Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act of 2002. If enacted into law, this measure would not accomplish the goal that most Americans have in mind, namely, a reduction in air traffic congestion as quickly and cheaply as it can be accomplished. To the contrary, it would mean years of waiting for relief, expenditures far in excess of those associated with other more effective alternatives, and the establishment of a troublesome precedent that could come back to haunt other airports around the Nation in the future. This legislation mandates the addition of one runway at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and the reconfiguration of O'Hare's existing runways, State law, local objections, noise problems, pollution threats, cost considerations, condemnation proceedings, safety concerns, ongoing litigation, and the fate of two cemeteries notwithstanding. Worse yet, the measure, the total cost of which is likely to far exceed the $6.6 billion price tag, in fact, it has been estimated to be more in the neighborhood of 12 billion to $15 billion that has been associated with it, conveniently overlooks the fact that there are at least three other ways, such as making greater use of the greater Rockford Airport, which has a runway of over 10,000 feet, the second largest runway in the State, and it can relieve O'Hare's air traffic congestion problems almost immediately. Not only that, but all of these alternatives can be implemented less expensively and/or more quickly than the ill-conceived plan to expand O'Hare. Furthermore, this legislation poses a threat to people who live near many other airports in this country because it will set a precedent for Federal government preemption of State and/or local laws governing airport planning and development. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3479. It is a prescription for mischief that bodes ill, not just for the residents of Chicago's northwest suburbs, but for millions of other Americans as well.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Resolution, which recognizes that the outrageous decision rendered by a three-judge panel in San Francisco yesterday has no basis in law. I am referring, of course, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision yesterday to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, I have read the Court's opinion, which argues that the inclusion of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the religious clauses of the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, we are told it violates the Establishment Clause, which reads as follows: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Putting the pieces together, this means that the Ninth Circuit has determined that phrases such as ``under God,'' or ``In God We Trust'' tend to establish a religion, or to suppress anyone's exercise of religion.'' This conclusion is absurd on its face. The phrase ``under God'' when read in the Pledge of Allegiance, acknowledges that our rights are derived from our Creator. That is principle upon which our country was founded. How this qualifies as an attempt to suppress anyone's exercise of religion, or how it tends to establish a religion, I'll never know. And while I will not force anybody to believe what I believe, neither will I sit still while the ability of my fellow citizens to practice religion is trampled upon by a court that failed U.S. history 101. I am saddened by this ruling, but what is most unfortunate is that I am not surprised by it. I saw this coming from a mile away, Mr. Speaker. It is the logical conclusion to a judicial philosophy promulgated over the past 30 years by the politically correct. Mr. Speaker, I pray this travesty of justice will wake the Daschle- led Senate up so that they might fulfill their Constitutional obligation and confirm President Bush's nominees.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. When it comes to Medicare, Congress must consistently balance accessibility of services from qualified providers, cost and financial stability of the Medicare program. This legislation does just that. H.R. 4954 provides a long-overdue prescription drug benefit that is voluntary and available to all Medicare beneficiaries in a fiscally responsible way. Our House-passed budget provides for $350 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit and modernizations to the program. According to CBO estimates our proposed drug benefit is estimated to cost $310 billion over 10 years and also achieves a 30 percent savings on drug costs. It is projected that in 2004 the median out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries will be $1,453. Under our proposal, $827 of that, more than 50 percent, of the beneficiary's drug expenditures will be covered. The Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act also provides a number of reasonable and necessary adjustments to provider payments. Most importantly, this legislation includes $21.3 billion for physicians to reverse the negative and irrational payment updates they received this year and are expected to receive next year. The physician payment provision helps us to ensure that physicians will continue to participate in the Medicare program and provide quality health service to beneficiaries. If we do not ensure that providers are adequately reimbursed, all the new benefits that we have passed and will pass for Medicare beneficiaries will be for naught because providers will close their doors to beneficiaries. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that this legislation is an empty promise to seniors. I cannot disagree more. This package provides a prescription drug benefit that covers more than 95 percent of Medicare beneficiaries and helps to improve access to quality health care services. Let us give our seniors access to quality health services that they deserve. Let us pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit that is voluntary and available to all Medicare beneficiaries. Let us make sure that our seniors have a choice in Medicare. Let us not play politics with America's seniors. I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule which provides a motion to go to conference on the omnibus trade package approved by the Senate on May 23. Today's vote is a procedural vote that puts the House in the best position to negotiate the most solid conference agreement. I am gratified that the Senate has finally acted on H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. I agree with the President that this bill is central to U.S. national security and our efforts to combat drug trafficking both here in the United States and in the Andean region. We need this critical legislation to expand U.S. trade and to help Andean