Protect American Voters Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the United States Tax Code is out of sync with the rest of the world. Among our major trading partners, the United States is alone in the world in not using other forms of taxation other than direct income taxation.

Four times the United States defended our ability to create subsidies and, therefore, produce a more level playing field among our trading partners. We had for years refused to reexamine our code more fundamentally and thought that a subsidy mandate would create a more level playing field. Four times, the World Trade Organization said that under the rules of the World Trade Organization, of which we are a founding member, that that would not be permissible.

We are here today because the core of the bill is to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation extraterritorial tax structure, and it also affords us an opportunity to examine an out-of-date Tax Code.

For those who say all we should be doing is repealing the subsidy, which has been declared against the rules, is to ignore the reason why we put the rules in place in the first place. The reason we did the subsidy was because we were at a disadvantage. It can certainly be argued we should have fundamentally changed our Tax Code back when we did that, but the simple answer is, we did not.

What we are trying to do is correct the errors of our ways, primarily by omission, but occasionally by commission, of not allowing U.S.- based, U.S. workers to put products and services out in the world on a level playing field with the rest of the world. That is what this bill does.

In addition to that, in examining these areas, we discovered portions of the Tax Code that are just flat out unfair. And this is an opportunity; I believe everybody deserves 1 day every 20 years to have a look at the problems they face in the Tax Code. Why? Because small business in certain industries are faced with a discriminatory U.S. Tax Code that puts U.S. small businesses at a disadvantage to foreign businesses.

We are going to hear there is a provision in here about arrows, there is a provision in here about tackle boxes, there is a provision in here about sonar, fish detecting equipment. The reason it is in here is because our code discriminates against American producers.

So not only are we rewriting our laws to be good trading partners and assisting those people who no longer get the subsidy because we are rewriting the laws, we are providing one day every 20 years to examine those portions of the code that make absolutely no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do not rise to defend the honor of Miss Piggy, as the gentleman from New York indicated, and I am anxiously finding a flashlight because, apparently, the gentleman from New York exists in perpetual darkness since he believes night extends for more than 2 years. This bill has been around a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlemen from New York and Colorado, because without their active participation, the Green Bonds provision would not have been included in the House Energy Conference Report, H.R. 6, but it was, and this House passed it. Therefore, the opportunity to examine it in this conference is available to us. We did not deliberately exclude that measure from this bill, and I look forward to working with the gentlemen as we deliberate with the Senate on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and to observe that I was worried about a job for the young man, but it is clear that he now has a job being a shield for his father.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In 1986 the reason the basket went from two to nine was for pure revenue to be spent in other areas. And as President Reagan said, it would entice someone to go from a high-tax country to a low-tax country. Shame on us if we are the high-tax country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a champion in trade around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, only my friends on the other side of the aisle would have a 6-inch tree and call it Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just find it amazing that allowing American manufacturers to have a level playing field with foreign manufacturers is called a tax break.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman well knows that no substitute was offered in committee, no substitute was offered in front of the Committee on Rules. You can say it till you are blue in the face, but the Democrats offered no substitute, neither in committee nor in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), someone who is extremely interested in American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a colleague and member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a newer Member of the House but someone who has already made an impact on a portion of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Texas (Judge Doggett) needs to know that provision has been ruled by the courts not to provide attorney/client privilege and that there was no new power granted under that language. And the gentleman from Texas (Judge Doggett) knows that when the courts rule, we try to be responsible in that regard.

Former Speaker Tip O'Neill said, ``All politics is local.'' I had said that some areas of the code have not been examined in 20 years or more, and people deserve a day at least once every 20 years to try to correct the horrible, horrible condition of many areas of our economy under our current Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) who wants to talk about ending a subsidy to a particular group of Americans, and this is the first time they have had their day in court in almost three-quarters of a century.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) who understands all politics are local, and the Chair appreciates the tremendous work the gentleman from Kentucky has put in in perfecting this bill.

(Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, now I guess I am a little bit baffled. The gentleman from Illinois, chairman of the Committee on Small Business, was an original cosponsor of H.R. 1769, the Rangel-Manzullo bill. That included a corporate rate cut and specifically limited it to C corps. It did not extend it to S corps and partnerships, and it did not have any of the 11 subchapter S provisions that we include. He is making an appeal for bullets, but he is not supporting bows and arrows.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who understands the difference between spending and investing.

(Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I request respectively that I have the same 1 minute to be able to yield to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I understand 1 minute was yielded, and I just respectfully ask for 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida as was done on the other side. That is all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman, a Delegate from Guam, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands I would be pleased to work with them in conference to try to solve this problem for the Territories.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a very valued member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who has been a champion for something that is extremely important to his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Perhaps the gentleman is not aware that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means have exchanged letters on questions of jurisdiction as is often done. Also, I guess the gentleman is expressing clearly the current attitude of the minority, and, sadly, it is different than it used to be. What happened to the can-do attitude that Americans always exhibit?

It seems to me after 20 years, somebody ought to get 1 day to take a look at the fact that when he was in the majority, if one were in a State that had a sales tax and they rented, they got nothing. After 65 years people want an end of subsidy. Why not? Why not allow U.S. aero manufacturers to be treated the same as foreigners? If someone has new technology, why not, not punish them with a different tax system?

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy which says ``The administration urges the House to pass H.R. 4520 promptly.'' And I would urge the House to do the same.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 4520--american jobs creation Act of 2004

The Administration supports foreign sales corporation/

extraterritorials income (FSC/ETI) legislation that reforms

the tax code, removes the underlying reason for the tariffs

that have been imposed on American exports by the European

Union (EU), and further advances the competitiveness of

American manufacturers and other job creators.

The Administration urges the House to pass H.R. 4520

promptly. If Congress does not act to replace the current

FSC/ETI provisions in the tax code, then the tariffs that

were imposed by the EU on March 1st will inflict an

increasing burden on American exporters, American workers,

and the overall economy. To support the continued

strengthening of our economy and to create more jobs,

Congress should act now to end the threat posed by these

tariffs and to promote the competitiveness of American

manufacturers and other job-creating sectors of the U.S.

economy. The Administration looks forward to working with the

conferees on this legislation to move it toward budget

neutrality, and to enacting legislation that removes the

threat of escalating EU sanctions and encourages economic

growth and job creation at home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the minority leader, in discussing the minority position, talked about the vision of the gentleman from New York, the path that he wished to take. We were just handed 3 minutes ago this particular motion to recommit, so if we are looking for a contest of freshness, the gentleman's vision is clearly the most recently pasted-together piece of legislation to be presented us. In fact, the paste is still kind of damp.

So if, in fact, the vision is the path that the gentleman from New York wishes to follow, we would hope it is a shining path. But when you look at this legislation, what you discover, notwithstanding the half an hour of berating on the floor of the House the tobacco proposal, guess what is recently pasted to his vision? You guessed it, the tobacco proposal. Apparently he has had a change of vision.

For more than 20 years, when they were the majority, they did not give a dang about people deducting sales taxes, because they were the ones who removed it from the code. But, guess what? That vision had a bolt of lightning 20 minutes ago, and now we have permanent sales tax removal.

Had Republicans decided to go with permanent sales tax removal, I am quite sure they would have come up with a deduction for your dog. Why? Because no matter what we do, they are going to be better. But better is not copying. Better is starting out with an idea, carrying it through, and presenting it to you.

What their motion to recommit will do is to say if you are a company in the U.S. and you deign to try to make a profit by selling overseas, you will be punished. It says that in our desire to raise revenue, we will examine what you have been doing. Not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow. We will retroactively go back to what you have been doing for 20 or 30 or 40 years and now say not only can you not do it; you are going to have to pay for doing it, notwithstanding the fact it was legal. Retroactively.

And then bragging about the fact that they removed the international tax provisions, what they are really bragging about is since U.S.-based companies are double taxed today, without these changes, they will continue to be double taxed.

Why are companies going overseas? Because they are double taxed. They want to keep double taxation, and they want to complain about companies going overseas.

It is pretty simple: support H.R. 4520. Companies will stay at home, and that creates jobs.

