Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My bill would provide Customs with new, necessary search tools in light of America's new security needs while balancing the need for privacy. The Rangel substitute guts some key provisions. By striking the outbound mail provision, the Rangel substitute allows continued money- laundering to occur. The Rangel immunity provision leaves the Federal Government open to a new class of torts. My bill protects only those inspectors who act in good faith. Under my bill the government can be sued under the Federal Torts Claims Act. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the Rangel substitute and a yes vote on H.R. 3129. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentlewoman on the other side of the aisle the fact that none of our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means raised this issue during consideration of this bill in committee and the amendment, Rangel amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us today, H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002. I would like to commend Chairmen Herger, Thomas and Boehner for their work in promulgating this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill builds upon and improves the historic welfare reforms enacted in 1996. The hallmark of the 1996 legislation was that it changed welfare from an entitlement program to a block grant to the individual states. The significance of this was twofold: states were given a lot of flexibility to spend money where they needed to, but no longer would people receive a welfare check in perpetuity if they refused to work. The success of this is irrefutable: since 1996, welfare rolls have decreased by over 50 percent, and millions of people who were once collecting welfare checks are now collecting pay checks. Historic indeed, Mr. Speaker. Today we consider legislation that increases work requirements over the next 5 years, and simultaneously rewards states that have been particularly effective in moving people from welfare to work. it also protects children by increasing child care funding by $2 billion and by increasing State flexibility in providing child care for low-income working families. Finally, it encourages healthy marriages and two- parent married families by directing up to $300 million annually for programs such as pre-marital education and counseling. Mr. Speaker, surely that is something we can all support. I am somewhat concerned about a few provisions in this legislation. While this bill does improve upon some work requirements passed in 1996, in some cases it does not go far enough. For instance, for purposes of TANF, it increases the number of hours a welfare beneficiary must be involved in work or job training programs, but it allows the states to define ``work'' in almost any way they see fit for some of these additional hours. Thus, a father could coach his son's baseball team and get credit for ``work training.'' Mr. Speaker, I am all for allowing states flexibility in administering welfare programs-- flexibility is, after all, the lynchpin of the terrifically effective reforms we enacted in 1996--but in my view we should set some sort of minimal standards and then let the states implement them as they see fit. In general, the reauthorization bill builds upon the successes of the 1996 legislation, and I believe it will continue to help break the cycle of poverty and dependence that millions of Americans had become stuck in during the period when welfare was an entitlement. It is a very good piece of legislation, and I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished Majority Whip, Mr. DeLay, for his courageous and principled leadership in the House during this time of crisis in the Middle East. This Resolution, which Mr. DeLay authored with Congressman Lantos, is to be commended. Following the activities of September 11, 2001, we came together as a Congress, and as a country. Standing together we authorized the use of force against ``those nations, organizations, or persons'' that the President ``determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.'' Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we voted for that Resolution. And I am proud that we went into Afghanistan and dismantled the base of the al Quaida. Why am I proud, Mr. Speaker? Because terrorism, in all its forms, must be defeated. Today we recognize that homicide bombings, practiced by the Palestinian people against innocent Israeli civilians, are acts of terrorism. The number of Israelis killed in the last year and a half by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Mr. Speaker, no one wants a peaceful resolution in the Middle East more than I, but, as this Resolution states, it is clear that Yasir Arafat and members of the Palestinian leadership have failed to abide by their commitments to nonviolence made in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles (the `Oslo accord') of September 1993, including their pledges (1) to adhere strictly to `a peaceful resolution of the conflict,' (2) to resolve `all outstanding issues relating to permanent status through negotiations,' (3) to renounce `the use of terrorism and other acts of violence,' and (4) to `assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance [with the commitment to nonviolence], prevent violence, and discipline violators.' I would note that the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is part of Yasir Arafat's Fatah organization has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Government, and is responsible for hundreds of murders of Israeli civilians. This cannot continue, Mr. Speaker. Israel is our friend, our ally, and the only democracy in the Middle East. The very values we share with Israel are under attack by terrorists. Back in September we pledged to fight those who seek to annihilate us. I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to recognize that Israel deserves the same privilege.