Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Tammie Lee Demler of Wheatfield, NY, for recently being honored as both a New York State Senate ``Woman of Distinction'' and the ``2004 Pharmacist of the Year.''

Since receiving a Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy, Dr. Demler has received a number of accolades. She became the President of the Pharmacists' Association of Western New York (PAWNY), and this year was named ``2004 Pharmacist of the Year'' by the association. Dr. Demler currently serves as the Director of the University's Psychiatric Pharmacy Post Doctoral Residency Program where she mentors graduate students. She has made numerous contributions to both the association and the pharmacology profession.

Dr. Demler received another prestigious award from the New York State Senate this past June, being named a ``Woman of Distinction.'' The award was created to honor women throughout New York that have played an important role in ``adding strength, understanding, and inspiration to the diversity and quality of life'' in the state; I can think of no one more deserving of this award that Dr. Demler.

Dr. Demler spends much of her free time working for the betterment of the community, such as helping organize the ``Taste of Buffalo,'' a very important annual event. Dr. Demler has made a considerable and lasting contribution to both her profession and our community, and for that she deserves our deepest gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in congratulating Dr. Tammie Lee Demler for being named as both a ``Woman of Distinction'' and the ``2004 Pharmacist of the Year.''

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to recognize Congressman Amo Houghton of Corning, New York, as he retires from the U.S House of Representatives after 18 years of exemplary public service.

Throughout his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Amo Houghton was one of those individuals who showed us what a noble calling public service can be. Amo has been a bright, compassionate and valued leader, and he retires as one of the most respected members of Congress, on either side of the aisle. And despite his great responsibilities, Amo always remained deeply rooted in his community, and in our Western New York values.

Throughout his entire career, he remained a fiscal conservative committed to responsible government spending. As the sixth ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Amo has played an important role in ensuring that our Nation's tax policy was shaped with the best interests of New Yorkers in mind. His service on the International Relations Committee and as vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa allowed him to use his deep understanding of international affairs to manage important foreign relations matters. Amo also earned a reputation for terrific constituent service; it is easy to see why, for he truly cares about the well-being of each and every one of his constituents.

I salute Amo Houghton for all that he has done for Western New York and New York state in his time here in Congress. Our community owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude. I will certainly miss his friendship, his intelligence, and his warm personality; but I wish him all the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in thanking Congressman Amo Houghton of Corning, New York, for his years of service to Western New York, New York state, and our Nation, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to recognize Congressman Jack Quinn of Hamburg, New York, as he retires from the U.S. House of Representatives after 12 years of exemplary public service.

Throughout his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Jack represented both his constituents and the institution with grace and integrity. He loved his country, his community

and his family, never straying from the strong values he was raised on.

Throughout his entire career, Jack always acted with the best interests of New Yorkers in mind. As the chairman of the House Republican Working Group on Labor, Jack was the ``go-to guy'' in our conference on a wide variety of labor-related issues. His positions on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee allowed Jack to do important work on behalf of our Nation's veteran community and passenger rail systems, employees and customers, issues that were of great importance to him.

While he distinguished himself as a Member of Congress and earned the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Jack was also notable for his esteemed academic career, his knowledge on a wide variety of issues, and his deep commitment to serving his constituents.

I salute Jack for all that he has done for western New York and New York State in his time in Congress. He has been a close personal friend of mine, and I am proud to have worked closely with him here in the House and back at home in western New York.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in thanking Congressman Jack Quinn of Hamburg, New York, for his years of service to western New York, New York State, and our Nation, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 856 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 856 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of S. 2986, a bill to increase the public debt limit. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides 1 motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, the debt limit increase bill that will come before this body is a necessary step in order to avoid a shutdown of our government. The Federal Government has never before defaulted on our obligations, but without our immediate action today we will simply be unable to pay our bills.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill increases the statutory debt limit in order to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. It is necessary and not an unusual step to ensure that the Federal Government is able to pay its bills.

It is important to note that the level of debt subject to limit is a function of past decisions made by decades of administrations and Congresses. It is equally important to note that increasing the debt limit does not increase the deficit.

As Robert Rubin, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary noted, ``Passage of the debt ceiling is totally unrelated to deficit reduction.'' And in testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he further noted that ``The debt limit is about meeting obligations already incurred, while future deficits can only be reduced so actions taken in the budget process itself.''

While the publicly-held debt has increased more rapidly in recent years, it is a result of the ongoing war against terrorism, an effort that began after the horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, 2001.

Without passage of the underlying bill today, vital programs such as Social Security, medicare, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans' care, and military retirement are all put in jeopardy.

We risk not providing food, clothing, ammunition, and other necessary resources to our brave men and women engaged in the war on terror. Highway funding, disaster assistance, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, all will be at risk.

In addition, if we do not act today, taxpayers will be further burdened with higher interest rates, and we risk the disruption of financial markets at a time when our national economy continues to grow at a strong pace.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this underlying legislation is necessary to keep the government operating, ensure the continued delivery of vital services for our citizens, and provide the equipment, supplies, and munitions our troops need to continue our fight in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 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 think it is important to just clarify the record that while public debt is held by foreign interests, foreigners invest in the United States because we have a sound economy and we provide a safe place for them due to our low risk of default.

The market for U.S. Treasury securities is the largest, most liquid and transparent financial market in the world.

It is also important for our colleagues to know that our debt limit increase is not an unusual function if we just look at the 21st century, but I think we kind of have to look at the last half of the 20th century.

The level of outstanding debt is subject to a limit and a function that is past decisions made by previous administrations and Congresses over decades, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, as well as current and past levels of economic activity and should not be subject to political gamesmanship.

