Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of my colleagues, but I want to start with my distinguished neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). The gentleman was a dynamic freshman 12 years ago. I remember when he arrived here and we were impressed with his performance then, but it has escalated through the years. He plays a very important leadership role. But to host this event and to listen to these tributes paid by my dear and close friends through the years here in the House is truly moving. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Indiana erred; we just had our seventh grandchild yesterday, so we are up to seven. My wife, Arlene, and I had eight to begin with, and that to me was a good start, but I am pleased that she is here tonight, especially to have the opportunity to hear these tributes paid by colleagues that have been very moving to me. I cannot express my appreciation enough. One of the things that I reflect on most about my years of service in this body is the personal relationships, and it is that feeling of trust and confidence and the commitment of colleagues to basic principles that I have felt are critically important in the service that we perform here. I have done things consistently along a path that I believe in. I have embraced politically all the years I have served, and I know that sometimes constituents do not always believe with those things, but at least I have been predictable. Being predictable along certain lines that I embrace based on our history, and I say that as a former history professor, I think are fundamental values that all of us should be embracing, and that is a commitment to limited constitutional government. It is a commitment to free enterprise and the growth of our economy. It is a commitment to a strong national defense. It is a commitment to advancing free trade. One of the things that I pointed out when I was teaching is, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) focused on, is the importance of free trade. To me, it has done more to advance civilized values than anything else in the span of recorded history. And I think that personal contact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) focused on, especially with China, that personal contact with people, and they get the opportunity to see that there is a better way to live and that a better way to live is advancing those free institutions, that we have been in the vanguard of advancing and promoting here in the United States in the span of recorded history and we will continue to do. I want to focus on one other point that one of our Founding Fathers noted, and that is that the history of liberty is the history of limitation of governmental power, never the increase of it. When we resist concentration of governmental power, we are resisting the powers of death, for the destruction of human liberty has ever been preceded by concentration of governmental power. All of us have a responsibility in this Chamber and in the other Chamber as well to make sure that we seek to guarantee that we are living within our means, that government is limited in its intrusion into our lives, and simultaneously we are providing the greatest opportunities imaginable for individuals to realize the fulfillment of their talents and ambitions. I commend my colleagues on our side of the aisle, but I commend some on the other side of the aisle, too, who have joined in this effort. I salute them, and I am going to miss all of you. The personal relationships that I have developed have been very moving to me. Saying good-bye is something that I am not going to do because I do not plan to say good-bye to you folks. I hope that we can continue to stay in touch. I have no idea what I will do with the remainder of my life, but my birthday was the day after the election, and I told my wife at the time that my defeat may have been God's birthday present. It may have been an opportunity to get back and relax and reflect and decide what I would like to do yet in the remaining time I have and simultaneously try and continue to make positive contributions. I have talents that are in this Chamber, and we heard a lot of those talents tonight, that can continue to carry on that cause here on the House floor. I will try to help in any way that I can in the time I have remaining. I will only conclude by saying that I have cherished this opportunity, and I cannot tell my colleagues enough how much I have enjoyed our personal relationships through the years in working on objectives that I have cherished. I will continue to try and maintain personal contact with you. I just want to say God bless you all and God bless this institution and the United States of America. It is in good hands. Bless you all.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004. This important, bipartisan legislation is long overdue, and I am pleased we have the opportunity to consider the conference report this evening. H.R. 1047 is a compendium of trade provisions drawn largely from legislation introduced by individual Members. The bill contains provisions involving the temporary suspension of duties on narrowly defined products, miscellaneous trade items, and technical corrections to the Trade and Development Act of 2000. There are a number of provisions in this bill that are noteworthy, including several that I have long championed. For instance, I am pleased that the legislation follows in the tradition of both the 2000 and 2002 Trade Acts, by including a reduction of the tariff for certain types of wool used in the production of men's suits. This