rate of 8 percent on the acrylic precursor used to make its carbon fiber. It makes no sense for an American company to pay duty on foreign inputs that go into products that compete with foreign products that enter duty-free. The current structure penalizes that American company for no reason. Suspending this duty will allow Carbon Fiber Technology to remain competitive and win back business from overseas competitors. There is another provision dealing with GSP benefits for certain handmade rugs. The bill extends GSP benefits for certain handmade rugs from GSP beneficiary countries. The primary beneficiary is Pakistan. Other countries that would benefit from the bill include Turkey, Nepal, Egypt, and Morocco. The bill would significantly increase Pakistan's benefits under GSP and provide a much-needed benefit to an important ally in the war on terrorism. In addition to the various duty suspensions, the bill contains a key provision to create a qualified industrial zone for certain products coming from Turkey. Turkey has been a key ally to the United States in the war on terrorism. These provisions will stimulate economic development in Turkey and continue to show the rest of the world that those who stand with us in this struggle will be rewarded. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my staff who worked tirelessly for several months in producing this bill. They are Angela Ellard, Meredith Broadbent, David Kavanaugh, Stephanie Lester, and our Fellow, Michael Walsh. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of House Resolution 543, calling upon Congress to make marriage penalty relief permanent. I can think of fewer provisions in the Tax Code that are more offensive than the marriage penalty tax. Why we would continue to punish dual-wage earning families in this regard is absolutely obscene. Congress did the right thing in providing significant relief for over 35 million low- and middle-income married couples when it passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act last year. Unfortunately, the law with it, the marriage penalty relief provisions, will expire in the year 2011. What happens if the law expires? First, the standard deduction for 21 million married couples will be reduced, forcing an increase in their taxes. Second, the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples will be reduced, thus increasing taxes for 20 million married couples. Overall, we will be looking at a $25 billion tax increase on married couples by 2012. The time to act is now. Delaying action will, under our scoring rules, only increase the revenue needed to make the current provisions in the Tax Code permanent. This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue; it is a families issue. In that regard, I hope we can amass a broad bipartisan vote on this resolution and send a signal to all Americans that we will resolve this issue soon.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Houses of Worship political speech protection act. I believe that we must remove the Gag that restricts our clergymen from discussing candidates for office or political issues. Religious organizations are the moral compass for tens of millions of Americans and I have no qualms about their leaders articulating the pros and cons of a particular candidate for office or issue. While I strongly commend the gentleman from North Carolina for advancing this issue, I do have some concerns with the way this particular bill has been drafted. In my opinion, the substantiality test in the code is entirely too ambiguous. It has not been defined by Congress, the Treasury Department or the courts, so passage of this bill will require that we wait until the IRS prosecutes a church for a violation to learn what substantial means. Since the 104th Congress, I have introduced the Brightline Act that clearly defines, using dollar limitations, the activities that religious organizations may engage in while maintaining their tax- exempt status. It is a clean, easy way for churches to know whether or not they have run afoul of the Internal Revenue Code. I hope, that as we continue to move this issue forward, the gentleman from North Carolina will be willing to work with me to ensure that whatever we put on the President's desk for signature provides churches with clear rules so that this matter is not resolved by the courts. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to thank the people who have worked so hard over the years to advance this issue. First and foremost, I want to thank the millions of Americans at the grassroots level who have contacted their members of Congress to get their support. Second, and most importantly, I want to thank my good friend Reverend Lou Sheldon for his tireless efforts to advance this issue. Pastor Lou has led the change on this issue since 1994 and I hope those who support this bill will recognize his hard work.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Last week it was my high honor and privilege to join my colleagues in the House and Senate for a Commemorative Joint Session of Congress in New York City to honor the victims and heroes of September 11th. While we Members of Congress are often engaged in abrasive confrontation, today I look around and see total unity, total recognition that whether Republican or Democrat, we are first and foremost Americans, and the common values we share far outweigh those we do not. This is the same expression of unity demonstrated by Americans across the country on the days following the terrorist attacks on September 11th. I find comfort in the knowledge that it represents a promise that we will not back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our homeland from those who wish to destroy our way of life. And as we revisit some of the darkest moments in our nation's history, we must remember that our Nation has always been one that has triumphed over adversity. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that at times of great despair, America has consistently risen to its greatest hours. So in remembrance of those lives lost on September 11th, I would like to conclude with some words from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: ``that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion * * * that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain * * * that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom * * * and that government of the people * * *by the people * * * for the people * * * shall not perish from the earth.''