So I appreciate the gentleman from New York's vision. I just hope the paste lasts through the vote, because, frankly, that is about what it is worth.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is so interesting. The chairman of the committee stands to tell us what this bill is all about, which is labeled the American Jobs Creation Act and, guess what? This is nothing about jobs. He would have us believe that the reason for this legislation is to reform the Tax Code, to bring it up to date. Well, I have heard this type of Republican talk before: we have to pull it out by the roots. That is when we only had thousands of pages in the Tax Code.

But in the middle of the night, they bring us now a bill that is 400 pages long, and probably nobody in the House has even seen it yet. Do not call this a tax bill and do not say that you are reforming the system, because the fact is, if you wanted to really fix what this bill was supposed to do, and that is to remove the subsidy, all you do is remove the subsidy, and you do not give a tax cut for $150 billion, but you pick up $50 billion, which is the amount of the subsidy.

So you can put lipstick on a pig, but you cannot call it a lady. This is a lousy bill. It has nothing to do with reform.

And about this one day that someone is entitled to get their priorities, well, he is 100 percent correct. They sent the word out that every lobbyist in Washington has one day to get his favorite in this bill. It is just unfortunate that the American people did not get their one day to get jobs in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of Committee on Ways and Means and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who will explain how in the Congress we find Christmas in mid-June.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the Congress, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why he is so proud of giving these people a break just for 2 years when the Democratic alternative would have made it permanent so they would not have to worry about paying it back in 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a strong, hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, talking about jobs or lack of it, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who knows that they do not have the jobs. She is a hardworking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to make it clear that if the Democrats had a chance to have an alternative this provision would have not lasted just for 2 years, as Republicans would have it, but would have been made permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a hardworking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest fraud on farmers, and especially tobacco farmers, that I have seen in my 34 years in Congress. Here we have some help allegedly for the tobacco farmers, and those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means could not even discuss it because it is not in our jurisdiction, yet it is in our bill.

A person does not have to be a politician or Member of Congress to know if we are talking about farming and tobacco, we should be talking about the Committee on Agriculture and not the tax-writing committee. This bill has nothing to do with taxes, nothing to do with international sanctions against us. It has everything to do with trying to pick up votes for those people who know that they are facing economic distress in this area.

The right thing to have done was to have it in the Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction and who understands this issue even better than some of the smartest Members on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) from the other side of the aisle. He is just as much a Republican as I am a Democrat. One thing we have in common is that when we have a problem with the WTO we do not think it is a Republican or a Democratic issue, but we think in a bipartisan way we should work toward trying to resolve that. We have done that. It has been a pleasure working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), whom I would like to believe as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business knows more about small businesses than the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means knows about tobacco.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader of the minority and a person that has been very sensitive to the necessity and the creation of jobs for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is abundantly clear that the majority will succeed in passing this bill not because the bill is good but because they have succeeded in reaching out to other people and giving them gifts to be putting on the tree under this Christmas tree bill. In other words, we call it buying votes.

But I would ask the seller to beware and the buyer to beware because when some of these gifts are opened, they will find the boxes empty. Our beleaguered tobacco farmers will find that there will be a sign there: We do not have the money we promised, go to Appropriations; we do not have the regulations, go to Commerce; we do not have the jurisdiction, go to Agriculture. They will find that when they take a look at this bill and they are looking for jobs, there is going to be a sign there: Take a flight overseas. That is where the jobs are going to be.

So I am suggesting that even though they may be successful in winning this, they are not winning the minds and the hearts of the American people, who know that they have denied the minority an opportunity to say that we have a better idea in order to do these things.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am suggesting if this bill was as good as some of you are saying that it is, you would not have to come on this side of the aisle and offer promises that you know you cannot fulfill in conference and you know you cannot fulfill because you do not have jurisdiction. There will come a time that we are going to say when you call it a jobs bill, at least it should mean jobs for United States citizens and not jobs for foreigners.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit, we have a restricted amount of time, because the majority denied us the opportunity to have a substitute. If the underlying bill is so good, why not allow in the democratic process, with a small ``d,'' the opportunity for someone to say, I have a better idea; and since they are the majority, why do they not believe that they have enough votes and must have confidence in what they are doing, at least to get the majority to vote for it?

