Local Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 830 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 830 is a standard rule that provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report will be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, America's economy has experienced more than its fair share of setbacks. We have had a triple shock of terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and a recession, but each and every time, this administration and this Congress has responded with sound policies to move forward, to create jobs, to stimulate economic growth.

After inheriting a slowing economy, President Bush and this Congress reacted quickly and enacted a series of tax cuts that resulted in the shortest and shallowest recession in this Nation's history. We have been resolute in our work towards recovery, and today, real GDP has grown at its fastest rate in 20 years.

More than 1.7 million jobs have been created, and more Americans are working today than in any other time in our history. The unemployment rate is below the average levels in each of the past three decades. In the past 4 years, we have seen the fastest rate of growth in productivity in more than a half a century. Homeownership continues at an all-time high.

In the particularly hard-hit manufacturing sector, we have seen 17 straight months of growth in activity, and the manufacturing employment index has been growing for 11 consecutive months. When President Bush took office, manufacturing employment had been on the decline for 3 years. In fact, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the last 6 months of the Clinton administration. So far this year, manufacturing employment is up by more than 107,000 jobs. We have seen the addition of 22,000 manufacturing jobs last month alone, and manufacturing output is at an all-time high.

But our work is not done until every American who wants a job can find one, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today on behalf of the American Jobs Creation Act by supporting this rule and the underlying conference report.

Now is the time to seize on the momentum that we have created and continue to enact policies that spur economic growth, generate jobs, bolster domestic manufacturing and protect small businesses and farmers.

As my colleagues know, European Union sanctions on American exports are costing our manufacturers and farmers billions of dollars. Tariffs currently stand at 12 percent and will continue to increase 1 percent per month until the FSC/ETI is repealed. That, Mr. Speaker, threatens the ability of our domestic companies to create jobs right here at home.

EU sanctions are increasing the price of 1,600 categories of U.S. goods sold outside of the United States. They are hindering the exporting capability of multiple industries.

Today, we have the power to stop them. Without our action, many small businesses and other employers face financial ruin, while their employees face their own job losses.

By repealing the FSC/ETI through the underlying conference report, this Congress will finally put an end to these staggering sanctions and help, once again, to put Americans to work.

This conference report permanently reduces the corporate tax rate to 32 percent for domestic, and only 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, more importantly, create new jobs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying report also addresses the primary obstacle in realizing even bigger job growth, the double taxation for U.S.-based manufacturers. Our global competitors enjoy a considerable advantage over the United States simply due to the burdensome U.S. tax code. In reducing this double taxation faced by U.S.-based companies, we greatly enhance their competitiveness in the global market and their ability to sell American-made goods, all the while making it easier for them to create more jobs here in the United States.

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, that tax has unintentionally ensnared more and more middle-income Americans. With the passage of the underlying report today, this House will deliver much-needed relief for millions of American farmers and small businessmen.

We will end the double and triple taxation of farmer cooperatives, and we will provide capital gains tax relief when livestock is sold and replaced on account of drought and other weather-related disasters.

The conference report also makes it cheaper for existing businesses to increase their investment and for entrepreneurs to expense new ventures.

Provisions to promote investment in new equipment are extended for an additional 2 years. This increased investment opportunity provides significant stimulus to the economy, and further aids in boosting job growth.

Partnerships and S corporations also receive a reduction for domestic production activities under the conference report. A whole host of reforms are included which provide S corporations with $1.2 billion in tax relief.

In total, the conference report gives manufacturing companies, farms and small businesses $76.5 billion in stimulative tax relief through a reduction for income attributable to production activities here in the United States. 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.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people throughout this process. I would like to especially commend the Chairman and the conference committee members for their steadfast support of sound tax policy and job creation.

We have the opportunity and the responsibility to not only continue but also accelerate the last year of economic growth and job creation. We can do that today by passing the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts. He said draw a line in the sand. I am willing to bet, by the time we complete our vote on the bill, the underlying legislation, it is going to be quicksand, because I think it will have bipartisan support not only in this body but the other body.

I guess it is okay to come on the floor and see just a half or a quarter of what the legislation does, but you cannot write history over again. The fact

is, earlier the gentleman from Massachusetts and I had the opportunity to bring back to the floor from the Committee on Rules a same-day resolution. It was passed by this honorable body and we are now having the underlying legislation brought down, the conference report, to be considered here.

So the will of the House was done today by a vote which allowed the bringing of this bill to the floor. It seems that this is a similar situation to a discussion we had earlier on the rule on this same-day legislation, and that was in reference to the Crane-Rangel legislation. I just must remind us again for the record in the rules debate we are now having that while my colleagues continue to talk about Crane- Rangel, many of the provisions that were in the legislation offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) are incorporated in the parts of this bill in the conference report. I also note that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has signed this conference report as a conferee.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind my colleagues that it has bipartisan support, as the conferees deliberated on only those things that were in the House bill or in the other body's bill as a final product of the conference report. The minority leader of the other body has signed this as a conferee.