reduction in tariffs is important not only as a matter of trade policy, but also to suitmakers across the country, who not too long ago saw their industry decimated by high tariffs. Reducing these tariffs has stabilized the domestic industry, and nowhere is this more apparent than at Hart Marx, the only publicly- traded company manufacturing suits in America today. I had the opportunity to tour the wonderful Hart Marx facility in Des Plaines, IL, this past August, and saw firsthand how important that tariff reduction is for the nearly 600 employees at Hart Marx, many of whom are my constituents. I am therefore most pleased that this legislation will further reduce the tariff on worsted wool. History shows us that this will not only save jobs, but even add to jobs, in Illinois and throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in a tribute to my good friend, Bill Lipinski, who has made countless contributions to the State of Illinois and to the country during his years serving in the House. George Washington is quoted as saying, ``How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant of the weak and the strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these.'' I believe Bill Lipinski modeled his Congressional career around this quote. Bill's efforts in transforming our country's transportation infrastructure, especially that in the State of Illinois, has made every American's life a little easier by more efficient travel. Throughout the years, Bill and I have worked together on several transportation projects, from Metra expansion to road projects. In working with him on each of these projects, he showed great leadership, but most of all he showed great friendship. It is for this that I admire Bill the most. He could look past the harsh realities of partisan politics and work with me to help residents within my district. I will be eternally grateful not only for Bill's support of the projects he and I worked on but also for his friendship. Another thing I will always remember Bill for is his independence. While Bill is a loyal Democrat--one that I haven't yet been able to convert--he was never afraid to break from the ranks to cast his vote as he saw fit. I will always miss his camaraderie, and his love for this cathedral of democracy. Bill, in the years to come, I hope I will still get to see you on the flights to and from Chicago and I wish you all the best in your retirement.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2672.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of the American Jobs Creation Act. This important legislation will end EU sanctions against our exporters, which is harming U.S. workers while delivering much- needed tax relief to America's job creators. In April 2003, with U.S. exporters facing EU sanctions, I introduced bipartisan legislation that repealed WTO illegal provisions in our Tax Code, while simultaneously lowering the corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturing from 35 percent to 32 percent. My goal was simple: to make sure that U.S. manufacturers can compete on a level playing field with our foreign competitors. H.R. 4520 includes my legislation, which means that every U.S. manufacturer will see their taxes reduced by 3 points. That means more jobs here at home, and at great Illinois companies like Boeing, Caterpillar, Abbott Labs, Motorola, Baxter, and Brunswick. In addition, this legislation contains a number of provisions I have long worked on passing that are very important to my home State of Illinois. For instance, hundreds of small businesses in my district will be able to take advantage of provisions I have authored to allow them to deduct up to $100 for the cost of new equipment every year. The life insurance industry, including Allstate, which employs some 3,500 of my constituents, will benefit from the repeal of policyholder surplus accounts; and Lake County Partners, which helps businesses transform opportunities into success, will benefit from a provision I have championed allowing States to expand their small issue bond programs. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for working with me to include these very important provisions in the legislation that he has presented before us today. Mr. Speaker, we certainly have traveled a long road in bringing this legislation to the floor, and I am glad to be here today in support of a great bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the American Jobs Creation Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 821, a resolution condemning the abduction of Dylan Benwell from the United States and calling for his return. Dylan Benwell was born in Ireland to Irish parents. Dylan's biological father died when he was 2 weeks old and his maternal grandparents, Timothy and Ethel Blake, helped care for Dylan following his father's death. Within a few years, Dylan's mother, Serena, met and married an American named John Benwell. Dylan moved with the family to the United States where John was stationed in the Navy in Norfolk, Virginia. In 2001, Dylan's grandparents, the Blakes, filed for custody of Dylan, which was inexplicably granted by the Irish courts. When Dylan was in kindergarten, the Blakes attempted, but failed, to kidnap him from Virginia. The Blakes then filed a Hague Convention request, asking the courts to order the return of Dylan back to Ireland. The case was heard in Chesapeake, Virginia and the Virginia court determined that Dylan should remain in the custody of his mother in the United States. Therefore, in the opinion of U.S. authorities, the question of custody has already been