So my motion to recommit, what we would have done if we had had the chance, is that we do not provide tax incentives for manufacturers and other people to move their jobs overseas. What we do is grab the essence of the agreement that we had with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) when we put together a bipartisan bill to create jobs, not for those overseas, but for those in the United States of America.

We also do not include all of the addition of tax incentives for things that are not related to resolving the problem before us. We have what is indeed called a jobs bill, and that is what we had hoped that we would be able to do.

As was pointed out by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), we believe that States who do not have income taxes and rely on sales taxes should get relief, but why the majority would restrict this relief to 2 years is far beyond my expectation; and that is why we thought we had a better idea to make it permanent.

When kids look under the Christmas tree, there is going to be a gift for them too. They will be inheriting one of the biggest debts that we have ever seen, because this bill that started out with a plus of $50 billion, they have now provided a $34 billion deficit. And indeed, if you take all of the phasing-outs and take the sunsettings out of it, it is estimated that it would add $300 million to the deficit.

One thing that we do not do, and that is to provide safe harbor for churches, allowing them entry into partisan politics, because we were so pleased to see that they knew that they really had overburdened the purposes of this bill and finally excluded that.

It would seem to me that those people who really are interested in the jobs of the United States will have an opportunity to vote on this motion to recommit, and those people who believe that there is a gift for them under the tree and that that is the only reason that they are voting for a bill that most people who get a chance to read this bill, since it was not made available today to most of the members of the subcommittees in this House, would realize that this bill is bad for American job seekers, it is bad for America, and it is bad for our economy.

So I do hope that perhaps sometime in the future when Republicans think that they have a great idea, that they

also should remember in a democracy and in this Congress they should not just attempt continuously to stifle the opposition but to have enough confidence in what they are doing to give us a chance to say, we want a substitute, we want to be heard, we want our bill on the floor for people to evaluate and to be able to vote for.

But each time we do it, they said that if we did not take their tobacco, it was out of the jurisdiction. We have been hampered in the committee, we have been hampered by the Committee on Rules, and we are hampered now by the rules of the House. I think we should stop talking about what happened in the days of Rostenkowski and think what is happening to the American people today and what can we do in a bipartisan way, working together to resolve problems that we have.

It should be embarrassing to everyone in this House that when a foreign group like the World Trade Organization provides sanctions against United States exporters that we believe that we come up with a Republican solution. It should be an American solution, congressional solution, and not an attempt of a partisan solution for partisan purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, how does one find out whether or not the former speaker did not tell the truth as it relates to what is in the motion to recommit? How would one be able to find out, when he said that the tobacco proposals are in the motion to recommit, that he did not tell the truth? What procedure does one follow in order to adjust the record and to make certain that truth will prevail over this partisan effort?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not hear the Speaker.

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. Speaker I yield myself 8 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the need to quickly fix the FSC-ETI export tax issue. Thousands of U.S. exporters are needlessly paying 8 percent tariffs to European countries simply because the Republican- controlled Congress has failed to pass legislation to avoid these penalties. These tariffs will continue to climb 1 percentage point each month as long as the issue remains unresolved.

These retaliatory tariffs are especially hard hitting as the United States continues to experience difficult times in the manufacturing sector, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs under the Bush administration. In my congressional district in Massachusetts, jewelry, textiles, and small manufacturers have especially been hit hard by these sanctions.

Throughout the WTO process there has been bipartisan consensus that the U.S. should repeal the extraterritorial income exemption, the ETI and comply with the WTO decision. The disagreement has been over what to replace it with. Last year the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and others introduced a bipartisan, revenue- neutral fix to this problem, H.R. 1769.

This bill currently has 172 bipartisan cosponsors. When our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), filed a discharge petition in March to bring the bill immediately to the floor, 18 Members signed that petition.

The Crane-Rangel bill would take the $50 billion in tax incentives that American companies operating overseas receive under the current ETI and create new incentives for American companies to produce goods in the United States. It lowers the corporate income tax rate for U.S. companies and addresses the growing problem of U.S. companies moving their plants overseas.

Simply put, H.R. 1769 is a clean, paid-for bill that remedies the FSC/ETI problem without unduly burdening those companies that have benefited from this exemption in the past, and without unduly burdening our children and grandchildren by adding to our deficit.