And there is good reason why it has bipartisan support. But before we discuss that, we might look back at the reality of what the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said earlier today in the previous rule which helped to bring this one to the floor. He said in order to have bipartisanship, it goes two ways. Sometimes we lose track of that, as it was extended by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance version, of having amendments offered from the conferees and then considered, as is done in the Senate Committee on Finance.

Before we conclude on what is in the bill through the eyes of my colleague from Massachusetts, let us be reminded that this legislation addresses help for exporters, where the European Union has imposed a penalty tariff of 12 percent on more than 1,600 categories of U.S. exports. And unless the U.S. Congress acts, the European Union will continue to increase that penalty tariff by 1 percent every single month until it reaches 17 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that affects Wisconsin's cheese, Florida's oranges, California's lemons and limes and other farm products which are subject to that penalty tariff; and U.S. manufacturers of jewelry and steel and tools, glass, toys, and clothing, and other products subject to the penalty tariff.

I keep hearing, Mr. Speaker, we have a plan for the middle class. Well, when I look at small business, that is middle class, on Main Street USA. This bill extends and enhances section 179 expensing for 2 additional years, so small businesses can write off the costs of their investments up to $100,000 annually. Partnerships and S corporations receive a deduction for domestic production activities. It offers S corporations ten reforms providing $1.2 billion in tax relief, and it provides for faster depreciation of leasehold and restaurant improvements on those mom-and-pop shops all through USA Main Street.

When we look at our farmers, Mr. Speaker, the impact of what has been done in this bill on the deduction for domestic production activities extended to farmers as well as to agriculture and horticulture cooperatives, it deals with AMT relief for farmers and fisherman who income average. It extends an ethanol subsidy for those under current law through 2010, thus improving farmers' incomes. It ends double and triple taxation of farmer cooperatives. It provides capital gains tax relief when livestock is sold and replaced on account of drought or other weather-related disasters. It extends capital gains treatment on outright sales of timber.

Mr. Speaker, on domestic manufacturers, the bill provides companies, farms, and small business with $76.5 billion, that is with a ``B,'' $76.5 billion in stimulative tax relief through a deduction for income tax attributed to production activities in the United States. More tax relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. production operations. The deduction is available for domestic production activities only, and the deduction is limited to 50 percent of the wages paid to workers in America. The bill does not move jobs overseas.

And for those who do not have income tax, something that I live with in New York, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 allows taxpayers, especially those in Nevada, Wyoming, the State of Washington, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska and Florida, to deduct their sales taxes because they do not pay income tax.

And ending the tobacco quotas, I have seen tobacco States where it is clear that the message of opportunity of offering tobacco farmers, including those in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky, a fair buy-out to end the quota system.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous opportunity for middle America to get a tax break and to continue stimulating our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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

I listened here, and I have just got to remind people that it is very clear this resolution is revenue-neutral, so it is not going to impact the deficit. Second, I listened to my colleague from New Jersey as he talked about jobs overseas and everybody getting a benefit, and I have just got to remind, again for the record, although we put it on in the previous rule, that nothing in this bill moves jobs overseas. More tax relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. operations. The deduction is available for domestic production activities only. The deduction is limited to 50 percent of the wages paid to workers in America. Income attributable to outsourcing does not benefit. Overseas operations of multinationals does not benefit. New taxes are imposed on expatriated entities.

The international tax reforms in the bill would not lead to the movement of jobs overseas, as many Democrats claim. In fact, these provisions would reduce double taxation on companies, thus encouraging them to keep their headquarters in the United States.

This conference report has bipartisan support, including the minority leader of the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), who is an expert on the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I do not know about everyone, but I know that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the fact that H.R. 4520 allows taxpayers, especially those in Nevada, Wyoming, the State of Washington, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, and Florida, to deduct their sales taxes is one that just brings about an opportunity for everyone no matter what their tax bracket is at. But let us not forget, while we kind of rant and rave about all the different aspects of domestic companies that will see taxes decrease, this thing is targeted right into middle America, whether it is on Main Street, USA, or in the fields of America or in those manufacturing plants of our communities, because this is about taking care of small business, our farmers, and small manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

I need to help the gentleman from California understand, particularly for his State, as I understand this legislation, it is designed for States like California and New York that have income tax, that they can deduct either the sales tax or the income tax, depending on how the taxpayer may choose which one they want to make for the deduction.

The States that I previously read that do not have an income tax, it allows them to use a sales tax deduction as an opportunity to participate. So let us not lose sight that the taxpayer has an individual option. So I believe that, helping the gentleman who was the previous speaker from California understand that, it is a more correct provision of what we outlined.

