Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation entitled the ``Charitable Giving Relief Act''. This is one of three bills I am introducing today to correct certain anomalies in the tax code that discourage charitable giving. Specifically, this bill will allow nonitemizers to deduct 100 percent of any charitable contributions up to the amount of the standard deduction. Under current law, while nonitemizers receive the standard deduction, only itemizers can take a deduction for their charitable contributions. Non-itemizers are predominantly low- and middle-income taxpayers who as a group give generously to charitable causes. However, lacking a specific deduction for their charitable contributions, there can be no question that they face a disincentive to making charitable contributions relative to itemizers, who tend to be upper-middle income and upper-income taxpayers. This certainly appears unfair. But, more importantly, it means charitable organizations supported predominantly by lower-income individuals are even more strapped for financial support than they need be. For example, churches serving lower-income communities have fewer resources to address the needs of their congregations as a result of this disincentive. I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress, and 149 Members signed on as cosponsors. I have made two important changes to last year's bill, however. First, taxpayers would now be able to deduct the full amount of their contribution, rather than only half And, second, to prevent certain individuals from gaming the system I limit the amount a non-itemizer can take to the amount of the standard deduction. Along with the two other bills I am introducing today preserving the charitable deduction against the itemized deduction phase-down and allowing IRA rollovers to charity, we have an excellent opportunity to advance sound tax policy and sound social policy by returning to our Nation's historical emphasis on private activities and personal involvement in the well-being of our communities. These bills will significantly increase the resources available to our charitable organizations. Charity benefits both the giver and the receiver in like proportions. The act of giving elevates the heart of the giver. The act of receiving elevates the condition of the recipient. Charity is thus a blessed act that should suffer no discouragement from something so mean as the tax code.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to my distinguished colleague from Colorado for taking this time this evening to honor a man who has had a profound impact on the lives of all of us, and a very positive impact in my estimation, and I am a former U.S. history professor, I think the greatest impact of anybody in the lifetime of anyone today, a positive impact that has had a reverberating positive effect, not just here in the United States, but worldwide. I was familiar, of course, with Ronald Reagan, as one of the most popular and handsome movie actors growing up as a child and going to the movies; but it was not that Ronald Reagan that I got really attached to. Rather, it was during the 1964 campaign. I was teaching history at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, at the time, and got involved. One of the things that was frustrating in that campaign was we were not communicating our message well on behalf of Barry Goldwater. But something that happened during that campaign was Ronald Reagan delivered a speech that was taped, and that taped message that Ronald Reagan delivered for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 campaign was far and away the most effective message in getting our word out to the people at the grassroots. It certainly turned me on. I was then intrigued to learn that Ronald Reagan had only been a Republican for 2 years. He had been a Democrat until 1962; and he became a Republican that year, so he had been working on behalf of the values that he believed in, which extended beyond party lines. Ronald Reagan believed in the same values that he had believed in when he was still a registered Democrat, but he communicated them effectively, and that resounding message was something that we took from that 1964 campaign on into future elections. It was something that got so many of us that were involved in the Goldwater campaign excited that we pushed to try to get Ronald Reagan the nomination at the 1968 convention down in Miami. I know there was tribute paid for him getting elected Governor of California. That was demoralizing to us, because Ronald Reagan felt that to continue to go from the election of governor to seeking the Presidential nomination was not proper. So we were disappointed that our troops were split down in Miami, and I was down there working behind the scenes for Ronald Reagan at that time. In 1976 again we had that window of opportunity, and we all got charged up and excited. I must confess to you that the biggest disappointment I have ever experienced in politics was when Ronald Reagan, by that very narrow margin, lost the nomination in 1976. I remember standing on a balcony at one of the hotels down there with tears in my eyes, because I was fearful that was the end of the Ronald Reagan candidacy. Because of that, I got in that Presidential race in 1980, in the summer of 1978, because it was the principles I believed in; and I was fearful that Ronald Reagan might wait until the end of 1979 and then say, Well, Mommy and I have looked at it and decided to go to the ranch. I figured there was no way I could get name identification between the end of 1979 and getting into that Presidential cycle. As a result, I entered that race. Ronald