So why did we not fix the problem months ago by passing the Crane- Rangel bill? Why are we not debating H.R. 1769 this morning? Why is the Republican leadership denying the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the opportunity to offer his alternative on the floor today?

Because time after time the leadership of this House has demonstrated that it would rather offer a goody-bag of corporate tax giveaways to special interests than simply and quickly fixing the problem.

What is in this grab bag of a bill? The closer you look at it, the uglier it gets.

This bill is chock full of sweetheart deals, special fixes, and big giveaways to special interests. It looks like every lobbyist in town will be celebrating tonight. The list of provisions that favor particular companies or industries includes cruise-ship operators, whale hunters, Chinese ceiling fans, foreign gamblers, NASCAR track owners, timber companies, cattle ranchers, bourbon distillers, movies theater owners, small plane manufacturers, bow and arrow sets, fishing tackle boxes, and corporate jet owners.

This is no way to do tax policy.

The list of narrow special interest giveaways is very familiar because we have seen them all before, when a similar set of giveaways held up passage of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act for 18 months, until finally, finally, they were thrown out and this House decided to do the right thing and support our uniformed men and women and their families.

But like the evil poltergeists in the movie, they are back. And this time they have brought along some friends. What else is in this bill?

How about paying a private company to make a profit collecting debts owed to the IRS so that all our private tax information will now be given to private bounty hunters. How about tax provisions that give U.S. companies fresh incentives to locate operations anywhere other than in the United States by giving them even more tax shelters for their foreign income? At the very core of this bill are $35 billion in tax incentives for U.S. firms to invest overseas.

If you are a small manufacturer or farm cooperative that creates jobs and has production solely in the United States, too bad. You are simply out of luck in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the frosting on the cake. This bill as it is written will add at least another $34 billion to the deficit. In just 3 short years, the Bush administration and the Republican- controlled Congress have taken our Nation from record surpluses to the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States, in the history of the United States, Mr. Speaker. And now the leadership of this House wants to add at least $34 billion more to these deficits.

The legislation passed in the other body at least has the benefit of being revenue-neutral. And the Crane-Rangel bill is fully paid for.

Why is it that everyone seems to be able to pay for their corporate tax legislation except for the Republican House leadership? Why are they the only ones that want to pass the burden of debt on to future generations? And let us not forget that when all the phony accounting gimmicks such as slow phase-ins and phase-outs and sunsets provisions are factored in, the amount added to the deficit is more likely to be closer to $45 billion.

This bill may mean more jobs, Mr. Speaker, but they will not be U.S. jobs.

This bill rewards companies that move off shore, that shelter income from production abroad, and that outsource even more jobs now and forevermore.

Now, I seem to remember the Republicans saying over and over that our Tax Code is simply too complex, too confusing and too costly; but this bill, instead of simplifying and tightening the Tax Code and closing loopholes, creates over 400 pages of new and expensive special interest exceptions.

This bill makes our Tax Code more complex, not less; more unfair, not less. It does too little for those businesses that prefer to produce and hire

in the United States. It hurts farmers, stiffs small businesses, and benefits large multinational companies first and foremost.

It increases the deficit and tacks on major unrelated initiatives. Instead of simply fixing the $5 billion FSC/ETI problem, it creates a $150 billion special interest giveaway.

Mr. Speaker, this Special Interests Christmas Tree Giveaway Act is quite simply a scandal. Now, in light of such largesse for special interests and large corporations, I was surprised when this morning the Republican majority in the Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and me. Our amendment would provide tax relief to every company and business that makes up the difference in income to an employee activated into the National Guard or Reserves and would have provided support to those same companies to train temporary employees to fill the jobs left vacant by active-duty employees.

At a time of national emergency, when members of the Reserves and National Guard are serving extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican majority in the Committee on Rules decided that this modest tax relief proposal was not important or relevant enough to be considered during the debate on this bill.

This bill before us helps Halliburton and Bechtel, two corporations that are ripping off the American taxpayer through fraud and abuse of their defense contracts in Iraq; but the Republican leadership will not help the hundreds of small businesses suffering from long-term vacancies or the families whose loved ones have been activated for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate on this rule, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I will offer our amendment to H.R. 4250 to help the Reservists and small business.