adjudicated, and it is clear that Dylan should be with his parents. The Benwells moved to Winthrop Harbor, Illinois, which is in my district, after John Benwell was transferred to the Great Lakes Naval Station. While in Illinois, John Benwell adopted Dylan and his 3 older brothers. He and Serena also have 2 other children. The 4 oldest boys, including Dylan, have applied for American citizenship. Unfortunately, the Blakes have remained obsessed with Dylan. As part of the 2001 decision, they were allowed to speak with Dylan on the telephone. During these conversations, they routinely asked Dylan if they wanted to live with them in Ireland. Dylan's answer was always no. Of course, Dylan's mother, his legal guardian, would not send him off with his grandparents. Recently, the Blakes called Serena Benwell asking to see Dylan. They claimed that Timothy Blake was dying and wanted to make amends for attempting to kidnap Dylan 4 years ago. Serena finally gave in and allowed the Blakes to come to the U.S. to visit Dylan. On Thursday, July 22, 2004, the Blakes took Dylan to lunch. In order to make sure the Blakes did not kidnap her son again, Mrs. Benwell asked them to give her their passports, which they did. Unfortunately, the passports were fakes and they took Dylan to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and boarded a British Airways flight to Ireland. The Winthrop Harbor Police missed the Blakes and Dylan at the airport by just 15 minutes. Dylan Benwell is only 9 years old. Many of us have children and grandchildren who are Dylan's age. Can my colleagues imagine the fear and confusion that this poor child is going through? Can my colleagues imagine their child or grandchild going through this? Mr. Speaker, I am afraid for Dylan's safety. Consider the following: in a sworn affidavit, Mrs. Benwell told police detectives that her father, Timothy Blake, told her in 2001 that they wished that they had killed Dylan and themselves while they had him rather than allow him to become an American. In addition, according to Mrs. Benwell, Mr. Blake had attempted suicide in 1987, and Mrs. Benwell has also stated that her father physically abused her as a child. To make matters worse, in 1999, after the Blakes attempted to kidnap Dylan from kindergarten, Ethel Blake was arrested in Virginia for physically striking John Benwell while he was holding his then 2-month- old daughter. Mrs. Benwell also told police that both of her parents have been patients in psychiatric institutions. After the abduction, when the Winthrop Harbor Police searched the hotel where the Blakes had been staying, they found several prescription drugs in the Blakes' room that are used to treat psychiatric and emotional disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. For all of these reasons, I am deeply concerned about Dylan Benwell's safety and well-being. It is imperative that we return Dylan back to the care of his loving parents. I have been working with the State Department, which is very concerned, and has noted that this is a particularly worrisome case. The State Department believes that the Blakes took the case in their own hands and are now forum shopping, which completely goes against Hague Convention agreements. It is essential that we in the House of Representatives urge the government of Ireland to recognize the decision of the Virginia juvenile district court. Above all, the Blakes should return Dylan promptly to his parents. In passing this resolution today, the House of Representatives is making an important statement. Perhaps we are also giving some greater hope to a family in need of some hope. They have been through so much. Mr. Speaker, it is for all of these reasons that I introduced House Resolution 821. I am committed to ensuring we return Dylan Benwell to the United States and to his family. So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important resolution. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Majority Leader DeLay), and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for supporting my efforts to help Dylan and the Benwells. I want to also thank all of the Members who cosponsored this resolution, as well as the staff that helped bring this urgent resolution to the House Floor so expeditiously. My deepest prayers and sympathy are for Dylan, his mother, Serena Benwell, and their family, as they go through these trying times.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and with God and the community. That is why I voted for and strongly supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan margin and signed into law by President Clinton. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and also provides that no State shall be required to accept a same-sex marriage license granted in another State. Opponents of this amendment say we are voting too early on this amendment. They say that traditional marriage is protected by DOMA. However, I know that unless this amendment passes, State and Federal judges will overturn laws protecting traditional marriage after this year's election, just as I know tonight the sun will set. Left-wing activists in at least twelve other States have filed lawsuits like the one that imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Without a constitutional amendment, judges and local officials will continue to attempt to redefine marriages in their States. A handful of judges are doing the work of a liberal few and forcing us to act to protect what should be a settled matter of law. These judges can strike down the Defense of Marriage Act just as four judges in Massachusetts did earlier this year. The only way to ensure that the people's voice to be heard is an amendment to the Constitution--the only law a court cannot overturn. The future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process. By passing the Marriage Protection Amendment, the American people will have the final say on marriage in the United States, not a group of judges. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to trust the judgment of the American people and allow them to make the final decision on marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Amendment. Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Speaker, here's the choice. On one hand, a rich constitutional tradition. On the other hand, the politics of divisiveness. What a despicable choice it is. With just days left before hitting the campaign trail, this Congress sets a remarkable record today. Since January of this year, the Republicans had the House in session for 93 days. Fewer days than any other single Session since 1948. The Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. Here's the tally: No votes on energy reform. No action on the assault weapons ban. No criminal justice reform. No Homeland Security bill. And no action on minimum wage and unemployment benefits. We can't pass a budget. Only one of 13 annual appropriations bills got done on time this year. And in Iraq, the violence continues. Yesterday, a car bomb explosion killed over 30 people--injuring over 100. We have lost over one thousand American soldiers in this war. So which of these enormous challenges do we take on today? None of them. Instead, we're debating a constitutional amendment on marriage that is not going anywhere--it has already failed miserably in the Senate. We are just going through the motions here. The Majority is placating its base. For partisan advantage and with total disregard for our constitutional history and the core conservative value of federalism and defense to the State. Just last month the Vice President said: ``people ought to be able to be free.'' Well, Mr. Vice President, to my surprise, we actually agree on something. People should be free to love who they want. And free to marry who they love. And live in a state where they have equal rights and opportunities, and equal access to government. But State rights are under attack--from the self-styled conservatives no less, the same folks who are crusading to preempt State gun safety laws, get rid of consumer protection provisions, to eliminate fair lending laws. Why not abolish the 10th Amendment too? I agree with our former colleague Bob Barr--one of the stronget supporters of States' rights ever to serve in this body. There are three reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong choice. First, marriage is a state issue. Each state should be able to decide on its own how to define marriage for its citizens. Federalism means state sovereignty. We hear a lot of talk about my home state. Let me tell you something--Massachusetts is not forcing other states to take up this issue. Marriage is a matter that has always been left to the states. And each state should be allowed to address this issue in its own due course. Second, once we start messing with the Constitution, where will it end? With this precedent, the Republicans show a willingness to change the Constitution for ideology. What's next? A Constitutional Amendment on tax cuts? Corporate welfare? The draft? Finally, Federal constitutional amendment on marriage is unnecessary, irresponsible and irrational. It is wrong. The House Majority is pitting the Constitution against a craven political calculus. This is election year pandering at its worst. This is a meaningless and demeaning gesture, and insult to those holding sincere beliefs on this issue, all at the expense of our constitutional heritage. I urge my colleagues to reject this despicable posturing.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to stress the fact that H.R. 4520 does not include any provisions that would move jobs overseas. It does contain provisions that would foster economic growth and create jobs here in the United States. The bill reduces the corporate tax rate to 32 percent only for domestic producers, farmers, small corporations, and manufacturers' activities within the United States. Manufacturing that occurs overseas or offshore would not get the lower rate. The bill extends enhanced section 179 expensing for small businesses and provides accelerated depreciation for leasehold improvements and offers other tax benefits for businesses. Companies with a lower tax burden have more resources to expand their business and to create jobs in the United States. U.S. exporters are getting clobbered by penalty sanctions. Lower exports mean a smaller economy and less employment. H.R. 4520 will end the sanctions imposed on the exporters, allowing them to expand and hire more workers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support for H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, it has been my privilege to work on the development of this legislation, and I look forward to its passage today. Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this legislation, hard-working families will have to face tax increases over the next 10 years, totaling $109 billion. If we do not pass H.R. 1308, it will most certainly harm the economic recovery we are now enjoying in this Nation. H.R. 1308 will further eliminate the marriage penalty for American families. Before tax relief was implemented in 2001 and 2003, the marriage penalty tax was a burden to millions of Americans being taxed more than other citizens simply because they were married. Under our legislation, the $1,000 child tax credit rate will also be extended. If this legislation is not passed, working families will have to pay $300 more per child in taxes than they did in 2003 and 2004. Without our legislation, military families will suffer as the per-child credit for military families will be increased by allowing these families to include tax-free combat pay when calculating their refundable child credit. President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills also increased the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, exemption amounts from $45,000 to $58,000 for married couples and from $33,750 to $40,250 for single men and women. These increases ensure that the AMT does not hit middle-income families as a result of the tax relief provided in the 2001 and 2003 tax reduction laws. However, if we do not act now this relief will expire at the end of this year. Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that it is private citizens, not the Federal Government, that create this Nation's wealth and pay this Nation's taxes. If we do not act on this legislation, millions of America's middle-class taxpayers will suffer as a result. That is unconscionable, therefore I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to first commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means for guaranteeing unanimous commitment to passage of our Free Trade Agreement with Morocco and look forward to working with them in the future. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas). (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his outstanding commitment in this effort to advance our free trade relations and to advance the civilized values that free trade causes. He has done outstanding work in that effort, and I commend him. I thank his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their strong bipartisan support on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4842, which will approve and implement the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, as signed by the United States and Morocco on June 15, 2004. The U.S.-Morocco FTA advances U.S. economic interests and meets the negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in the Trade Act of 2002. The FTA will benefit the people of the United States and Morocco and illustrate to other developing countries the advantages of more open markets for trade and investment. The FTA provides for increased access for American farmers, workers and businesses to Morocco's markets. Pursuant to the agreement, Morocco will provide strong protection for intellectual property, ensure that rules on electronic commerce are nondiscriminatory, and provide U.S. firms access to covered government procurement opportunities on the same basis that Moroccan firms enjoy. The U.S.-Morocco FTA provides a significant opportunity to encourage economic reform and development in a moderate Muslim nation and is an important step in implementing the President's plan for a broader U.S.- Middle East Free Trade Area. It also sets a strong example of the benefits of open trade and democracy. Opening markets is part of the President's six-point plan for continuing to strengthen America's economy and to create more opportunities for American farmers, workers and businesses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important for everyone to understand that we have a trade surplus at the current time with Morocco. The projections are, though, that with this free trade agreement we will have a very dramatic increase in our exports, especially our exports in the agricultural community with that dramatic drop in tariff barriers that have struck our access there, but we are making progress, dramatic progress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), our distinguished colleague on the committee.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me how much time we have remaining.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but we are discussing the U.S.-Morocco FTA, which passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 26 to nothing. In addition, we have a trade surplus with Morocco. Trade with Morocco creates jobs. The projections are right now that over the next decade our exports will triple in the agricultural sector alone, and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program already provides benefits to anyone adversely effected by trade, and there is no need for a new program. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. CRANE. The Committee on Ways and Means' report states the clear coverage of the free trade agreement. ``The committee notes that the FTA will cover trade with and investment in the territory of Morocco as recognized by the United States, which does not include the Western Sahara.''

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the former speaker for his presentation and what he had to say. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The new Morocco labor law is a significant improvement over existing labor laws and regulations. The law raises the minimum employment age from 12 to 15 to combat child labor, reduces the work week from 48 to 44 hours with overtime rates payable for additional hours, and calls for a periodic review of the Moroccan minimum wage. Effective July 1, 2004, the minimum wage in Morocco will increase by 10 percent. Morocco did this to make itself a more attractive FTA partner. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who is cochair of the Morocco Caucus.