Reagan ended up getting in that race, as you all know, and I told him at the time, because I only got 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, I knew it was all history, I was going to stick it out through the Illinois primary in mid-March because our candidates out there were on the ballot indicating who they were going to support at the convention, and they were all going to take a bath if they had my name after theirs, and I figured I had an obligation to take a bath with them. But I reassured Ronald Reagan that all of those people would support him and I would support him as soon as we got Illinois behind us. That is exactly what happened. We went on, as you well know, to the most exciting victory, at a time in our history when Jimmy Carter, the retiring President at that time, was looking to the future of this country with total despair. But those of you that remember back to that era remember that we suffered an inflation rate of 14 percent, 14 percent, that last year. We had unemployment rates and interest rates that were staggering, and, sad to say, President Carter looking to the future was despondent and thought this country had peaked. Ronald Reagan saw it from a totally different perspective, and he took it and ran with it and started to elevate this country and the world on the right path. That includes not only the biggest tax cut in history, that we are still benefiting from, but I want to also read from some remarks that Ronald Reagan made when he was over at the Brandenburg Gate at that time. That is when the Wall was still there in Berlin. He pointed out that Kruschev had predicted that he is going to bury us. Mr. Reagan said, ``But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind, too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself.'' He went on to say, ``We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. ``General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization; come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Amen. And we know the Wall came down. I had a meeting in my office today with 12 businessmen from Russia coming to talk about expanded trade opportunities between us and them. It is exciting to hear them expressing their interest in pursuing those values and those principles that Ronald Reagan played such a key role in achieving. It is something that has brought our Nation to a peak that is unprecedented in history, and it simultaneously has brought the world to a peak unprecedented in history. It is not that we still do not have a lot more to accomplish, we do indeed; but we can be excited about this. Let me just conclude with one final word. Ronald Reagan, and I say this as an Illinoisan, Ronald Reagan is the only President we have ever had from the State of Illinois. He was born in the little town of Tampico. He grew up in Dixon, Illinois. In high school and while he was going to college, he used to serve as a lifeguard at a park there every summer, and he pointed out that he did that for 7 years. He was working for like $15 or $20 a week in those days. But he pointed out that during the 7 years that he served in the capacity of lifeguard, that he saved 77 lives, 77 lives. I just want to pay tribute to the man who has saved more than 77 lives as he remarkably did in his years as a lifeguard. He has saved millions and millions of lives, and he has left his permanent stamp on the course of history. We salute that gentleman who has turned 90 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 which will never be forgotten.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Will the gentleman go back to Econ 101? Businesses do not pay taxes and never have. That is a cost, like plant and equipment and labor are costs.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which fulfills the United States' obligation to bring the foreign sales corporation tax regime into compliance with WTO trade agreements. H.R. 4986 moves the U.S. closer to a territorial tax system, more like the one governing the international activities of so many European businesses. Many issues divide the Congress in these days before and after the close national election. But with respect to the difficult choices facing us on FSC, both parties worked in concert with the administration to address a looming threat to innocent United States exporters. Make no mistake: this bill averts a trade war that is poised to hit unsuspecting U.S. exporters with millions of dollars of retaliatory tariffs. Another issue we need to be very clear about, the FSC regime and its replacement reduced the anti-growth biases of our international tax system that would otherwise hamstring our companies and our workers. Some Members, even proponents of this legislation, sometimes have called the FSC replacement a subsidy. We need to be more careful with our language. This is not a subsidy. It is a partial, repeat, partial, reduction in an excessive tax burden our companies, and by extension, our workers, face when competing in the world economy. By way of analogy, our current tax law is a felony. The fiscal replacement reduces the charge to a misdemeanor, but the net result still violates the economic law of neutrality that should govern all of our tax policies. The European Union is challenging us, not as Republicans or Democrats, not as Congress or the administration, but as a country. By completing the difficult work necessary to send this bill to the President, we have put the United States in the best possible position to defend our interests in the WTO. H.R. 4986 represents an achievement of bipartisan cooperation in the best interests of American businesses and workers. I urge a yes vote.