We have the chance to do the right thing today. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the sales tax deduction provision phases out in 2 years. It is not permanent. And this morning the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and other Republicans voted against making it permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means refused to show me or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the same courtesy that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) showed the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he refused to answer the question as to whether or not the Committee on Rules would have made in order the Crane-Rangel alternative, in whatever form it would have been in. The answer is clearly they would not have.

The gentleman mentioned American democracy. Twenty amendments were denied in the Committee on Rules. That is not democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. How many of those amendments were made in order?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me also say that the Republican leadership made it clear last night that no substitute in any form would have been made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the continuing activation of military Reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's businesses. For too many of these small businesses, the temporary loss of these employees makes it difficult to continue operating successfully, and many are faced with severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. Why not help alleviate some of this burden for these employers who are doing the right thing for their employees and their families?

It is ironic that the party that never met a tax cut they did not like and that claims to support small business would deny small businesses a tax credit to help pay their employees who are serving their country in a time of war. I cannot imagine why the Republican leadership denied the full House an opportunity to vote on this amendment. Certainly this is a more important issue than tax relief for Chinese ceiling fan makers.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and let this House vote on tax fairness for small businesses whose employees are bravely serving their country in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 681 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The rule provides one hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule further provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, as modified by the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, shall be considered as adopted.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended, and against its consideration.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, America's economy has taken its share of hits over the past several years. We had a triple shock of terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, and recession. But each time this economy was stricken, this administration and this Congress responded with action to move forward, to create jobs, and to spur economic growth.

In fact, in just his first few months in office, after inheriting a slowing economy, President Bush and this Congress enacted a series of tax cuts that resulted in the shortest and shallowist recession in this Nation's history. Our work towards recovery has continued throughout its time and today real GDP growth has grown at its fastest rate in 20 years. More than 1.4 million jobs have been created. The unemployment rate is below the average level in each of the past 3 decades. Productivity has grown to the fastest 3-year rate in 40 years. Home ownership is at an all-time high and we have the highest number of total payroll employees in our history.

In the particularly hard hit manufacturing sector we have seen the best 4-month period of job growth in 6 years and the manufacturing employment index was at its highest level since 1973. Even in my region of the country, which has traditionally lagged national recoveries, one prominent economic survey reported ``signs of a long awaited rebound in hiring demand were evident across most regions and industries, suggesting that the economic growth may soon begin to shift into a new higher gear.''

But our work is not done until every American looking for a job finds one, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the American Jobs Creation Act by supporting this rule and underlying bill.

The most recent data shows that employment remained strong last month, evidenced by the creation of 248,000 new jobs and continuing three quarters of a strong economic growth. Now it is time to seize on this momentum and continue to take steps to grow our economy, generate jobs, boost domestic manufacturing, and protect small businesses and farmers.

As my colleagues well know, recent European sanctions on American exports are hurting our manufacturers and farmers to the tune of up to $4 billion a year. Tariffs currently stand at 8 percent and will increase a staggering 1 percent per month until FSC-ETI is repealed. These sanctions are increasing the price of U.S. goods sold outside the United States. They are reducing the exporting capability of multiple industries, and they are threatening the ability of our domestic country to create jobs here at home.

We have the power to stop them now, and without our action many small businesses and other employers face financial ruin while their employees face their own job losses. But by repealing FSC-ETI through the underlying bill, this Congress will put an end to these sanctions and help yet again to put Americans to work.

H.R. 4520 permanently reduces the corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 32 percent for domestic manufacturers, producers, farmers, and small corporations. This is yet another stimulant for job growth, encouraging production and manufacturing here at home, giving employers incentives to reinvest, expand and, most importantly, create new jobs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also addresses a fundamental hurdle in realizing even bigger job growth, the double taxation of U.S.-based manufacturers. Our global counterparts currently share a significant advantage over the United States simply due to the onerous U.S. Tax Code. In reducing this double taxation faced by U.S.-based companies, we will greatly enhance their competitiveness and ability to sell American-made goods in the global market, all the while making it easier for them to create more jobs here in the United States.

