Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to all present and those who are not here on the floor right at this moment but who have been actively involved in this bipartisan effort. I cannot stress that enough. It has been such a real comfort when we have an opportunity for an overwhelming majority of us to come together on issues where we share common views and values and we are trying to advance an agenda that works to the interest of people less fortunate than ourselves. We are doing good work here. And I want to express particular appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking minority member on the committee. I have had the pleasure of working closely with the gentleman not just on this issue, but a number of issues; and we do have remarkable things in common. I have always viewed him as potentially salvageable. Mr. Speaker, I am kidding. I do so much appreciate him. And I want to just thank everybody else and urge them all to cast their votes in support of this strong bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. Con. Res. 71 is a noncontroversial resolution which would express the sense of the Congress that the USTR should use all available means to make Miami, Florida, the permanent site of the Secretariat for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA, after the year 2005. The resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent last November. The FTAA facilitates open cooperation and the reduction of trade barriers throughout the Americas. Right now the Secretariat is rotating among various cities until 2005. The permanent home is important because the host country gains international institution status and economic benefits. This legislation would send an important signal to the administration and to our trading partners in the Western Hemisphere that Congress wants the United States to continue its leadership role in trade negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield blocks of time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on S. Con. Res. 71.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 71) expressing the sense of the Congress that Miami, Florida, and not a competing foreign city, should serve as the permanent location for the Secretariat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) beginning in 2005.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to return this week to continue my work in the House. I am rejoining my family, friends, colleagues and supporters in good health and I feel better physically and mentally. I am ready to resume my duties, including my legislative responsibilities, and serving the needs of my constituents. I look forward to the hard work necessary to successfully continue my service in the U.S. House of Representatives and to my country and to the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois. This has been a deeply humbling experience for me as I continue on my road to recovery, but I want to thank everyone, including Speaker Hastert and my colleagues, for their understanding and the tremendous outpouring of support I have received on both sides of the aisle. God bless you all.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I speak out today in strong opposition to the conference report on the Aviation Investment and Reform Act, better known as AIR21. While there is much to be said for certain portions of that measure, the negative aspects of it are far more pervasive. For many people living in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, those aspects are nothing short of disastrous. To be sure, this AIR21 conference report will make more money available to our nation's airports, not just for construction work but for service enhancements and security improvements as well. In addition, it will allow more people to fly to and from the busiest of those airports. For some people, those two features may be good news. But, for many others, they are anything but. Not only will the 50% increase in the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) have a negative affect on the airlines and those who patronize them, but the phaseout of the High Density Rule at O'Hare, LaGuardia and JFK Airports and the easing of that Rule at Reagan National Airport in Washington D.C. will be a living nightmare for thousands of people living near those facilities. In addition to being awakened at all hours of the day or night, but they will have a hard time getting much sleep in the first place. Hardest hit will be those people who live near Chicago's O'Hare Airport. For them, the High Density Rule, or slot rule as it is often called, will be phased out by July 1, 2002, not January 1, 2007 as is the case for La Guardia and JFK Airports in New York. Or to put it another way, in just over two years, there will no longer be any set limit on the number of flights that can arrive at, or depart from, O'Hare even though efforts to reduce existing noise levels there have met with little success. When that happens, not only is the total number of flights to and from O'Hare likely to increase dramatically-- but so too will airport noise levels and the risk of planes colliding either on the runway or in nearby airspace. That two airliners nearly flew into one another over Lake Michigan not long ago should alert