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

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to tobacco subsidies, that would keep people from getting to the polls, I guess, if we eliminated subsidies. But let me ask a second question. That is, do businesses pay taxes?

Mr. CRANE. No, do businesses pay taxes?

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have recognition of my opponents' opposition here to our bill. We had Smoot-Hawley in our party, and they shared many of the same convictions we heard here tonight. But I am happy that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking minority member, are supportive of this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have joined in a collegial and bipartisan way in support of advancing a piece of legislation that is of profound significance and importance to the welfare of our economy and the advancement of our continuing role as the biggest export country on the face of this Earth. We have an opportunity here to continue to move down that positive path. We have always had that good bipartisan support for these kinds of initiatives in the post-World War II era. I thank Members on both sides, and I urge my colleagues to get behind this bill and vote aye.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to consider the fate of the tax bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, I would implore the President not to veto this bill. As you know, this package includes the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 that provides much needed relief from the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1977 to a variety of Medicare providers including: hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, hospice services, and Medicare+Choice. Among the various provisions included in the Medicare relief portion of this package aimed at improving the quality of care our nation's seniors depend on, I would like to call your attention to an important public health issues that is in the Medicare relief portion of this package. We have all heard from our nation's hospitals about the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it's effect on their ability to provide a variety of services to their patients. One area that has been hard hit is hospitals' ability to treat patients with state-of-the-art blood products. In testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, the American Hospital Association specifically cited the costs associated with blood as one of the reasons that Congress should restore the full market basket index. Patient access to a safe and adequate blood supply is a national health priority and has been recognized by members of this body, the American public, and the nation's public health leaders. Yet, many of us have heard from the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks over the past year about hospitals having trouble affording new, innovative blood therapies that help to ensure that the nations blood supply is safe for patients. Additional funding is needed if we are going to remain commitment to providing the safest blood supply possible. The blood banking and transfusion medicine communities are constantly working to assure that safety improvements for blood are implemented as soon as they become available. Two recent initiatives have been introduced to increase the safety of the blood supply--Nucleic Acid Testing and leukoreduction. Nucleic acid testing allows for early detection of infectious diseases (such as HIV and hepatitis C (HCV)) in blood by detecting the genetic material of viruses. Leukoreduction, the removal of leukocytes (white cells) from blood components can reduce the frequency and severity of complications from transfusions. Unfortunately these new screening protocols significantly increase the cost of blood products. Nucleic Acid Testing and Leukoreduction increase the cost of blood products by over 40 percent for both hospitals and blood banks. Our Nation's nonprofit blood collection centers operate in the same managed care environment as our hospitals. While volunteers freely give the gift of blood, our nonprofit blood centers must recover the cost associated with providing a safe, state-of-the art product. This includes the cost associated with collecting, testing processing, storing, and distributing blood for patients in need. Nonprofit blood centers pass these charges onto hospitals, which, in turn, must get timely and adequate reimbursement for these life-saving and life-enhancing products. Unfortunately, the current system by which the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) determined hospital inpatient reimbursement rates does not account for these new and improved safety measures in a timely manner. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act directs HCFA and MedPAC to review how hospitals are reimbursed for blood and to make the necessary changes to provide for fair and timely reimbursement. While those studies will not be complete, nor will the recommendations be acted upon during the current fiscal year, we must act now to ensure that patients are receiving the safest possible blood products. The American Hospital Association along with the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks have all recognized the importance of this legislation. By restoring the full inflationary update to the Market Basket Index for hospitals, Congress is providing the nation's hospitals and blood centers with the means to afford new blood therapies and to ensure that patients are treated with the safest possible products.