I also want to remind my colleagues that I believe, as he talked about giveaways and some of the other things, the motion picture industry, which hales greatly from his State and much less from our's, to the dissatisfaction of my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and me, is the fact there are three tax provisions inside this bill that assist the motion picture industry. If he considers those assistance, I do not find how he can take some of the other parts for corporations and call them giveaways. Each would look at what those provisions might mean in their respective categories.

Let us not lose sight that this goes right after taking care of middle-class America, with helping our small businesses, helping our farmers, helping our small manufacturers, and making sure it all is accountable to domestic production and opportunity.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I read this in the Record so many times I can almost do it from memory, but I cannot allow the beating up of this legislation with misnomers or false or inaccurate viewpoints in the debate.

This bill does nothing to move jobs overseas. Nothing in this bill moves jobs overseas. I want to remind my colleagues that more tax relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. operations. The deduction is available for domestic production activities only. The deduction is limited to 50 percent of the wages paid to workers in America. The income attributable to outsourcing does not benefit. Overseas operations of multinationals does not benefit. New taxes are imposed on expatriated entities.

The international tax reforms in the bill would not lead to movement of jobs overseas, as many Democrats claim. In fact, these provisions would reduce double taxation on companies, thus encouraging them to keep their headquarters in the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we close, if you vote against H.R. 4520, you are voting against exporters, small businesses, farmers, domestic manufacturers, States without an income tax and for ending tobacco quotas.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to create jobs. Our domestic companies currently face countless disincentives to job creation, including onerous taxes, over-regulation, high energy costs, frivolous litigation and spiraling health care costs. For manufacturers and small businesses and farmers that are the entrepreneurial backbone of this country, these obstacles diminish their ability to compete in the international arena.

We need to level the playing field. The underlying bill brings us closer than ever before to the equitable and competitive global marketplace that can propel our domestic industries into the 21st century.

Free markets and free enterprise are direct outgrowth of the freedoms that we hold dear. I urge my colleagues to embrace this spirit by supporting the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for sharing with us what is in this bill because the Members probably are still at their Web sites trying to figure it out.

The reason we are here right now is not to go into the substance of the bill but for me and others to try to encourage the leadership to kill this bill and do this the right way. There are 650 pages to this tax bill and 650 pages explaining the tax bill. This adds another 1,200 pages to the 6,000-page IRS Code that we have here.

We know that Members are supposed to have 3 days in order to find out what is in these 1,200 pages. That is difficult enough. The problem is the Members do not have the bill. They have no bills in their offices. But our friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has said not to worry, the government has bought them Web sites to find out what is in the bill.

I want to say to those that may be interested in what is in the bill, since when you go home people may ask you, tune into wayside and share with Members of this august body what is in this bill we are going to vote on. We would like to have had 3 days to have looked into this. But the Republicans do not have 3 days to give us. We would have liked to have used the rules of the House, but they say we have to have martial law. I guess it has something to do with combat, but they have put martial law to the House of Representatives, denying us the opportunity to do anything but to look at the Web site.

Why are there so few Republicans and Democrats on the floor? Lack of dedication? Not wanting to understand this complex piece of legislation? No. They are at their Web sites. So, Americans, stop what you are doing now, go to waysandmeans.house.com so when we come home and share with you the good things we have brought to you, the fact that you do not have to totally rely on the Internal Revenue Service, we will have the private sector collectors helping us out. It is on the Web site. And, of course, if you are in tobacco, bully, $10 billion you get it, smoking goes up; but if you manufacture you are in a good business.

What about these charities that they ask you to give cause to? No, not in this tax bill. I do not know how to tell you to get that on waysandmeans.house.com, but it is there. But if you are into pro sports teams, if you are into race track cars being depreciated, if you are foreign, of course, and you are into horse racing and dog racing and gambling, then go to waysandmeans.house.com.

If you really want to find out what we are trying to correct, and that is the tariff and sanctions that have been put on us by the World Trade Organization, we are not certain yet whether we covered that, but when Santa Claus sees the sleigh coming, he wants to pile up on it. So the little part that this bill was supposed to take care of, we hope that they did that. But for the rest, the lobbyists that really believe that before this election they have to show their appreciation to those people who put the bill together, well, they do make out from what I understand.

I will not be able to speak too much about this. I was in the conference, and then they put the Senate piece together with the House piece. Therefore, I did not sign it because I did not know how it was all going to come together. But I said, I will wait and see what they have done. But guess what? It was not until 12:15 that they brought the 1,000 pages to my desk. So I immediately went out and I said, but it is not just for conferees, there are other Members here, there are Democrats and Republicans.