us to the fact that additions to O'Hare's very busy flight schedule could have safety as well as noise implications. That said, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please know that I fully understand and appreciate why you may want to make it easier for your constituents to visit Chicago, either to vacation or to conduct business. With all that the city has to offer--the Magnificent Mile, Navy Pier, the Museum of Science and Industry, Grant Park, the Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium and many other attractions too numerous to mention--it is no wonder that people from all over the country want more flights, and better flights schedules, to the City of Broad Shoulders. Make no mistake about it, Chicago is a wonderful place to visit and those of us fortunate enough to live in or near the city want to make it as easy as possible for anyone to do so. However, that can be readily accomplished without making it almost impossible for those living near O'Hare to get a good night's sleep, to carry on a quiet conversation, to have a peaceful cookout in their own back yard, or to relax in the knowledge that aircraft safety is not being put to an additional test. As things now stand, there are no less than four other regional airports within 100 miles of Chicago. One of these--the Greater Rockford Airport--already has a 10,000 foot runway, the second longest in Illinois, plus an 8,200 foot runway and a 65,000 square foot passenger terminal that is currently underutilized. Another--Midway Airport on the west side of Chicago--is in the midst of a terminal expansion program that will enable it to serve even more air passengers than it does already. Since the passenger terminal at Greater Rockford could be expanded also, there is no compelling reason why any additional flights to Chicago could not be diverted to those two airports without inconveniencing air passengers to any great extent. Both lie within 60 miles of O'Hare, for those passengers wishing to catch a connecting flight and neither all that far, or out of reach, from downtown Chicago. Given the existence of such an attractive and relatively-easy-to implement alternative to the adverse consequences of increasing flights to and from O'Hare, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report. Not only would its defeat today enable us to make changes that would accommodate the demands for additional air service to Chicago by directing any extra flights to either Midway Airport or Greater Rockford Airport, but it would give us an opportunity to make several other improvements as well. For instance, we could--and should--eliminate the 50% increase in the PFC that is making the airlines, their passengers and residents around O'Hare Airport understandably nervous. Also, we could--and should--take a look and see whether air traffic safety and aircraft noise abatement programs are being sufficiently funded and, if not, whether funds should be transferred from other projects so that people living near major airports can have some peace and quiet as well as peace of mind. They deserve every bit as much consideration as those who wish to see additional air service become a reality. With that, Mr. Speaker, let me close by once again urging my colleagues to vote down this conference report. We can, and should, make it responsive not just to the needs of air travelers but to the very legitimate concerns of those living near our Nation's airports as well.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we stand on this floor, representatives of a country that is basking in a time of great economic prosperity. The United States is at full employment and business is expanding with new jobs being created at a rate rarely experienced in anyone's lifetime. Today we have an opportunity to return money to Americans who work hard and, based on that work, pay too much in taxes. While I wish it could be more, it is time to give a little back. I am particularly pleased with the death tax relief provisions and delighted that we continue our efforts to eradicate it. Whether it is the family farm or a more traditional business, the death tax is an assault upon the moral values of every family in this country that has had the wherewithal to create a business from nothing, persevere through the bad times and hope to leave it to their children. Unfortunately, it is all too often that a family is forced to sell its business because the Federal Government has decreed that it is entitled to a disproportionate share of a family's business once the owner has died. In effect, Uncle Sam put a bounty on family-owned businesses. The old saying is that death and taxes are sure things, and years ago the Federal Government made certain that through the death tax the two are inextricably intertwined. This bill gives us an opportunity to loosen just a little the stranglehold the Tax Code has on these families and their livelihoods. I also want to convey my support for accelerating the 100 percent health insurance deduction for the self-employed. Being able to purchase health care insurance means that more children and men and women will have access to the best health care system in the world. I was pleased we were able to include a reinstatement of the installment method of accounting for accrual basis taxpayers, which has been so detrimental to hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country, many of them in my home State of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I will continue my fight to drastically reform our tax system and reduce the tax burden our American families struggle with every day. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3081, the Small Business Tax Fairness Act of 2000.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pledge my avowed support for H.R. 5--to eliminate the Social Security Earnings Test for seniors who are 65 to 70 years old and continue to work. It is time that we strike down this ridiculous and costly ``earnings test.'' Indeed, there are many Americans who are 65 to 70 years of age who continue to work--and who are entitled to that all-American right to maintain a solid and secure living. Why should the federal government ``penalize'' those well- intentioned individuals by applying an ``earnings test'' and reducing or delaying their Social Security benefits? Today, with unemployment at an all-time low, it no longer makes sense to subject seniors to an ``earnings test.'' When used, the ``earnings test'' has not only reduced Social Security benefits of retirees who continue working but affected the wives and children of beneficiaries as well. Because of the Great Depression, Congress originally created the ``earnings test'' in 1935 to encourage older Americans to leave the labor force. But things have changed. Older Americans are now making greater and more significant contributions to the workforce than ever before. My district alone has some 42,000 seniors--many whom still make valid contributions to today's workforce. Mr. Speaker, repealing the ``earnings test'' for seniors aged 65 to 70 is the first step towards reforming the Social Security system. By eliminating this age-discriminatory ``earnings test'' we will increase benefit outlays to those seniors to just over $22-and-a-half billion dollars over the next 10 years. In fact, administration of the ``earnings test'' tacks an added cost of as much as $100 to $150 million on to the taxpayers' bill. Repeal of the test could eliminate that cost. Mr. Speaker, we must effectively help seniors, reduce costs, and reform the system--that is why I give my full support to H.R. 5. and urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding to me this time. I want to say to my colleagues that all of us understand the meaning of the phrase ``an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.'' Because of the many, many decades of hard work in all kinds of jobs, our older Americans appreciate that adage more than most. They know what it means to expend a lifetime of dealing with the uncertainties of living paycheck to paycheck. They got up early every morning, went to the assembly line, the office, the shop, and came home at night to enjoy some time with family and friends. When they were rearing their families, they simply hoped to make life a little better for their children; and when they reached retirement age, they hoped to collect the money they contributed to Social Security and a pension. But if they continue to work after 65, they are forced to watch the Federal Government continue to try to squeeze every cent it can from their paycheck; and to add insult to injury, even their Social Security is affected until they turn 70. So I proudly stand before my colleagues today because, after decades of trying to eliminate the Social Security earnings limit, it is finally happening on the floor of the House today. This means that the over 42,000 seniors living in my district, many of whom continue working beyond the average retirement age, will be getting a little bit of a break. On behalf of my 8th District constituents, I want to thank and commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), for his persistence in getting H.R. 5 to the floor for a vote. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), our chairman, who was pioneering in this effort years ago. And I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for all of his efforts. And I commend all of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, for joining as cosponsors of a bill that my colleagues, I know, will want to unanimously support and eliminate this obscene tax.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. I think we all, on a bipartisan basis, we all have an opportunity here to provide much-needed relief to continue to foster the growth of an institution that is in our national interest and our community interest. Our families are dependent upon it, and we do not want to continue to punish people for doing the right thing. As you know, that hit is primarily on people in the $20,000 to $75,000 income bracket. That used to be awesome dollars. It is not awesome dollars any more, and people are struggling and struggling very hard. So I would urge all of my colleagues, let us get back together again. Even President Clinton recognized belatedly that there was marriage penalty tax relief in that big bill that we passed before that he vetoed. So even he came back with a modest move in the right direction. We will help him continue down that path too. I urge all of my colleagues to get behind the bill. Vote for H.R. 6.