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the tax bill before us today is a mix of modest, but important policy changes, some unfortunate new directions in tax policy, and what can best be termed ``housekeeping'' items. There is, however, one especially important provision in this bill, which is the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion, or EIE, also known as the Foreign Sales Corporation replacement. This provision, necessitated by actions taken by the European Union before the World Trade Organization, is essential to preserving the ability to compete effectively of U.S. companies and U.S. workers. If we are to succeed and thrive in international commerce, we must not impose punitive taxes on our own competitors. Absent the EIE, our tax code would do just that. We must be clear about this, however. While we believe our new system will be found to be WTO compliant, there are no assurances. And we will not know for some months. I want to assure both our friends of the European Union, and our companies that are looking to the Congress to resolve this satisfactorily, that if our new system is found wanting, then the next Congress and the next Administration will work quickly to find another. If the EIE regime is found wanting, there may be no alternative but to adopt a fully territorial tax regime. That means, in short, a U.S. tax system that only collects tax on income earned in the U.S. I, for one, would welcome this, as should all U.S. companies and their workers, because this would cause a dramatic improvement in their ability to compete internationally. It would be ironic, indeed, if the net result of the Europeans' complaint is to leave U.S. companies stronger internationally than they were before. For now, however, I hope the Congress passes this bill, with its FSC replacement. I hope the President signs it. And I hope the WTO finds the new system satisfactory, so we can provide some certainty to our companies as to the tax law. We can then consider at a later date whether, when, or how to enact a territorial system.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible I have known Bill Archer longer than anyone in this Chamber. We met for the first time 30 years ago at a Lincoln Day festival. Bill was serving in the Texas State legislature at the time. I was told by mutual acquaintances that Bill was a strong conservative of unwavering principles, and that he would soon be elected to Congress. They were right on both counts. In fact, the only time I have known of Bill wavering occurred about three years before we first met. Bill found it necessary to correct a mistake he had grown up with. He switched from the Democratic to Republican parties. I have had the great honor and pleasure to sit next to Bill for 25 years now on the Ways and Means Committee. We have fought many fights together. We saw the power of the Committee exercised first-hand under Wilbur Mills. We experienced the curious mix of Chicago-style politics applied to national policy under Danny Rostenkowski. We celebrated the 1981 tax cut together, the effects of which are still being felt in today's prosperity. And we suffered through the lost opportunities of the 1986 Tax Reform Act and the disastrous 1990 and 1993 tax increases. Bill Archer has been a forceful and effective Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee through some of its most difficult years. These are partisan times, and, sadly, this partisanship has infected the work of the Committee all too often. Through it all, Bill has kept to his principles, and kept his sense of humor. Bill Archer knows as well as anyone in the United States what is wrong with our tax system. And he sees all-too-well the unfortunate trends of recent years, such as the increasing use of tax credits and the use of the tax system as an alternative to spending. He has fought valiantly to resist these trends while building a fire for fundamental tax reform. Unfortunately, Bill's legacy will not be the enactment of fundamental tax reform. But it will be the laying of the groundwork for the reforms to come. And they will come. Each of us must stand on the shoulders of those who preceded us. The Ways and Means Committee, and tax policy generally, will be standing on firm and principled ground years from now thanks to Bill's leadership. To quote Winston Churchill speaking of Lord Halifax: The fortunes of mankind in its tremendous journeys are principally decided for good or ill--but mainly for good, for the path is upward--by its greatest men and its greatest episodes. Bill Archer has participated in, and in some cases presided over, some of the Ways and Means Committee's greatest episodes. By virtue of his unbending adherence to principle and fairness in the most tempestuous of times, he is also, in my opinion, one of its greatest men.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have served with Tom Ewing since he was elected in a special election on July 2, 1991. Tom is one of a handful of members who serve on four committees: Agriculture; Transportation and Infrastructure; Science; and Administration. He is also a member of the President's Export Council. Tom represents the 15th District of Illinois, which covers the east central portion of our great state. Before his election to Congress, Tom served 17 years in the Illinois House of Representatives. He was the Assistant Republican Leader of the House from 1982 to 1990 and was named Deputy Minority Leader in 1990. During his tenure in the Illinois General Assembly and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom has received numerous state and national awards from business, education, environmental, senior citizens and agricultural organizations. He has been recognized for his leadership in the areas of crime prevention, welfare reform, economic growth and health care. Tom's emphasis on fiscal integrity and personal responsibility has earned him praise from such groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce, the 60/Plus Senior Citizens Association, the United Seniors Association, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform. In Congress, Tom has made balancing the budget, reducing the national debt, preserving Social Security, sending more money directly to the classroom and healthcare his top priorities. I know first hand from visiting with farmers in Tom's district that he has been a stalwart champion of agriculture issues and the opening of new, foreign markets for United States agriculture products. I want to wish Tom and his wife Connie all the best as they head toward their golden years.