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to express my full support for House Joint Resolution 87, approving Yucca Mountain as a repository for storage of high-level spent nuclear fuel. It is important to remember that over half the population of this nation lives within 75 miles of a temporary nuclear waste facility and that Illinois is one of the states most dependent on nuclear power. Close to my home in Illinois is the Zion nuclear power plant, though the plant itself is no longer operational, nuclear fuel remains in temporary storage there. The people living near by are anxiously awaiting the Federal Government to fulfill its promise to take possession, and dispose of this material. In the 37 years that government and private industry has transported nuclear waste, there have been only 4 rail accidents and 4 highway accidents. That represents a 99.7 percent success rate. It also represents 2,700 shipments of 10,000 spent fuel assemblies over a distance of more than 1.6 million miles. It is important to remember also that the states will be actively involved in the rout selection process, there will be no shipments through down town Chicago. The containers, in which the spent fuel is stored, are quite capable of withstanding a broadside from a locomotive traveling 60 mph, tests have been conducted that prove this. The trucks and trains carrying this spent fuel are accompanied by at least one escort, which must report to the Department of Energy (DOE) every two hours and are continuously monitored and tracked by satellite. This is just the smallest part of the safety precautions being taken by the DOE, the NRC and state and local first responder's nation wide. After twenty years of spending $8 billion of the taxpayers money the Department of Energy has determined it is safe to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. That being the case, it is high time the Federal Government keeps its long-standing commitment to citizens and utility companies by taking possession of these materials. Passage, by the House, of H.J. Res. 87 is a big step in that direction.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation makes it a federal crime to knowingly transport a minor across state lines with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in violation of the minor's home state parental consent or notification law. Under the measure, violations of this law would be punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and one year in prison. Any parent or guardian who suffers legal harm from the violation of a parental notification law is allowed to seek civil action for damages. The bill includes an exception from prosecution, however, if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor. The bill also protects the minor from prosecution under its provisions. The measure allows individuals accused of violating this provision to defend themselves against civil and criminal actions by claiming that they believed the parents had been notified or had given their consent, as required by state law. By way of background, it is important to note that in many states it is illegal for a school nurse to dispense so much as an aspirin to a minor without parental consent. However, absent this legislation, minors can be brought across state lines without parental consent for the express purpose of obtaining an abortion. Over-the-counter aspirin requires parental notification, but abortion does not? Mr. Speaker, how can this be? In 1999, the House passed identical legislation by a vote of 270 to 159; unfortunately, the measure was never considered by the other body, thus necessitating its reintroduction in the 107th Congress. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Chabot, and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for their work in crafting this urgent legislation, and I truly hope that my colleagues will Join me in voting for this legislation today. As such, I urge an ``aye'' vote on final passage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 586, the Tax Relief Guarantee Act of 2002. While I support the bill in its entirety, I am particularly enthusiastic as regards to the chairman's amendment to this legislation. Last year we passed historic tax reform legislation. I am proud to have supported it in the House and I am very pleased that, on June 7, 2001 President Bush signed the largest tax reduction in 20 years into law. The measure reduced the ``marriage penalty,'' starting in 2005; it doubled the child tax credit by 2010; it repealed the death tax in 2010 after cutting the top rate from 55 percent to 45 percent; and it increased annual contribution limits on individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and other retirement accounts. The measure also temporarily increased the income limits exempting taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. This provision is in effect for 2001 through 2003. The President's tax relief plan was eminently fair. It cut taxes for every taxpayer. No one was targeted in and no one was targeted out. It provided enormous tax relief to lower-income taxpayers and will take millions off the tax rolls altogether. It left the tax system even more progressive than previous law. Unfortunately, as enacted, all of the measure's provisions will be repealed on December 31, 2010. That's right, Mr. Speaker, January 1, 2011, the tax code will revert back to the provisions that were in effect before President Bush's tax relief legislation was signed into law. For example, beginning January 1, 2011, taxpayers in the lowest bracket (currently 10 percent) will see their tax burden increase by 50 percent when the lowest bracket reverts back to 15 percent. When that happens, we will have the single largest tax increase in the history of our country. This could result in one of the largest tax increases in American history, one that could also destabilize long-term economic growth. A family of four with an income of $47,000 in 2002 would face a tax hike of $1,928 in 2011--a 100 percent tax increase! Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable. So we are left in a situation whereby the marriage penalty tax, the death tax, and higher marginal rates will all rear their ugly heads come 2011 unless we take action to eliminate them permanently. In the words of Speaker Hastert, ``How can a family make plans to pass on the family farm or small business if there is no death tax on Dec. 31, 2010, and there is a death tax on Jan. 1, 2011?'' How indeed, Mr. Speaker? This legislation also includes a package of taxpayer rights provisions, which I support. The bill also moves up--from 2003 to 2002--the effective date of the special needs adoption tax credit provided in last year's legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. There is even more that we can do to ease the burdens placed on American taxpayers. For example, I believe we must eliminate the individual alternative minimum tax. This tax was never sound policy, but it is rapidly becoming an onerous and grossly inappropriate levy. Unfortunately, this legislation does extend exemptions to this individual alternative minimum tax that will expire in 2003. I would also like to see additional disincentives to charitable giving removed, such as is provided for in my bill to remove charitable contributions from those itemized deductions that are subject to an income cap. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to fight for these and other tax reductions. In the meantime, I would like to commend Chairman Thomas and the Rules Committee for crafting such a fine amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment, and in favor on final passage.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) on welfare reform that was introduced yesterday. The bill strongly supports the President's priorities on welfare reform. Welfare reform has been a tremendous success. The best welfare program for families and children is a good-paying job. Since welfare reform was passed in 1996, more people are off welfare and working, and child poverty is down significantly. But there is still more we can do. This bill will continue building on the successes we have had. It will strengthen families and protect children. It will help most people get off welfare who are in that condition today and back to work. It will encourage States to be innovative so they can help more families. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce introduction of the Employee-Leasing Organization Act of 2002. I'm pleased to note that two very distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Bill Jefferson and Congressman Ron Lewis have agreed to join me in introducing this important legislation. Too many small businesses lose valuable time each day attending to administrative headaches. Likewise, many of those same small businesses are unable to provide benefits to their employees due to their size. In recent years, the employee leasing industry has evolved to provide cost effective administrative payroll/tax services and health and retirement benefits to small businesses and their full-time employees. The bill I'm introducing will clarify the status of employee-leasing companies ability to provide these services. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and taking a stand to help America's small business owners and employees.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague Mr. Johnson of Texas to introduce the Medical Cost Deduction Act of 2002. This legislation makes health care more affordable by allowing individuals to deduct most of their medical expenditures that exceed 2 percent of their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). The rising costs of health care are a major concern for many Americans. Whether it is increased costs in health insurance premiums or the high cost of prescription drugs that seniors pay out of their own pocket, if it is unaffordable, many of these individuals will go without necessary health care treatment. The Medical Cost Deduction Act will help lower the tax burden and help families defray the rising costs of health care. Since 1942, taxpayers that itemize have been able to deduct health care costs that are in excess of a statutory percentage of their AGI. The current threshold where deductions begin is after 7.5 percent of AGI. Because of this relatively high floor, few taxpayers that itemize can reduce their taxable income through the existing deduction because their unreimbursed medical expenses are unlikely to exceed 7.5 percent of their AGI. For instance, under current law, a taxpayer with an income of $30,000 would need to have out-of-pocket health care costs of $2,250 before they could begin taking deductions. Under my proposal that reduces the AGI requirement to 2 percent, that same taxpayer can start taking medical care deductions after $600 in expenses. Back in 1954 when the threshold for deductibility of health expenses was lowered from 5 percent to 3 percent, the House Ways and Means Committee included in it's report that there is a ``general agreement that limiting the deduction only to expenses in excess of 5 percent of AGI does not allow the deduction of all extraordinary medical expenses.'' By lowering the deduction for medical expenses to 2 percent of AGI seniors may be able to better afford necessary medications and individuals may be better able to afford increased health care premiums. Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues for their consideration and support of the Medical Costs Deduction Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor to the legislation before us, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. While it has long been accepted as legal principle that infants born alive are entitled to the protection of law, recent court decisions have cut back this fundamental right. The purpose of this legislation is to firmly establish under law that an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is alive, is considered a person for purposes of federal law. This recognition takes effect upon birth, irrespective of whether the baby survived an attempted abortion. This legislation will make illegal ``live-birth'' abortions, a practice so barbaric in nature and tragic in outcome that it is almost inconceivable that they occur. Unfortunately, testimony received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution indicates that in some jurisdictions, once a child is marked for abortion, it may become irrelevant whether that child emerges from the mother's womb as a live baby. In other words, some live-born premature infants may be treated as a nonentity, and allowed to die. I thank my friend from Ohio, Congressman Chabot, for introducing this vital piece of legislation, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to cast an ``aye'' vote on final passage.