Mr. CRANE. I wanted to make sure that these are not just Republicans taking the hit in the gentleman's district.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. The Republican-sponsored Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act provides $182 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years. Since hundreds of billions of dollars is hard to comprehend, let me explain how that translates to our constituents. In my Congressional district, over 140,000 taxpayers are penalized by the tax code simply because they are married. In Illinois, 1.1 million couples, or 2.2 million taxpayers are hit with a marriage penalty. Nationwide, there are some 50 million individuals paying a marriage penalty. On average, these couples each earn between $20,000 and $30,000--hardly a princely sum. The bill before us today will provide roughly $1,400 in tax relief to every family faced with a marriage penalty. I have long argued that the tax code is immoral because it penalizes those values we pass along to our children. We encourage our children to get married and start a family and to save their money for the proverbial rainy day. Unfortunately, once they marry, they're immediately punished by the tax code that charges them more than when they were single. And don't get me started on capital gains taxes and estate taxes punishing savings and investments for the future. While most of us in Washington have publicly supported marriage tax penalty relief, I am amazed that our Democrat colleagues are opposing our bill and that the President has threatened to veto the measure. I hear that my friend Mr. Rangel, a Member of our Ways and Means Committee, calls our plan a gimmick. He is opposing our bill because it is being ``rushed'' through Congress before we have a budget. We rush emergency spending measures through this body on a regular basis. I ask my colleagues--why is it wrong to rush this much needed tax refund to hard-working Americans? Especially since President Clinton vetoed our tax bill last year which would have provided relief from the marriage tax penalty. I understand that our Democrat friends have their own version of what they call marriage tax penalty relief. Unfortunately, their plan provides only a fraction of the relief of H.R. 6, while making the tax code much more complicated in the process. Perhaps all that was rushed was the drafting of their bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat amendment and to support H.R. 6 so that we can quickly provide this much needed tax relief to Americans.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding me time on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I will be celebrating my 41st wedding anniversary on Valentine's Day, and am looking forward to that occasion, and my wife is too, and our seven remaining children are going to be there to celebrate it with us. It is something that, when I reflect on the importance of getting some kind of relief in our obscene Tax Code, is an issue that I struggled with, my wife struggled with, all of our kids struggled with, and I know you folks over here struggled with the same thing. It is something we are trying to address. Mr. Speaker, in my district in the State of Illinois we have the highest number of married couples that are being burdened with this marriage penalty tax in the entire State of Illinois. It is over 70,000 couples. That is over 140,000 individuals in my Congressional District. I do recognize that our distinguished minority leader has only 30,000 couples in his district that are burdened this way, and I asked him if they had done polling up there, because I questioned whether they are registered Republicans and not understanding they are taking this hit, or are they Republicans and Democrats, because maybe we should all become Democrats.

Mr. CRANE. I was pointing out the gentleman has only 30,000 couples in his district that are adversely negatively affected by this marriage penalty. There are 70,000 in mine.

Mr. CRANE. My only point is has the gentleman checked their registration, their voter registration?

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it was nearly 47 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 economically and physically harmful importations. I am proud of the contributions of the U.S. Customs Service to the Nation over the past 210 years. U.S. Customs responsibilities have increased with the growth of our great Nation--trade has increased exponentially and the threat of illegal importations, including illegal drugs is ever present. These are significant challenges that Customs faces on a daily basis, and Customs must continue its vigilance in facilitating trade while interdicting narcotics at our borders and preventing exportation of critical technology. I am pleased to say that Customs meets these challenges well, and I stand ready to continue my longstanding support of Customs in these efforts. The U.S. Customs Service represents the United States at the World Customs Organization [WCO], a 150-member international organization founded to facilitate international trade and promote cooperation among governments on Customs matters. The WCO works to simplify and standardize legal instruments and rules of international customs. The WCO also 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. The United States became a member on November 5, 1970. All 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 World Customs Organization on its past accomplishments and wish it well in its ambitious new millennium goal of further harmonizing and simplifying the customs rules that affect international commerce. I also congratulate the U.S. Customs Service for its fine work both nationally and internationally.