And what do they tell me? Tell them to go to waysandmeans.house.com.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, we have been denied the opportunity, at least the Members, to actually see what is in these 600 pages of statute and another 600 pages to explain what they mean. But, once again, I would ask Americans to go to waysandmeans.house.gov, because if the Members do not know everything that is in this bill, then maybe their lawyers would be able to tell them, because if this is what simplification is all about, we are going to have a pretty rough time filling out our taxes

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the outstanding minority whip, to share his views on this complex piece of legislation. I have been advised he has been at this website all evening studying the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Maryland, but I want to advise the gentleman that when he suggests that we read the bill, that the bill has not been distributed to the Members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member, a senior member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader who has been a credit to our country and to this Congress.

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

That was exactly what I was about to say, Mr. Speaker. They are telling us what is going on in this conference with those other people over there. What you should be telling us if this bill is so exciting for working people in America, why did you not give it to the Members to look at?

The distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, he may not have a bill. No one else got a bill except we conferees, and I am not up to the 1,100th page yet. So all of the exciting things that you are hearing about what they finally put in the bill, I hope people go to waysandmeans.house.gov because none of the Members except the conferees have the bill. I do not know why they do not have the bill. But I suspect there are things in here that we are going to speculate that is in here and they will refer us to the problem page, wherever they are holding that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a great friend and a great legislator and a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

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

I want to join in thanking the chairman for expanding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means so all of us could have a better understanding of these agricultural problems. Quite frankly, coming from New York, I never did understand the plight of farmers and tobacco farmers, and I do not know how far we are going to go in expanding this, but I am glad that we have a gentleman from outside of the committee to recognize and to praise the chairman, as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) so we can further edify the Committee on Ways and Means about problems other committees of jurisdiction have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just note that I now get it. If you do not have enough votes to get a tax bill passed, reach out and get some farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), to further explore the problems that have been resolved for our farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I am not saying this problem should not have been fixed, I just wondered whether it should have been in a tax bill. I am certain that those that want to see other problems that were fixed can go to WaysandMeans.House.gov and they will understand why we had to fix bows and arrows, and fishing tackle boxes, and foreign made seal fans, how we had to help native whaling tribes, how we had to help foreign horse racing and dog racing gambling, how we had to help pro sports team owners, how we had to shorten the depreciation period for car race tracks.

This is really not admonishing, or, in any way, degradating the chairman, it is just we do not have the bill and we do not know what else is in there. So it is good to hear from Members that do know, because they know they promised to vote for the bill in order to get relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), whose taxpayers will be hurt seriously.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a new but a very hardworking Member who is going to get us away from taxes and the complexity of the legislation and get back to tobacco.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not have anyone left who wants to talk about tobacco, but I wish I had known the chairman would be this flexible. I had some draft legislation that I could have possibly gotten into the conference report, but I just did not know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who would like to speak on a tax issue.

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

We have taken care of sales taxes and tobacco. I do not know whether we are taking care of the Treasury, though, because they had sent a terrible letter to us indicating that they thought that this bill had too much in the way of special interest tax provisions, which benefited few taxpayers and increased the complexity of the Tax Code.

The President indicated he wanted to simplify the Code. We know the only major Republican bill we have in the House is the national retail sales tax. So maybe, once again, I can say that since the Members of the House have not had the opportunity to review this five-pound bill, that people can go to

WaysandMeans.House.gov and find out whatever else Santa Claus has brought in bringing us this gift package on the eve of an election.

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

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

You just cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want our American firms to be competitive in France and all over Europe and in Central and South America. If you give them incentives to be able to do this to compete, the jobs that they would have here, these firms in order to be successful have to have some workers. And we are not going to say that we are going to give passports to every American to find a job overseas. It is the multinationals that have to be governed by where the profits are, not where the patriotism is.

So if you want to be competitive overseas, if you want them to be able to do the best vaccine in the world for flu, then you encourage them to do it overseas. But one day you will look around and you will see that all of this competition, we have taken our skilled labor jobs, things we used to be proud of, televisions, computers, cars, shoes, things that used to say ``Made in the USA.'' Now, if it is not made in the USA, I hope you are not going to give a passport or citizenship to those foreigners who are making it. I have nothing against the CEOs except I want it to be, not an equal playing field, I want to give every American manufacturer a fair advantage to have jobs here in the good old USA. I am sorry that there are other people that believe that these tax incentives are good for the United States when our jobs go overseas.

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

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

Let me thank the gentleman from Ohio, my friend and someone that has now brought us back to why we are here. From time to time people are talking about tobacco and sales tax and things like that; but as he pointed out, we are here to correct a $4 billion World Trade Organization problem that we had. If we had just taken away the

subsidy, guess what? We would have reduced the deficit by $70 billion. But we took a big different course, and so we are taking care of tobacco, and we are also taking care of a problem that some people have in their States where they do not have income taxes so they want to get equity. I have to learn how to do all of these things in case the original purpose of the bill does not have enough supporters and we want to make it bipartisan. We have to find Democrats who have real problems back home in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) who really first brought this problem to my attention, and I wanted to make certain that it got in this bill before the Committee on Agriculture took care of it.