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the introduction of legislation that will clarify the rules for determining whether certain agent-drivers and commission-drivers are employees for the purpose of FICA and FUTA taxes. Under present law, the determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for Federal tax purposes is determined under a common law facts and circumstances test. An employer-employee relationship generally exists if the person contracting for the services has the right to control not only the result to be accomplished by the services, but also the means and details by which the result is accomplished. Under a special statutory rule in section 3121(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, agent-drivers and commission-drivers, who are independent contractors but are engaged in distributing meat, vegetable, bakery, beverage (other than milk) products, or laundry or dry-cleaning services, are treated as ``statutory employees'' solely for FICA and FUTA tax purposes if (1) their services are part of a continuing relationship with the person for whom services are performed; (2) the distributor's service contract contemplates that he or she will perform substantially all of the services personally; and (3) the distributor does not have a substantial investment in facilities used in performance of services, excluding facilities used for transportation. In a reversal of its long-standing ruling position, the IRS issued GCM 39853 in 1991, which held that investments in distribution rights and territories were akin to investments in the intangible assets of education, training, and experience. The legislative history to section 3121(d)(3) had indicated that investments in education, training, and experience were not to be treated as investments in ``facilities.'' The GCM analogized an investment in a distribution right or territory to an investment in education, training, and experience, and accordingly concluded that an investment in a distribution right or territory was not to be considered an investment in ``facilities.'' This reversal has created much uncertainty, particularly in the baking industry, with respect to independent contractor drivers, who have made substantial investments in their businesses and have been paying Social Security taxes with their federal tax returns. While the IRS may contend that the GCM is no longer in force, I believe that it is being applied by various field agents. For example, at least four companies have endured prolonged audits in which the IRS challenged the status of bakery drivers based on the GCM. In each of those audits, the IRS agreed that bakery drivers were independent contractors under the common law test, but sought to treat them as statutory employees by ignoring their substantial investment in ownership of their routes. This is not only an unfair result, but has caused great confusion in the bakery industry. This amendment attempts to clear up that confusion and correct that inequity. An investment in a distribution night or territory specifically and directly relates to, facilitates, and is used in the performance of the distribution services in question. In contrast, education, training, and experience have a more general, attenuated, and indirect relationship to distribution services. Accordingly, my bill will clarify the statute to reflect Congressional intent that an investment in facilities can include an investment in a distribution night or territory, in contrast to an investment in education, training, and experience. Thus, an independent contractor driver who is engaged in distributing meat, vegetable, bakery, beverage (other than milk) products, or laundry or dry-cleaning services and who has a substantial investment in his or her distribution fight or territory will not be treated as a statutory employee.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize five outstanding young women from Illinois' 8th District. Sarah Desprat, Kristen Rusek, Katherine Swanson, Julie Zielinski and Shauna Marie Zivin all will receive the Girl Scout Gold Award, the highest award in Girl Scouting. Only 6 percent of Girl Scouts nationwide receive this award. According the Girl Scouts, the requirements for the Gold Award include efficient organization, time management, and leadership skills resulting in a 50-hour community service project. I am glad to see the hard work, dedication and commitment of these Girl Scouts are being recognized with this honor. I am proud to represent such fine young women and pass along my congratulations.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with 15 of my colleagues to introduce the Kidney Disease Educational Benefits Act of 2002. This legislation is designed to improve patient outcomes by providing appropriate education before Medicare eligible kidney patients undergo dialysis. Each year, approximately 80,000 Americans develop chronic kidney failure, or end stage renal disease (ESRD), and require either regular kidney dialysis treatments or a transplant to survive. Medicare covers dialysis for most Americans and requires that kidney patients receive information on treatment options, but not until the patient is under the care of a dialysis clinic. Studies have shown that earlier access to information about kidney failure and treatment options can reduce complications associated with dialysis and can improve patient outcomes and potentially reduce costs over the long term. The Kidney Disease Educational Benefits Act provides reimbursement for up to six educational session performed by kidney care professionals. These educational sessions will consist of an overview of kidney function and complications that accompany kidney failure; information on hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and transplantation; discussion of payment for dialysis treatment and transplantation; and information regarding vascular access options. Providing earlier access to educational services by qualified kidney care professionals will help ensure that Medicare eligible kidney patients receive critical information prior to undergoing dialysis or transplantation. This will improve the lives of those suffering from kidney disease. Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues for their consideration and support of the Kidney Disease Educational Benefits Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today we honor a man who has had a profound impact on the lives of us all, a positive impact that has had a reverberating positive effect, not just here in the United States, but worldwide. In the past I have taken time on this floor to expound at length upon many of President Reagan's achievements. He more than fulfilled his pledge to help restore ``the great, confident roar of American progress, growth, and optimism'' and ensure renewed economic prosperity. Today I simply want to pay tribute to the man who has left his permanent stamp on the course of history. We salute that gentleman who has turned 91 today and pay tribute to him. God bless you, President Reagan. We are all eternally grateful for that unprecedented role that you played in our national experience and it will never be forgotten.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize students at the Antioch Upper Grade School in Illinois' 8th District. Today, as our brave men and women in uniform are deployed throughout the world to protect and defend the freedoms we all hold so dear, we are more aware than ever before of the cost of the freedom. The students at Antioch Upper Grade School have also been reflecting on the cost of freedom. Samantha Wise, the 8th grade social studies teacher at Antioch Upper Grade School, had each of her students write an essay entitled ``Is Freedom Really Free?'' Ms. Wise submitted the essays in the local VFW essay contest, and three students won. Joe Barlow won first price representing the Village of Antioch, and third place in the 5th District for the VFW. Justin Kaminsky and Anthony Baschetti, were also runners-up for the Village of Antioch. All of the students and their teacher should be commended for their work. It makes me proud to see schools like the Antioch Upper Grade School showing their patriotism.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for this Resolution which recognizes Rex David ``Dave'' Thomas as one of the hardest working advocates for child adoption in our great nation. Adopted shortly after his birth in 1932, Dave went on to great commercial success after founding Wendy's Old-Fashioned Hamburgers in Columbus, Ohio, in 1969. In promoting Wendy's, Dave became a national figure representing a friendly face, great food, and a kind sense of humor. On a personal note, I would be remiss were I not to mention that my staff and I are particularly grateful to Dave for the advent of the Wendy's Frosty. Much more importantly, however, Dave used his financial success to promote and advance the cause of child adoption. It is for that reason that we honor Dave today. In 1992, Dave established the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption to work with national adoption organizations to promote awareness and to facilitate child adoption. From 1990 until 2000, Dave was the national spokesman for a number of White House adoption and foster-care initiatives. He was a most deserving recipient of the distinguished Angel in Adoption Award from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, and the Social Awareness Award from the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we honor Dave today with this Resolution, but it is my belief that we can do Dave no greater honor than by keeping his legacy alive as we in Congress press on towards the common goal we shared with Dave: making sure that every child has the opportunity to grow up in a safe home with loving parents. My thoughts and prayers are with Dave's family.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise President Bush for putting forth an education plan that offered children in failing schools a chance to get a better education. It is too bad that Democrats and supporters of the failing status quo were allowed to gut the legislation, H.R. 1, at the Committee level to remove any chance for failing schools to successfully improve their performance or to let parents have the option to move their children to better schools. I believe that control of education should be retained at the local level. Last year, Illinois high school students led the nation in Advanced Placement scores. With a few exceptions we have good schools in the 8th District, and I don't want to force parents, school boards, and teachers into a one-size fits all approach that might work in New York City or Atlanta but not in Barrington or Wauconda. One of the reasons I supported broad-based tax relief, including eliminating the marriage tax penalty and doubling the child tax credit, is because it lets 70,000 married couples and families with 125,000 children in the 8th District of Illinois keep $162 million per year in their pockets. That is $162 million per year that families could spend in our district on education if they chose to do so. Former President Ronald Reagan, in a March 12, 1983 radio address to the nation on education, said, ``Better education doesn't mean a bigger Department of Education. In fact, that Department should be abolished. Instead, we must do a better job teaching the basics, insisting on discipline and results, encouraging competition and, above all, remembering that education does not begin with Washington officials or even State and local officials. It begins in the home, where it is the right and responsibility of every American.'' When we send a dollar to the federal government from Illinois, we only get 75 cents back. In my district, we send more than $2 to Washington and only get $1 back. With a return like this, it is easy to see why I support letting taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money and having parents decide locally how their money should be spent on education. Federal education funding is at an all-time high, and H.R. 1 increases it by a huge amount. Yet, student achievement continues to lag. Most Republicans in Congress want to give local schools more freedom to use new models to solve old problems while maintaining high accountability standards. I am saddened that H.R. 1 does not accomplish this worthy goal. One concept that has strong support from parents is President Bush's proposal to improve public education by testing children in reading and math in grades three through eight once each year. Under President Bush's proposal, schools would be held accountable for either improving scores or losing their federal money, which accounts for seven cents of every education dollar. I fully support this provision and am gratified it has been included in the conference report before us today. In fact, during debate on H.R. 1 in May of this year, I voted against the amendment co-sponsored by Congressmen Peter Hoekstra and Barney Frank to remove President Bush's test requirement from the bill. The tough new testing regimen designed to identify failing public schools--an idea at the heart of President Bush's education plan--survived when the amendment failed. But the rest of the President's plan to give local schools more control to make the changes necessary to improve and to give parents the option to move their children to a better private school were stripped out of the bill. For the reasons I have outlined, I have decided to vote against H.R. 1. Again, I want to praise President Bush for his leadership in proposing creative solutions to improving the education of our children. I encourage him to continue to move the federal government out of the way and to give schools more tlexibility and parents more choices for their children.