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the House and Senate in commemorating the victims and heroes of September 11, 2001, during our special session of Congress held in Federal Hall in New York, New York. On the days following the attacks on September 11th, Americans across the country came together to demonstrate the strength and resiliency of this great country. It is in that same spirit that we stand together today--both Republicans and Democrats--to reaffirm that strength and resiliency by showing a strong bipartisan expression that we are first and foremost Americans and are committed to protecting the freedoms and values that make this country great. As we go through this week and revisit some of the darkest moments in our nation's history, we must remember that our nation has always been one that has triumphed over adversity. At times of great despair, America has consistently risen to its greatest hours. In remembrance of those lives lost on September 11th and to heroes that emerged on that fateful day, I would like to close with some words from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: ``that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion . . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . . and that government of the people . . .by the people . . .for the people . . . shall not perish from the earth.'' May God bless America.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of House Resolution 5005 creating a new Department of Homeland Security. Like the rest of Congress, I applaud the President for his bold decision to reorganize the government and make homeland security the highest priority. Like others, however, I also have had questions about the details of this transition and how it would affect the many responsibilities of those agencies transferred to the new department. The bill before us has answered my questions and provides real protection for our Nation. Let me focus on one of the important sections dealing with the security of collecting revenue and the economically critical mission of trade facilitation. Mr. Chairman, the requirement to generate revenue for this country through Customs duties, which was the very first Act of Congress, was the primary reason Customs was established in the fifth Act of Congress as the first Federal agency of the new Republic. This function is still important today as demonstrated by the fact that Customs collects over $20 billion of revenue. Today, under the authority of the Department of the Treasury, Customs enforces well over 400 provisions of law for at least 40 agencies. In addition to collecting revenue, Customs safeguards American agriculture, business, public health, and consumer safety and ensures that all imports and exports comply with U.S. laws and regulations. Through the work of this Congress, the new Department now has the tools it needs to protect our borders while at the same time ensuring that revenue continues to be collected and that goods keep moving across the border with little delay. For these reasons I urge a YES vote on H.R. 5005.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3O09. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan conference agreement is the culmination of a process that began in the Subcommittee on Trade over a year ago when I introduced H.R. 2149, the Trade Promotion Authority act. Since that time, Republicans and Democrats have trudged miles together in search of this delicate consensus. Mr. Speaker, trade is fundamental to our relations with other nations. As the President strives to neutralize international threats to our security, Trade Promotion Authority is an essential tool for him to build coalitions around the world that safeguards our freedoms. This bill is about arming the President with authority that achieves trade agreements written in the best interest of U.S. farmers, companies, and workers. This legislation will ensure that the world knows that Americans speak with one voice on issues vital to our economic security. At the same time, it ensures that the President will negotiate according to clearly defined goals and objectives written by Congress. TPA simply offers the opportunity for us to negotiate from a position of strength. In no way does TPA constitute the final approval of any trade agreement. Congress and the American people retain full authority to approve or disapprove any trade agreement at the time the President presents it to Congress. I am also pleased that included in this legislation is my bill, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which renews our commitment to help the Andean countries in the war on drugs. Notably, the Andean provisions include expanded benefits for Andean apparel made of U.S. and regional fabrics, yarn, and for tuna in pouches. In closing, Mr. Speaker, Americans have never been reluctant to go head to head with our trading partners. We should not dash the best chance we have of creating a better future of dynamic economic growth and success for our workers, businesses, and farmers in the international markets. Restoring this authority will help the U.S. resume its rightful role as the world leader when it comes to trade. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic moment for the House. Accordingly, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3009.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to reassure him that his concerns are valid, legitimate concerns, and that we on the committee will look into this issue because it is something that needs to be resolved.