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

I would like to say that she is indeed a real Member from Washington. We will miss her. I want to thank her for her support for the real FSC bill that she supported Crane-Rangel. We will miss her. We thank her for the great contribution she made to our committee and to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), an outstanding Member of our party and of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the whole conference for having a major tax bill come to the floor, not in the middle of the night, but at least nine or ten o'clock, which is a courtesy. I only wish that he had given the Members of the House an opportunity to at least see the bill, but that is asking for too much. But, again, I want to thank him that he did get it on the Web site, and it is going to encourage a lot of Members on both sides to get more computer wise. We may not ever know what is in these tax bills; but we are learning, in the few minutes that we do have, what they do have in this tax bill.

So remember, for people who do not know what they are getting and who is getting the benefits or whether it is tax related or not, if someone wants to say ``thank you'' or they are sorry that they missed me, go to waysandmeans.house.gov.

I hope the other committees learn how to do this because I have spent 34 years here, and this seems to be a waste for us to ask what is in bills anymore since we have to go to the Web site. Or maybe we can find out how Members of the House really do not have to come down here. Just go to the Web site, ask what have they done, and if they are not a conferee, they can go to waysandmeans.house.gov.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 830, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy has experienced robust growth in the past 12 months, and it can be largely attributed to the tax relief this Congress provided the American people in 2001, 2020 and 2003.

Today, we are considering H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. We believe it will encourage further economic expansion and job creation by relieving sanctions and providing tax relief to America's job creators.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy has experienced robust growth in the past 12 months--which can be largely attributed to the tax relief this Congress provided to the American people in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Today we are considering H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, that will encourage further economic expansion and job creation by relieving sanctions providing tax relief to America's job creators.

Right now 12 percent sanctions are being levied on thousands of American products--like agriculture, steel and timber--because the World Trade Organization ruled that the FSC/ETI export subsidy is noncompliant. These sanctions are making U.S. products more expensive in overseas markets, which hurts America's competitiveness in the worldwide economy. H.R. 4520 will repeal the offending provision, bringing our tax code into compliance, thereby ending sanctions.

Repealing that provision without providing equivalent relief will amount to a tax increase on American businesses. To encourage further growth in the U.S. economy, the American Jobs Creation Act will provide tax relief to American manufacturers--including corporations, S corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships. These American businesses will save nearly 10 percent on their income tax bills for manufacturing activities here at home.

Meanwhile, the international portions of our Tax Code are antiquated--they have not been updated in four decades. To help provide U.S.-based businesses with a more level playing field when competiting against their worldwide counterparts, this legislation reduces double taxation and simplifies our complex international tax law.

The WTO ruling forced us to update our tax laws but also provided the opportunity to improve the tax code to encourage business growth; to close abusive loopholes; to update our antiquated international tax law for the first time in 40 years; and to make all of these structural improvements without increasing the deficit.

This conference report rightly enjoyed strong bipartisan support from conferees and I urge Members of the House to vote for H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Maryland has, in essence, kicked off the debate, because he indicated that since we did not operate on his timetable, that there is a 12 percent assessment imposed as sanctions, and basically shamed us for not moving sooner. If my colleagues did not pay attention to what he said during the remainder of his speech, what he said was, if it was up to him, the sanctions would stay in place, because he is going to vote no on this conference report, which means the sanctions would go up to 17 percent, which means all of the burdens that he described would be even greater. He wants it both ways. He wants to criticize for not moving, but he does not want to help to solve the problem.

I am pleased that in the conference, there were a lot of people who wanted to help, especially on the Senate side. There were 23 Senators; 17 of them voted to support the conference report. Six of them were Democrats. Three-quarters of the Senate conferees support this measure, a majority of the gentleman's own party in the Senate.

On the House side, of the 17 conferees, two-thirds of them supported the conference report. So an overwhelming majority of the conferees urge a yes. The gentleman from Maryland lambasts Republicans for not getting it done, but will not help solve the problem. That, I think, is a theme we are going to hear repeated over and over again on the other side: you folks did not do it right, but we are certainly not going to help. What a message.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on

Trade, and let me say that without his yeoman work, we would not be here today.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his question.

The rule and the Statement of Managers upon closer examination, we believe, contain some ambiguity as to which deductions are disallowed. The intent of the rule is to disallow only deductions for expenses that relate directly to generating the dividend income in question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said ``they'' stripped from the bill. Well, who is they? How about six of the 10 Democrat Senators who were on the conference. The Democrats who were on the conference were the minority leader, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the Senator from Arkansas.

A majority of those Democrats support, signed a conference, and agreed with what we did. It seems to me that when the minority leader on this side describes ``they,'' the world should know who ``they'' is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, a member of the conference committee, for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, a member of the conference.

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

First of all, I want to thank both of the gentlemen, members of the conference committee, Republican and Democrat. Both of them voted for the conference report, and the Chair appreciates that.