entrepreneurs find practical and profitable alternatives to cultivating crops for the production of illicit drugs. Trade promotion authority is about arming President Bush and his team with the authority to achieve trade agreements written in the best interest of U.S. farmers, companies and workers. It assures that the President will negotiate according to clearly defined goals and objectives written by Congress. The House TPA bill strikes a two-way partnership between the President and Congress on our common objective for international trade negotiations in which the U.S. participates. Its passage will ensure that the world knows that Americans speak with one voice on issues vital to our economic security. I am also supportive of conferencing with the Senate on the extension of the generalized system of preferences, which expired 9 months ago. Trade adjustment assistance plays an important role in helping workers and the economy adjust themselves to the new economic environment fostered by trade, and I support a bipartisan package that helps American workers adjust and builds a better, stronger economy. Reauthorization of Customs and the other trade agencies will provide resources in the war against terrorism, drugs and international child pornography. We also facilitate trade by directing funds towards Customs' new computer system; and we help Customs protect our borders by giving them better, more sophisticated inspection equipment and legal tools to collect critical data. This conference provides us an opportunity to send an important signal that the United States is committed to our trading partners around the world, to U.S. workers here at home, and to the global trading system in general. I encourage Members to vote yes on the motion to go to conference.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Social Security Program Protection Act of 2002. This legislation gives the Social Security Administration the enhanced tools it needs to help fight fraud and abuse activities that drain program resources and undermine the financial security of beneficiaries. This legislation also helps individuals with disabilities gain access to representation to help them navigate through complex application process to receive benefit. Preliminary CBO estimates show this legislation saves the budget $534 million over 10 years. The program protections and improvements in this bill are bipartisan and have the support of the Federal Bar Association, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives. I am saddened that the minority has spent today in the same manner they usually choose to spend very other October: scaring our senior citizens. It is easy for the minority to sit back and cry foul, but I would ask all of my colleagues the following questions: has the minority done anything but misrepresent our plans to save Social Security? Have they come to the table with any serious ideas themselves on how to save the program? The answer to this question, regrettably, is ``no.''

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4823. I am glad that we are moving forward to make permanent the provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The Holocaust was one of the worst atrocities committed by man against man. This simple provision will exclude compensatory payments made to victims and their heirs from taxation. Given the fact that an entire generation was nearly wiped out and that those who survived will never fully recover from the emotional horrors of the Holocaust, this is a small way of compensating the victims. The current tax provisions are due to, ``sunset,'' or expire on December 31, 2010. This instability makes it difficult for Holocaust victims and their families to plan their financial futures. I find it deplorable to think that the Federal Government would seek to profit from restitution payments that are meant to compensate Holocaust victims and their families. These people have suffered enough. They must not be subjected to legislation that would rob them of over one-third of their rightful compensation. Mr. Speaker, my brother-in-law and best friend, Andy Ross, survived the Holocaust. He was imprisoned in Belsen concentration camp until being freed by the Allied Forces. I'm not certain if he's eligible for compensation under the agreements worked out in Europe, and quite frankly, that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that while there is absolutely nothing we can do to ever erase the horrors of the Holocaust that are imbedded in the minds and hearts of those, like Andy, who survived this tragedy, we can avoid making it worse by taxing their compensation. The thought of us promoting such a scheme as taxing these payments makes me absolutely ill. Today, we are making a decision that might very well be the model for other nations. Therefore, I urge you, to be a role model and vote in favor of H.R. 4823

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, time and time again I have heard my colleagues on the minority side assure us of their patriotism. Let me begin by saying that neither I, nor any of my colleagues on the majority side, have called anyone's patriotism into question. Are Democrats really opposed to raising the debt limit? I submit the answer to that is ``of course not.'' In fact, it was raised a number of times during the 40 years of Democrat leadership in this House. I am quite sure that all, or nearly all of the Members in this body realize we have to raise the debt limit and we have to raise it now. And yet we're told that to do so would be fiscally irresponsible. Now, during a time in which we face the after effects of an economic slowdown; during a time in which we must spend many billions of dollars fighting a war in Afghanistan, securing our homeland, and rebuilding Manhattan; and during a time in which it is clear to everybody that the debt limit must be raised, our friends cry foul. Fiscally irresponsible, they say. Never mind that the Republican-controlled Congress spent down the public debt by some $450 billion between Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year 2001. Never mind that the need to raise the debt limit is mostly attributable to growth, as designed and desired, in debt held by government accounts. Never mind that over the 40 years of Democrat majority we had to raise the debt limit multiple times because the government needed to finance deficits due to out-of-control spending. And never mind that the crisis resulting from the events of 11 September has undoubtedly pushed us right up against the $5.95 trillion debt ceiling allowed under current law. Never mind any of that. We're fiscally irresponsible. We do seek to increase the debt limit. We do so against a backdrop whereby we have one, a history of