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4965, I rise in strong support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. By passing this legislation we will once again take a step towards banning the truly horrifying practice whereby an innocent life is taken in the most gruesome of procedures. Used in second and third trimester abortions, the ``partial-birth'' procedure involves pulling some portion of the fetus into the birth canal, crushing the skull and killing the fetus, before removing the fetus from the mother's body. Congress passed legislation in each of the last three Congresses banning partial-birth abortions. In the 104th and 105th Congresses, President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion bans. Both times the House voted to override the veto, but the Senate sustained it. This bill makes it a federal crime for a physician, in or affecting interstate commerce, to perform a so-called partial birth abortion, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Under this legislation, anyone who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion would be subject to fines and up to two years in prison. The bill provides that a defendant could seek a hearing before the state medical board on whether his or her conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother and those findings may be admissible at trial. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important legislation. By passing H.R. 4965 today, we will take a giant step towards protecting innocent babies who, through no fault of their own, never have a chance.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 101 and in support of extending Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. Failure to extend the waiver so soon after the U.S. Vietnam bilateral trade agreement entered in, of course, would send terribly mixed diplomatic signals and would undermine the economic and political reforms now gaining momentum in Vietnam. The completion of the BTA was a significant accomplishment and December 10, 2001, may very well be the most important date in U.S.- Vietnam relations since the end of the Vietnam War. The agreement is the most comprehensive trade agreement ever signed by Vietnam and contains provisions on market access in goods, trade in services, intellectual property protection, and investment. Because the BTA is now in force, the Jackson-Vanik waiver provides U.S. firms with greater access to the Vietnamese market of over 80 million people, the 14th most populous country in the world. Over the first 4 months of 2002, two-way trade between the United States and Vietnam was up over 60 percent from the same period last year. The Jackson-Vanik waiver also enables U.S. exporters doing business in Vietnam to have access to U.S. trade financing programs, provided that Vietnam meet the relevant program criteria. I visited Vietnam last year and saw firsthand the enormous potential that Vietnam offers. Over half of the population is under the age of 25 and the literacy rate is over 90 percent. The Vietnamese people have a solid work ethic, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a strong commitment to education. Continued engagement between the United States and Vietnamese Governments and its peoples will help this potential flourish. On emigration, the central issue for the Jackson-Vanik waiver, more than 500,000 Vietnamese citizens have entered the United States under the Orderly Departure program. And as a result of steps taken by Vietnam to streamline its emigration process, only a small number of refugee applicants remain to be processed under both the Orderly Departure and the Resettlement for Vietnamese Returnees programs. Extending Vietnam's waiver will give reformers within the Vietnamese government much-needed support to continue within economic and political reforms. I ask my colleagues not to take away the best vehicle for the United States to continue to pressure the Vietnamese for progress on issues of importance to us. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 101. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In response to some of the arguments that have come up earlier, I would like to make just a couple of observations, one dealing with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It is charging user fees historically, and it is a U.S. Government agency that operates at no net cost to U.S. taxpayers. OPIC has earned a net profit in each year of operations, $125 million in fiscal year 2001, and its reserves currently stand at more than $4 billion. OPIC projects have also generated $64 billion in U.S. exports and created nearly 250,000 American jobs. OPIC projects are carefully screened for their U.S. employment effects. OPIC does not support any projects that might harm the U.S. economy or that would result in the loss of U.S. jobs. It is imperative that we continue Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. It is in the United States' interest to have an economically healthy Vietnam that is engaged with a global community of nations. Vietnam is currently negotiating its accession to the World Trade Organization; and I fully support that effort, provided it is based on commercially sound terms. The BTA and its implementation offer an important road map for Vietnam to follow to help achieve that goal. Although Vietnam has far to go in improving human rights for its people, withdrawing the Jackson-Vanik waiver would eliminate our ability to influence its policies. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

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