The Chair would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida and will consume as much time as is required.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I tell the gentleman it does and he is correct.

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

This conference report is in front of us tonight due to a number of Members doing yeoman's service. There is a provision in this bill that was alluded to by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture that is long overdue to be changed.

This gentleman from California started his congressional career on the Committee on Agriculture, and I tried to do something about it at that time. This was an opportunity to do something to correct the record that is long overdue for correcting.

The gentleman I am going to recognize to speak was one of the first to come to me to suggest that this might be an opportunity that we could take advantage of.

I have to tell my colleagues that as far as a State-wide race in North Carolina, I have received only one phone call from those individuals. I have worked beside only one of those individuals for far more than a decade, and the provision of removing the tobacco buyout was placed in the House bill long before it was placed in the Senate bill.

I can assure anyone that had we not been able to put it in the House bill, it would not have been in the Senate bill, and so for all of those people who are now going to receive a payment, the argument about how much they are going to get, whether or not it is greater than someone other's offer, is all moot.

The fact of the matter is, tonight, we are finally going to end a depression-era government created program that is long overdue for repeal, and the primary gentleman that worked with me to make sure that it would be in there is my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), an important member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, I daresay, virtually single-handedly made sure that there was an additional item in this particular conference report for those States that do not have income tax.

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

When there is a problem that is overdue for fixing, and has been for more than half a century, someone who argues process is the reason why we should not fix it, does not get it. Given the kind of problem that we have seen, it needs to be fixed. Tonight we are fixing it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who helped us fix this more than half-a-century-old problem.

(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 to join with the gentleman in thanking the ranking member for his tireless work on the tobacco buyout as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), an invaluable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who also happens to be a member of the Texas delegation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman that I would be pleased to invite him to the bill signing ceremony so that he can see the President of the United States sign this bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures and was the foundation for building the overwhelming majority portion of this conference report, the tax provisions.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to perhaps offer another view on the position that the gentleman from New York just indicated.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for maintaining his competitive edge, notwithstanding the fact that by my count now more than a majority of the people who have taken the well on his side of the aisle are supporting the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the real Member from Washington who actually made sure that the sales tax provision was in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I want to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle. This has been a very arduous and long journey. I think it is one of the more remarkable debates when half of the Members on the other side of the aisle taking the well say they are going to support the conference report. Apparently it was not that difficult for them to find out what was in this conference report.

It is kind of interesting that after all of the difficulties we have been through, the last comment was about process. Not about content, not about righting the wrongs that for so long should have been righted. I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, I enjoyed working with them; I look forward to working with them again. Jurisdiction is not as important as righting wrongs, and we will do that.

And I want to tell the gentleman from New York that in the largest State in the Union, it is only 6:15.

I ask Members to support this conference report. Let us get this work behind us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is refreshing that the Republican leadership is allowing this House to debate and vote on a bill that now has actually been filed, and I am glad that the majority has finally provided paper copies of this massive bill to Members of this House.

Unfortunately, we are still considering a flawed bill under a very flawed process.

Let me remind my colleagues this rule waives the normal 3-day layover of the conference report. Those are the rules of the House. Members of Congress and the American people deserve to have at least 3 full days to read and examine and analyze this massive tax cut, but this rule waives that layover and allows this body to consider this bill today when most Members have not read the bill in its entirety.

Like I said this morning during debate on the martial law rule, this is not the first time the Republican leadership has broken and flaunted the rules to get their way. And while I continue to be disappointed by the way the Republican leadership continues to misuse the House rules, I want to talk for a few minutes about the substance of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, to describe this bill as flawed does not do it justice. This conference report is a legislative grab bag filled with goodies for special interests. Every Member of this body knew about the export subsidy that was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Thousands of U.S. exporters are needlessly paying tariffs to European countries simply because the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass legislation to avoid these penalties. Thanks to the Republican leadership of this Congress, jewelry, textile and small manufacturers in my Congressional District have been especially hard hit by these sanctions.

Now, our colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined together and sponsored a bipartisan bill to fix this problem a long time ago, and 177 Members are cosponsors of that bill. The Crane-Rangel bill was clean, it was simple, and it would bring the United States into compliance with the WTO without the extra add-ons that the Republican leadership felt compelled to include in this conference report as sweeteners or incentives for passage of this bill.

Crane-Rangel would have been approved by this House if the Republican leadership would have allowed the bill to come to the floor for an up- or-down vote. It would have been sent to the President and signed into law by now, if the Republican leadership did not drag its heels while pretending to address this problem. And its small cost could have been completely paid for.

Instead of bringing a clean bill fixing this problem to the floor, the Republican leadership has delivered this monstrosity. Once again, the Republican leadership has turned a noncontroversial issue in a noncontroversial bill into bad policy.