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a good friend, Carol Beese, of Barrington, Illinois. Carol is a community leader without equal, and is retiring from the Barrington Area Chamber of Commerce after 32 years of service. Carol became involved in the Barrington Area Chamber of Commerce many years ago. A true professional, her career in public service as a leader is rarely equaled. As President of the Chamber of Commerce, Carol has built the organization into one of the most energetic and engaged Chambers in the State of Illinois. She has been both dedicated and adamant with regard to the issues facing Chamber members, and is active as liaison between local businesses and Village officials. She is truly deserving of this tribute, and I am certain she will remain committed to serving the Barrington community for many years to come.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted in favor of the Conference Report to H.R. 4811, making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. My vote should have been recorded as a vote in opposition to the passage of the Conference Report.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report contains provisions that change existing provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as they relate to the ability of persons, other than a pharmaceutical manufacturer, to reimport medicines into the United States. These amendments to the nation's pharmaceutical laws relate to certain existing safety laws that have, in their application, prevented the reimportation of medicines. Further, these amendments mandate the study of ``the effect on importations . . . on trade and patent rights under federal law.'' I welcome this study and look forward to its completion. However, let's be clear that the Congress has not, through the enactment of this amendment, changed our long-standing, bipartisan U.S. trade policy and negotiating objectives, including strong and effective protection of intellectual property. The negotiating objectives of the United States have been explicitly established in law and remain to obtain the strong and effective protection of intellectual property rights in full accord with our rights under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) at a minimum and whenever possible, to obtain enhanced protection of intellectual property, on an accelerated basis. As section 31 5(2) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act explicitly provides, ``it is the objective of the United States . . . to seek enactment and effective implementation by foreign countries of laws to protect and enforce intellectual property rights that supplement and strengthen the standards of the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.'' In summary, the enactment of this Agricultural Appropriations bill does not affect or change U.S. trade law and policy, including our strong commitment established in law to the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights abroad.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 644) providing for the concurrence by the House, with an amendment, in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 4868.

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4868.

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4868 would make miscellaneous technical and clerical corrections to the trade laws. The House unanimously passed this legislation on July 25 of this year, and the Senate amended the bill on October 31 of this year, also by a unanimous vote. This bill contains over 155 provisions temporarily suspending or reducing duties on a wide variety of chemicals, including drugs used in the battle against HIV/AIDS and anticancer drugs, environmentally friendly herbicides and insecticides, and many organic dyes. By suspending or reducing these duties, we can enable U.S. companies that use these products to be more competitive and cost efficient. This would help create jobs for American workers, as well as reduce costs for consumers. At the same time, because there is no domestic production of these products, no U.S. industry would be harmed by these suspensions. The bill includes two other important provisions which I introduced earlier in this Congress. The first provision would reduce the duty rate returning travelers pay to an amount more in line with the average duty rate of imported commercial merchandise. My second provision would provide duty-free treatment to participants and individuals associated with all international athletic events held in the United States such as the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The bill contains a ban on imports, exports, and domestic commerce covering dog and cat fur. This provision establishes a zero tolerance policy with strong penalties for anyone who violates the ban in order to end this terrible practice. The bill also contains several other provisions that would benefit Americans and protect the environment. In addition, the bill contains a provision authorizing the President to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to the country of Georgia. Georgia has had conditional Normal Trade Relations under the Jackson- Vanik amendment since 1993 and has been found in full compliance with the statutory requirements. Georgia became a member of the World Trade Organization in June of this year, and this legislation is necessary in order for the United States to have a relationship with Georgia in the WTO. This legislation should be noncontroversial, and it should be embraced by the other body and sent quickly to the President. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

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

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate profoundly the bipartisan support that we have for this legislation and would urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 644. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 645) and ask for its immediate consideration.