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax relief provisions which have been attached to H.R. 1180. This tax relief package renews several temporary tax relief provisions and addresses other time sensitive tax items. For example, we give at least one million American families relief from an increase in their alternative minimum tax that would occur when they take advantage of the child tax credit, the dependent care tax credit, or other tax credits. In addition, we renew and extend the exclusion from income for employer-provided educational assistance. For businesses, we are extending the very valuable research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit for five years while we extend the creditor to Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories for the first time. The R&E credit will allow U.S. companies to continue to lead the world in innovative, cutting-edge technology. In an effort to help get Americans off government assistance and into the workplace, we are extending the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit through the end of 2001. One item that I was particularly grateful to have included in this package is an increase in the rum excise tax cover-over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from the current $10.50 per proof gallon to $13.25 per proof gallon. I was, however, disappointed that the provision did not include language to specifically state that a portion of Puerto Rico's increase is designated for the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico. Instead, I understand that an agreement has been reached with the Governor of Puerto Rico to provide one-sixth of the increase to the Trust Fund during the time of the increase of the cover-over (July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001). I appreciate the support of the Governor in this endeavor. The Conservation Trust Fund, which enjoys tremendous support from the people of Puerto Rico, plays an important role in the preservation of the natural resources of the island for the benefit of her future generations. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of our Chairman, Bill Archer, in putting together this tax relief package and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, we lost one of football's all-time greatest players and a great American--Walter Payton, who lived in my district and touched the lives of so many on and off the field. After announcing earlier this year, he was battling a liver disease, which later turned into cancer, Walter fought the good fight and kept the faith until the end. Between 1975 and 1987 there were three givens in Chicago: The wind was blowing off the Lake, the Cubs were not in the World Series, and Walter Payton No. 34, also known as ``Sweetness'' for his silky smooth moves, was in the backfield for the Bears. Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1993, Walter Payton carried the ball more often (3,838 attempts), for more yards (16,726), than anyone who has ever played the game. There is no question, Walter Payton was the best at taking the ball and running with it. Against Minnesota in 1977, he carried 40 times for 275 yards, a National Football League (NFL) single game record. It's not that Walter Payton is the all-time leading rusher and holds 28 NFL and Bears records and could throw the most punishing block on the biggest defensive linebackers that made him a great person. Walter Payton was a great man because of his commitment to his family and faith. Being a family man and active in his community, he was regularly seen at St. Viator High School sporting events supporting his son. In addition, Payton volunteered to help coach the boys' basketball teams at Hoffman Estates High School in 1993-1994. Walter Payton's quiet attitude of giving earned him a spot in the Arlington Heights Hall of Fame in 1988 and 4 years earlier a one-block stretch of downtown Arlington Heights was named Payton Run. Walter Payton owned businesses in my district, two nightclubs in Schaumburg-- Studebaker's and Thirty Four's--ran Walter Payton Power Equipment in Streamwood and headquartered his corporate offices in Hoffman Estates. He was also active in several charities and helped whenever and wherever he could in the community. Even though he denied it, he was an all around role model to which every pro-athlete or average ``Joe'' should aspire. Quite simply, Walter Payton was a great citizen, on and off the field, who will be forever remembered as a champion. His former coach Mike Ditka once remarked to his players in training camp, ``If everyone came to camp in as good of shape as Walter we'd have a good team''. He had a superior training ritual. In his 13-year career, he played in pain and missed only one game. Ditka when he came to coach the Bears said ``Walter Payton is my idol.'' Have you ever heard a coach say that about a player? I think a quote that sums up Walter Payton's life was from Coach Ditka when he said, ``It's sad to me (Walter's death) because he had a lot greater impact on me than I had on him. He was the best player I've ever seen. And probably one of the best people I've ever met''. Having lost a daughter to cancer 2 years ago myself, I understand the pain the Payton family is feeling in their loss. I can only assure them that in time, the family will be reunited and what a joyous occasion it will be for the Payton family. Walter never gave up hope in his fight. It is for that spirit that people everywhere will remember him forever.

Mr. CRANE

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

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to conclude with one final observation, and that is, in response to the concerns expressed by our ranking minority member on the full Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), about the failure to have held hearings on this issue. We have been under tight constraints, but let me just remind everyone that this is not mandating anything. It is simply urging the U.S. to seek a global consensus on this issue. I am sorry that we did not have the hearings that the gentleman said he would have liked to have seen; but hopefully, as we go down the line, we will have increased opportunities for that. But right now I would urge all my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)