Last month the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index

showed the twelfth straight reading above 50 percent and the seventh reading above 60 percent. Readings at this level indicate substantial expansions in manufacturing activity, which is more good news for manufacturing job creation.

Mr. Speaker, another important part of H.R. 4520 is its relief for millions of small businesses and farmers from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Over the years this tax has burdened more and more middle-income Americans, a clearly unintended consequence. With the passage of the underlying bill today, this House will deliver much needed relief for millions of American farmers and small businesses. This relief will help keep individuals from sending exorbitant amounts of their hard- earned money to Uncle Sam and use it instead to create new jobs and new opportunities.

Finally, H.R. 4520 makes it cheaper for existing businesses to increase their investment and for entrepreneurs to also expense their new ventures. The underlying bill includes provisions to promote investment in new equipment. Increased investment such as this provides significant stimulus to the economy and further aids in boosting job growth.

Shipments of core capital goods, which is the category most directly linked to business investment, has continued to rise recently, and we can build on that progress.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and I would like to commend the chairman and committee members for their steadfast support of sound tax policy and job creation.

We have the opportunity and responsibility to not only continue, but to accelerate the last 9 months of economic growth and job creation. We can do that today by passing the American Jobs Creation Act. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of time doing the presentation, the fact that I think our economy is moving, that the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is going to create more jobs across America; and I just want to make sure that my view of that is again on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means chairman.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I sit here and I listen to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to rewrite history. It was only 4 hours ago that we were in the Committee on Rules. We took testimony. Some of the Members who are the loudest critics on the floor today were not there.

When I came to this Congress, I had served almost all of my entire career in the minority. I know what it is like to have to cough up a substitute and not be able to do it because of the diversity of the minority party in coming up with it. I did not see a substitute. It was awfully clear there was no substitute for the committee's consideration.

Now there are a number of line-by-line amendments that were brought before the committee by the minority in rollcall votes. They are well recorded. There will be no document that says there was a substitute before the Committee on Rules.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

None.

The amendments were brought before the committee. Again, there was no substitute.

I did see a Rangel amendment that excluded all parts of the tax cuts and left the tobacco bill.

Today this body, after this rule is passed, is going to have the opportunity to make a decision: Tax cuts and a competitive agenda, or the same old business as usual, drag it out, mess it up.

Today, with H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, my colleagues are going to be able to end sanctions by repealing the FSC- ETI, compensating for lost benefits by permanently cutting corporate tax rates for domestic manufacturers and producers and farmers and small corporations.

It is going to provide a pro-growth tax incentive for manufacturers, small businesses and farmers to help create more American jobs, and it is going to enhance the competitiveness of U.S.-based companies engaging in exporting and/or manufacturing by greatly reducing double taxation. These companies receive more than 90 percent of the FSC-ETI benefits under the current law.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about it a long time. Today we are going to have a vote up or down. America deserves this legislation because it is going to give everyone who wants a job an opportunity to get a job.

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

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) outlined a couple of things, and the debate on this rule also should bring us back to perspective on this.

I thought I understood from the gentleman that his plan encourages American companies to outsource overseas. The U.S. companies only benefit if they manufacture in the United States. This plan temporarily reduces the tax rate on repatriated income but only if that income is currently reinvested in the United States.

The plan provides for $13 billion in transitional tax relief to manufacturing and production in the United States. It eliminates double taxation on foreign sales corporations and will not allow these businesses to expand their operations hiring Americans.

Finally, any sanctions imposed by the EU and other tariffs imposed on the American products will encourage business expansion, creating jobs right here at home in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know that my colleagues in the Chamber know there is a debate on. I believe those who are watching throughout the offices know there is a debate on. I hope America knows. We are having that debate first on this rule, and we are seeing viewpoints expressed. And then we will have full debate on the Ways and Means chair and ranking member managing the underlying legislation. Let it be clear that there will be 2 full hours of debate that this honorable body will have on this issue. I am sure there will be many different viewpoints that are expressed. At the end, I hope we are successful in passing this legislation so that we can continue to grow jobs in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and customary rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me respond by saying that the gentleman is absolutely correct, that one of the things that we try to do is we try to ensure that the minority, Democrats in this instance, have an opportunity to have their proposals considered.