fiscal discipline where the minority does not, and two a responsible war-time budget resolution where the minority does not; and three, a plan to save social security where the minority has none. I bring up social security for a reason, Mr. Chairman. I am saddened that the minority has spent today in the same manner as they usually choose to spend every other October: scaring our senior citizens. They imply that a vote for this legislation, which devotes nearly $16 billion to the Department of Defense, $5.8 billion to homeland security, and $5.5 billion to assist New York, somehow puts the solvency of the social security trust fund in jeopardy. That is, of course, preposterous. It is easy for the minority to sit back and cry foul, but I would ask all of my colleagues the following questions: has the minority done anything but attempt to obstruct? Have they come to the table over the last months with any serious budget ideas? The answer to these questions, regrettably, is ``no.'' That, Mr. Chairman, is unfortunate, because I have worked so often in the past with my Democrat colleagues, who usually have so much to offer in the way of constructive ideas. If my Democrat colleagues are going to obstruct proceedings because they say raising the debt limit is fiscally irresponsible, well, I will let that excuse speak for itself. The American people know better than that. They know that during this time in our nation's history, a little flexibility is needed. And they know that we will continue passing responsible budgets. In the future, I truly hope we will do so with the support of my Democrat friends.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act of 2001, is the authorization for the U.S. Customs Service, International Trade Commission and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative through 2004. We have included a number of critical tools for fighting terrorism, drugs and child pornography. The legislation will help customs close a gap in our border that lets illegal money be taken out of the country. This legislation will also significantly increase customs' ability to stop the flow of illegal drugs over our borders and into our children's hands. When this bill came to the floor last year, it was caught up in the general debate on trade and the subject of a lot of misinformation. I want to clear the record for Members' benefit. The administration was intimately involved in drafting this bill and requested several measures that are here. There is a provision to require advanced electronic manifesting on passengers and cargo so that the Customs Service can have advanced notice of who is in planes and what is on ships about to land on American soil. This provision has attracted the most attention recently, as many agencies of the government, especially law enforcement and intelligence, currently obtain information through customs. It is clear that customs will be requiring more information in the future for antiterrorist efforts. It is equally clear that customs is the logical place to house the current and future data collection system that must interface with importers and carriers of all kinds. Through better and quicker information, the Federal Government can prevent crimes and keep our economy alive with the critical flow of trade. Similarly, we seek to give our customs inspectors some protection, considering that now more than ever they will be scrutinizing and watching people who come into the country, knowing full well that the next terrorist may be stepping off the plane. For those who act in good faith, inspectors should not have to be afraid of frivolous lawsuits, so we are proposing that they have immunity against such lawsuits unless they wrongly use race, ethnicity, religion, or gender to profile passengers. At the committee markup, administration officials testified that they had drafted this provision and support it. The union representatives of the customs inspectors have specifically written in support of this provision. They make a strong case, and Congress should pass this provision. The administration also requested that customs be able to search outgoing mail because the U.S. mail is often used to transmit laundered money out of the country. I want to assure members of the committee that we looked carefully at the privacy issues involved here and believe we adequately addressed them in this legislation. Our bill preserves our cherished fourth amendment rights against unwarranted search by requiring that no letter may be read by customs officers unless a valid warrant is obtained, just like current law with respect to inbound mail. Remember, money from illegal activities is what leads us to terrorists and drug smugglers. We have increased funding to reestablish the New York Customs offices and an additional increase in funding to upgrade our textile transshipment monitoring and enforcement operations. We add $10 million for the Customs Cyber-smuggling Center. This legislation also contains authorization for funding for customs' new automation, the Automated Commercial Environment. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues who are serious about stopping terrorism, drugs, and online child pornography, while keeping our trade flowing, to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. CRANE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Crane

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The substitute increases authorization funding levels at section 101, including earmark for resources at northern border at section 131, new section 121. It extends authorization through 2004. It deletes sections 121 through 125 concerning customs officer pay changes, and renumbers. It adds new section 127 to change customs' fees for couriers to a fixed fee structure. It clarifies in section 143 that advanced electronic manifest requirements applies only to inbound cargo, as provisions to require sharing of information collected by customs to other government agencies. It clarifies in section 143 that advanced information for passengers and crew is not intended to create new immigration requirements. Specifically, the Secretary can demand passport and visa information only if such a requirement to have a passport or visa already applies to the passenger or crew. Mr. Chairman, these provisions are designed to make the bill stronger. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Thomas substitute. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge our colleagues on a good, strong, bipartisan basis to support this substitute. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), our distinguished colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is absolutely not retroactive.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)