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that every version of stimulus legislation--whether originating in the Administration, either body of Congress, Republican or Democrat--has included a provision to allow companies which have incurred losses this year to carry back those losses to offset income taxed more than two years ago. This is a very good concept and would actually provide money to these companies and help stimulate the economy. Taxpayers should be taxed on net income, not on some higher amount. If an accounting period longer than one year more appropriately reflects economic reality, we should not be hesitant to reflect that reality in our income tax laws. Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not remove the barriers denying some groups of corporations, which include life insurance companies, to net all their losses against the income they earned this year when they compute their federal income tax liability. I understand the constraints we were under in drafting the bill, but many of these corporate groups have incurred unexpectedly large losses this year and would be greatly helped if they were allowed to be taxed on net income, rather than some higher amount. Along with twenty-five colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, I introduced legislation earlier this year to amend the consolidated return provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The bill, H.R. 909, repeals three separate limitations on the ability to net all losses against income within an affiliated group of corporations if one or more of the group members is a life insurance company. We have received no objections to the bill on tax policy or other grounds, and two of the three provisions were included in the Joint Committee staff recommendations of changes that would significantly reduce the complexity of the tax laws. But, more importantly, it is simply wrong to impose income tax on more than net income. Not only is it bad tax policy, but it has a major economic impact when events such as those of September 11th occur. I would hope that we will be able to enact legislation early next year to accomplish this. These restrictions should have been repealed long ago. In today's economic environment, we should delay no longer.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Dick Armey, the distinguished Majority Leader. Dick and I have been kindred souls in our quest for greater fiscal restraint, lower taxes and removing the government imposed barriers that restrain the growth of our economy. He has been a leader in promoting growth through supply-side economics and advocated a fairer, flatter, and simpler tax code. These are positions that I hope those who follow him to Congress in the years to come will continue to fight for. Both of us are educators by trade and brought the valuable experiences learned in the classroom to the Halls of Congress. I am certain that Dick was a great educator. I'm sure his quick wit and command of the subjects he taught were thoroughly appreciated by his students. I know that his command of the issues and his ability to lead are appreciated by his colleagues. I also know that I will miss fighting the good fight for a better America with my friend Dick Armey.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), is a former Illinoisan and from the Chicago area, and I know that Boeing has moved to Chicago, and we are not laying folks off in Chicago, and I just wanted to find out if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was in any way involved in trying to get them to move to God's country.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3008 is a bill to reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance programs for 2 years until September 30, 2003. The current authorization expired in September but is continuing subject to the continuing resolution adopted last month and running until November 16, 2001. It is an economic fact that free trade helps our overall economy. The value of the Uruguay Round Agreements and NAFTA to the U.S. economy was over $65 billion. A recent study at the University of Michigan, right next to the gentleman from Michigan's district, found that a new round could add double again that benefit. The general direction of trade policy should therefore be obvious. We should work assiduously toward free trade. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that free trade accelerates economic change, which disproportionately hurts some industries and people. It is important then for us to offer a hand to those people and industries. We should help them adjust. This means that workers may need to train for other types of jobs, and during that training and subsequent job search time, they may need more direct assistance than States routinely provide. Similarly, firms need assistance in making strategic adjustments necessary to remain competitive in a global economy. The trade adjustment assistance programs provide this help. All three TAA programs have proven successful and popular in softening the impact of foreign competition on workers in impacted industries. Workers may receive cash payments, job training, and allowances for job search and relocation expenses. In addition, we have heard concerns from Members about the problems in their districts and the need to increase the direct assistance for workers in order for them to complete their training. Accordingly, we are increasing the direct assistance by an additional 26 weeks and shortening the time that the government has to process petitions. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance programs.