Does this conference report fix this problem we have with the WTO? Well, according to the Republican leadership it does. But according to press accounts, the European Union is hinting this legislation may not accomplish its goal; and, if true, the sanctions on American exports will not be lifted.

Mr. Speaker, there was a better way to do this, and I am disappointed that the Republican leadership took the hard way out of what should have been an easy problem to fix. But while this conference report should be about eliminating the WTO sanctions against American corporations, it is really about the tax breaks and other goodies provided to special interests.

This conference report gives tax breaks to various corporate interests. There are 276 separate tax breaks that benefit everyone from restaurant owners to foreign gamblers. Provisions like the one that will help native Alaskan whalers were inserted to help vulnerable Members in the other body win reelection. Home Depot and General Electric, two companies who have donated large sums of campaign funds to the Republican Party, get significant tax breaks in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report should not be used to reward corporate contributors. This is no way to do tax policy. We can and we should do better.

Now, if that were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, several provisions that actually do help average Americans, which were included in the other body's version of this bill, were stripped out by Republican leaders. When the Republican leadership had a chance to actually do something good for a change, they turned away and ignored the needs and concerns of everyday Americans.

Included in this conference report is a bailout for tobacco farmers. This provision will provide $10 million to financially vulnerable tobacco farmers in tobacco communities. These funds would come from an assessment on tobacco companies, not from taxpayers.

While this bailout provision is important to a small segment of the American population, the heart of the amendment adopted by the other body was FDA regulation of tobacco. The Senate amendment would give the Food and Drug Administration the broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

We know that each day, 5,000 children try their first cigarette; that 2,000 children will become daily smokers, and nearly 1,000 will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. The other body included this language as a bipartisan amendment adopted by a vote of 78 to 15. But instead of supporting this bipartisan amendment, the Republican leadership stripped FDA regulation from this conference report, leaving only the tobacco bailout.

By stripping out FDA regulation, we continue to leave our children vulnerable to the dangers of tobacco. This is unconscionable, and I am disappointed by the Republican leadership's action.

During debate on the other body's version of this legislation, two amendments were adopted to block President Bush's overtime regulations that recently went into effect. These regulations are yet another nasty attack by this administration on American workers.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that these overtime regulations will deny six million workers overtime protection. The House has voted against these regulations twice, and the other body has voted against it three times. These overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their overtime pay protection, employers force them to work longer hours for no extra pay. That is wrong.

Protecting the 40-hour workweek is vital to protecting the work- family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of this Nation, and I am disappointed that the Republican leadership did not stand up to the corporate interests and support these two amendments. Instead, they caved to pressure from their corporate friends and allowed these misguided regulations to continue to stay in effect.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must express my extreme displeasure with the Republican leadership for stripping out the provision that would provide tax relief to every company in business that voluntarily makes up the difference in income to an employee activated in the National Guard or Reserves. This provision would also have provided support to those same companies to train temporary companies to fill the jobs left vacant by active duty employees.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I attempted to offer this amendment during the debate on this bill when it was considered in June, but the Republican leadership denied us the opportunity to offer that amendment to the bill. However, a similar amendment offered by Senator Landrieu was adopted.

During this time of national emergency, when members of the Reserves and Guard are serving extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is vital that the Congress provide help to 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. But instead of showing a little compassion, instead of doing the right thing, instead of standing with the troops, their families, and their hometown communities, the Republican leadership in both Chambers stripped this provision from the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad day when this body turns its back on those who are fighting for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference report. We need to draw a line in the sand when it comes to corporate giveaways and legislative sweeteners like the ones written into this conference report. It is time we say enough is enough.

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

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

I just wanted to comment on some of the words of my colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds) who read very well from the Republican talking points on this bill. I would say that if we followed the rules of this House and he actually had the 3-day layover to actually read what was in this bill or what was not in this bill, he would have noticed that this bill actually undercuts the will of the House and the other body with regard to President Bush's nasty overtime regulations which was removed from this bill.

He would realize that the Republican leadership stripped out a provision that would provide tax relief to every company and business that voluntarily makes up the difference in income to an employee activated in the National Guard or Reserves. I think he would see that of the 276 separate little provisions that benefit special interests, makers of bows and arrows, tackle boxes and sonar finders and even importers of Chinese ceiling fans, let me say to my colleague from New York that I think those who are serving in our National Guard and Reserves and those businesses that are struggling as those brave men and women are fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think they are more important, quite frankly, than Chinese ceiling fans. I think they deserve a bigger break than makers of bows and arrows and tackle boxes and sonar fish finders.