In 1994 we changed the rules to ensure that an opportunity for a recommital motion would be guaranteed. We also try to add, when we can, an opportunity for a substitute to be offered.

Now, yesterday, as the gentleman is correct, when I approached him, I said, we want to work and see if we can put together a substitute proposal. And I know from the discussions that I had that there was a lot of disagreement on the minority side about exactly what kind of shape it would take.

The proposal that was submitted by my friend was in fact not a substitute. It was simply an amendment. And so we made very clear that a substitute would be what we would consider. Yes, late last night I said I was concerned and was not sure.

I said I was not sure that the Committee on Rules----

No, I did not say that. I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, what I said was----

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

If the gentleman would yield, I am happy to respond.

The gentleman did not come and testify before the Committee on Rules this morning and was not there when we had the markup.

The proposal that was offered by the gentleman in the Committee on Rules was, in fact, an amendment, not a substitute, which is what we stated was necessary for us to even consider it. Okay. That was not offered, and so when there was no substitute offered, of course we did not make a substitute in order because it was not even an option for the Committee on Rules.

I thank my friend for yielding.

If gentleman will yield, what I said was I was concerned about the possibility, and I will say that there were other members of your leadership team who indicated to me at that point when we stood right here that, in fact, there was not a substitute that had been put together.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there was no substitute submitted to the Committee on Rules. I think it is important for us to note that we would have had an opportunity to consider that if we had had a substitute put together. We had a cut-and-bite amendment, a perfecting amendment provided from the ranking minority member. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset talk briefly about this issue of minority rights. I feel very strongly about the rights of the minority, doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that in the Madisonian spirit of minority rights, their ideas are considered. That is why when we went from minority to majority status exactly 10 years ago, we guaranteed something that was often denied to us, and I served for 14 years in the minority, it was often denied to us as members of the minority, and that was an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit the bill, a bite at the apple. It was often denied to us, and we have guaranteed that. I will say that we try whenever we possibly can to make in order a substitute, a substitute measure when it is brought to us in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that working back and forth with Members of the minority, I tried to last night see if we could, in fact, have a substitute and make it in order. I will admit I said to them that I was not sure that we would be able to, but the opportunity was still there for Members of the minority to give us a chance to consider a substitute measure in the Committee on Rules, and it did not happen.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe that we should be here celebrating, celebrating the fact that we are on the verge of passing very important legislation that is going to build on the fact that the measures that we have passed in a bipartisan way dealing with our Tax Code under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the proposal that initially was submitted to us by the President of the United States, has created in excess of 1 million jobs over the past 3 months.

We are going to be able to have a chance today with this legislation to build on that. That is why I want to say something that has not been raised here at all. I want to thank the European Union and the World Trade Organization for getting us to this point. In 1947 when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established, the goal was a very clear and simple one. It was to eliminate tariff barriers so that we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital.

What is it that has happened? We have seen the WTO build on that and one of the goals, of course, is the elimination of subsidization. The WTO was right. The FSC/ETI provisions have been subsidies; and what we are doing is we are, in fact, phasing those out. We are phasing those out because they have chosen to, at a rate of 1 percent a month, increase the burden on U.S. products trying to get into their markets.

So what is happening? Rather than simply pointing outside, we are looking

at ourselves, realizing that one of the challenges that we face as we try to compete globally is the tax and regulatory burden that exists in the United States of America, impinging on our workers, our manufacturers, our producers the chance to get into new markets worldwide. That is why what we are doing with this policy in bringing about a reduction in that tax burden, it is the right thing to do. It is going to create more jobs right here at home.

How the other side of the aisle can constantly complain that this is going to do nothing but create jobs overseas is beyond me. What we are doing here is we are reducing the burden that exists on job creators, meaning that there will be a greater chance to create even more jobs here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time in coming. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and members of the Committee on Ways and Means and many of the rest of us have been involved working for 2 years on this measure. It has been discussed, it has been debated, there have been hearings; and we now have had an hour of debate on this, and we will now have another hour of debate and an up-or-down vote. It is not perfect legislation. We all know that there is no such thing as perfection emerging from this place; but as we deal with this challenge, it does create a wonderful new opportunity for the workers of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying measure which we are going to be voting on.