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 101.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, once again, I rise in strong opposition to Federal legislation that would mandate runway expansion and reconfiguration at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Like most people, I want the air traffic congestion problem at O'Hare solved as soon as possible, but the plan mandated by this bill will not accomplish that objective. It is projected to take 900,000 flights annually to 1.6 million flights annually. Moreover, it would be expensive. Very expensive. Its sponsors say the O'Hare runway plan will cost $6.6 billion to implement, but by the time the 500 to 600 property condemnations, the two graveyard relocations, road improvements, soundproofing work, and other items are finished, the price tag is likely to be double or triple that amount. Meanwhile, there are four good-sized airports currently in operation within less than a 100-mile radius of Chicago, Great Rockford Airport being one, that could handle additional flights, and a fifth could be built south of the city with less difficulty and for less money than it would take to add to and reconfigure the runways at O'Hare. Making greater use of these airports would be a quicker, simpler, and less expensive option than trying to expand O'Hare's runway capacity. Also, it would spare thousands of people living and/or working near O'Hare the consequences of higher noise and air pollution levels, declining property values, and, in some cases, the loss of their homes and their jobs. For their sakes, and for the sake of others who live or work in places that could suffer a similar fate in the future, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this counterproductive and potentially precedent-setting piece of legislation. We can and should do better.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike $595,000 in funding for the Joint Committee on Taxation, a committee on which I serve. A reduction in funding will place a terrible burden on Congress as it attempts to produce important and necessary changes to the Tax Code. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that the current revenue estimating process is flawed. Estimates do not take into account the total effect of revenue changes on the economy, including wages, prices, and consumer spending. We are locked into a model of estimating that only tips its hat to our dynamic economy. In response to my inquiry during a February hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Treasury Secretary stated, ``Since I have been at Treasury, we have been working hard on this, the subject of estimation and looking at ways that we can bring to the Congress and to the American people not just the static estimates of the past but, as you characterize it, dynamic estimates so that everyone will have an opportunity to see the difference and, as we go through time, we can see which estimates turn out to be more correct through this process.'' In another hearing, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in commenting on the revenue estimating process, made the following observation: ``We make the one assumption that we know is wrong. That is, that lower taxes have a zero effect, and honest people can differ about how big the effect of any given measure might be, but the answer we know is wrong is the one we use. And I am hopeful that some progress will be made.'' This is not a criticism of the committee or its staff. Instead, it is a criticism of the process that we as Members of Congress have allowed to develop over the years to ensure that we do not get the most comprehensive revenue estimates. Fundamental reform to the revenue-estimating process which I am developing must occur. A reduction in funding to the joint committee will only lead to more incomplete estimates.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to acknowledge the retirement of John Durant, Director of Commercial Rulings for the U.S. Customs Service. Mr. Durant retires after 33 years of federal service, with almost 31 years of that time with Customs. John Durant served in Customs field offices in Boston and Houston, before coming to Headquarters office in Washington DC. John is well known to all members of the international trade community and the trade bar as a preeminent expert on Customs matters and has been instrumental in the effort to modernize Customs' procedures for the benefit of trade and our economy. Thirty years has seen remarkable changes in how trade has taken on an ever more important role in our country's economic success. Just in the last decade, trade has grown 132 percent, and by 2004, Customs will be processing more than 30 million commercial entries a year. This is up from 12.3 million in 1994 more than double the level of 10 years earlier. John has had the unenviable but critical role in overseeing more than 12,000 commercial rulings that Customs issues each year on such arcane topics as tariff classification, country of origin and marking. He was also the liaison with the trade community for Customs during discussions leading up to the passage and implementation of the Customs Modernization Act of 1993. For the Congress, however, Mr. Durant will always be known as Customs point man, and sometimes lightening rod, on trade legislation. For the past 14 years, Mr. Durant has been invaluable to the Congress in providing timely and useful technical comments on draft legislation. Much of trade legislation is not exciting or entertaining. It requires people who are professional, dedicated, and very attentive to detail. Mr. Durant is the leader of such men and women at Customs and he does so with a sense of humor. He has been the ``man to see'' at Customs for answers on trade matters. His retirement will be sorely felt by Customs, Congress, and the trade community. I am very grateful for all of his help throughout the years. John is a delightful man to work with. We wish him the best in his retirement and his future endeavors. We hope Mr. Durant will return to the nation's Capital and lend his considerable talents to the private sector.