That is the complaint here, that this bill is filled with special goodies for people who do not need it when in fact some of the people who need it most do not get anything. What is even more frustrating is the fact that people are going to vote on this bill today, this conference report, when it was just brought before us today, breaking the rules of this House, waiving the rules of this House where we are supposed to have 3 days to know what is in it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the coauthor of the Crane-Rangel bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned it is almost an election year. Judging from all the special goodies that are in this bill, it is an election year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his great leadership on issues of importance to middle income Americans. The gentleman tried very hard to correct this problem in a way that would not decrease the deficit and would increase jobs in America but, unfortunately, that approach was rejected. I wish that we had a chance to vote on it today.

Mr. Speaker, in commending the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his excellent work on so many issues emerging from this committee, I deeply regret that we would not have the opportunity to take the approach he took, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) shared with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for a long time.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the committee, gave the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) a dubious distinction by saying he did yeoman duties in bringing this bill to the floor, but this is a terrible bill for working families in America.

Please do not paint him with that brush. He really did try; but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deeply flawed bill, and I thank the ranking member again for his steadfast leadership on behalf of our manufacturing sector.

This conference report is yet another example of the stark differences between Republican and Democratic priorities. We are faced with a simple problem caused by your trade sanctions, but Republicans are using a $4 billion trade issue to pry open the door wide for special interests. This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full of pork for the special interest. This is not, just as the expression goes, this little piggie goes to market. This is the whole hog lot goes to the public trough. The oinking is so loud the Republicans cannot even think straight.

If you listen closely you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear them?

That may be why at every step of this process Republicans have consistently made decisions that are against the interests of middle- income Americans.

The difference between the parties is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats pledge to create new jobs here in America. But Republicans under this bill are exporting jobs overseas. For more on the subject, I will follow the lead of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and say please visit HouseDemocrats.gov for more on the New Partnership for America's Future.

Can you believe this? In the past 3 years nearly half a million jobs have been shipped overseas. But instead of working to stop this hemorrhaging, this Republican bill tonight has in it tax incentives to export American jobs. Think about it. You are a U.S. taxpayer in a job. They are using your tax dollars to export your job overseas. In fact, as businesses around the country are hit with 12 percent tariffs on more than 1,600 products, Republicans have been holding this bill hostage so they could include 24 extraneous provisions that will create jobs overseas rather than here at home.

No, Mr. Speaker, our distinguished whip and I in criticizing this bill are not saying that the problem should not be corrected. We said it should be done right, not at the expense of middle-income Americans, not at the expense of increasing our deficit.

This bill includes a whopping $42 billion in tax cuts for the foreign operations of U.S. multinationals. We all recognize the importance of multinationals to our economy, but we must face the facts. Many of those very same corporations pay no income tax whatsoever. Many of the multinational corporations getting tax breaks in this bill, pay no income tax whatsoever. And from 2001 to 2003, Federal corporate tax collections fell to their lowest sustained level in 6 decades, in 6 decades.

Democrats led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pursued a bipartisan bill that was tailored to create good-paying jobs in the U.S. without sacrificing our long-term fiscal health.

The difference is clear. In our Partnership for America's Future, Democrats have made a commitment to fiscal responsibility and the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) pay-as-you-go. Republicans chose in this bill to spend as they please and then hide the true costs of their bill with expensive gimmicks. A convoluted combination of phase-in, sunset dates, changes in scoring rules mask the true cost of the bill and how it will constrict our choices in the future.

This conference report is being touted as revenue neutral. But, in fact, it will cost nearly $80 billion over the next decade. The difference is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats put forth an agenda to support manufacturers and small businesses. In this bill, Republicans choose to give handouts to special interests. Please again visit us on HouseDemocrats.gov.

Our manufacturing sector is struggling to stay competitive in global markets. The erosion of our manufacturing base is cause for serious concern in our country, but not in the Republican Party. Under the Bush administration, we have lost nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Despite this depressing fact, this conference report stripped language that would have given bigger tax cuts to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the U.S.

That was one of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rangel) provisions. They stripped from the bill a provision that would have given tax incentives to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the United States. The conference report also has broadly expanded the definition of manufacturing to include activities wholly unrelated to the manufacturing of goods and products.

Now, listen to this: the bill is riddled with special interest giveaways including suspension of customs duties on ceiling fans and steam generators, tax deductions on bows and arrows, fishing tackle boxes and sonar devices, as well as tax incentives for other specialized industries. Even the Bush administration's Treasury Secretary has criticized the Republican FSC/ETI bill as including a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code.

How is that for an indictment? The choices that Republicans are making are clear, and it is clear that they are the wrong choices. The same Republicans who today will find enough money for their special interest giveaways have not found the funding to secure loose nuclear materials to protect the American people. They have shortchanged veterans health care by $1.3 billion. They have underfunded No Child Left Behind by about $9 billion every year, 9.4 billion this year; and they have broken their promises on Pell grants.

They have defeated a $1,500 bonus for our brave men and women in uniform returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, 213 to 213. Every Republican who voted against that bonus is responsible for its defeat because it failed by one vote.

I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and defeat this job- exporting, budget-busting, special interest handout.