As we look at the debt limit increase measures, there have been 83 since 1940, Mr. Speaker, seven during the 1940s, six during the 1950s, 13 during the 1960s, 18 during the 1970s, 24 during the 1980s, 13 during the 1990s and two far this decade. So it is not an unusual function or an unprecedented function or a Republican function or a Democratic function. It is a function of keeping the government running.

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

I think it is important, after listening to my colleague and fellow member of the Committee on Rules, that we point out that tax relief did not cause the deficit. We would have triple-digit budget deficits today if taxes remained at the historically high levels of 2000. The tax policies that were put in place helped our economy out of a recession that began in the Clinton administration and was in the early Bush years.

Without our tax policies, the economy would not have recovered as quick and as well as it has. More Americans would have lost their jobs. A less robust recovery from recession would have had the adverse effects on revenues and the budget deficit, and healthy revenue growth continues even with tax relief. The recent decline in the deficit is largely a result of revenue increasing faster than anticipated because of strong economic growth.

After 3 years of declining revenue in the wake of September 11, revenue is now growing more robustly than expected. Just since July, we have seen the deficit projections for this year drop by $32 billion. While I cannot predict what the next election will be, I do know the President ran on those tax cuts, as did the majority in this Congress, and both the President will serve another term and in the 109th Congress the Republican majority will continue in being the majority in this body

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the time of the last 2 years of this Congress we have had a great debate. A guy from the left that believes that there should not be tax cuts, or to have some kind of message for middle America to feel that they might get a piece of it.

I am a guy that believes if you pay taxes, you ought to get a tax cut. We took that referendum, I guess, to the public, and they have ratified an opportunity for this majority to remain.

Now, I also understand majority/minority politics, and I guess if I look through the years of 1940, 1950, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000 when we would find that Republicans controlled the place or Democrats controlled the place, I am sure that there were a few that made the debt reduction or the aspect of all of that debate at the same time they looked at the debt limit.

But also in my opening remarks we heard from Secretary Rubin who said that the aspect of raising the debt limit was not the aspect of addressing the deficit. It was the budget itself. And I will quote him.

As Robert Rubin, then Treasury Secretary under the President said in November of 1995 in that quote, Passage of the debt ceiling is totally unrelated to deficit reduction. The deficit can only be reduced in the budget process.

He reiterated this truth 1 month later in testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services when he said, The debt limit is about meeting obligations already

incurred, while future deficits can only be reduced through actions taken in the budget process itself.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, a couple things.

One, in the finger pointing of this 21st century of deficit and debt limit increases, again, I will put on the record, we had seven during the 1940s, six during the 1950s, 13 during the 1960s, 18 during the 1970s, 24 during the 1980s, 13 during the 1990s and two so far this decade. So we are not into a new venture, and we are not into a Republican venture. We are into a congressional decision of whether we keep the government moving or whether we do not, and there were 83 debt limit measures that have been enacted into law.

I believe the gentleman from Texas will come up and talk about the PAYGO amendment that was offered before the Committee on Rules last night, and I think that it will be important for us to listen to him, and I believe that the issue of PAYGO will have bipartisan support if and when it comes to this floor.

But I also want to caution my colleagues that this is a Senate bill that we are taking up, and further delay once again results in this body jeopardizing our trust funds such as Social Security, Medicare, highways, and we further jeopardize veterans' care and military retirement.

So when we put our military at risk, at not having the necessary resources of food and clothing and ammunition, we also endanger unemployment benefits and disaster assistance, low-income home energy assistance programs.

The debate on PAYGO I believe should happen and will happen. It is not necessarily that it has to happen when we are looking at debt limit for a number of reasons, including the quotes of Robert Rubin of 1995.

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

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

It is true that in 2004, as we consider whether we increase the debt limit, the government is controlled by Republicans, a Republican President, a Republican Congress in both the other body and in this one. But I am reminded of President Bill Clinton's State of the Union address in 1996, and I quote him: ``And on behalf of all Americans, especially those who need their Social Security payments at the beginning of March, I challenge Congress to preserve the full faith and

credit of the United States, to honor the obligations of this great Nation as we have for 220 years, to rise above the partisanship and pass a straightforward extension of the debt limit. Show them that America keeps its word.''

That rang true when a Democratic President spoke to a Republican Congress; it rings true today as we consider the debt limit.

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

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

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

First of all, I want to correct my colleague from Oregon. I do not think I said I had a mandate on anything. I think I outlined the fact we had a great debate before an election and Republicans continue here.

I also wonder if my colleague ever voted for a debt limit increase in his many terms of service, as we demagogue the issue today. As we come to a vote, it is going to get down to whatever excuse you find if you do not vote for it. But if you do not vote for it, you are actually putting the government in harm's way, which means the people are in harm's way. We have said that in repeated messages on the record today, and that still remains a fact as we look at consideration of the debate on the rule and then the underlying legislation following it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of my colleagues, and I have been on the record repeated times. First of all, what came before the Committee on Rules last night was a Senate bill. The Committee on Rules made a vote and decision without having any further delay to bring forward the Senate bill for consideration on the rule that we are now in debate on, and later we will have debate on the underlying legislation.

We can demagogue it and put on the record all sorts of messages to feel good or draw political lines or switch from when might have been responsibility for voting for debt limit and now not, and now PAYGO. We have had debate on that. But I want to make sure that we listen to two things when we talk about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is a two-way street of working together.

I suspect, as I said before my colleague from California entered the Chamber, I expect to see Republican support again for PAYGO. Republicans are looking at it closely. There is certainly support for consideration of that. My colleague from California outlined some of the votes in a bipartisan vote that came for PAYGO, and I addressed that I think, with the gentleman from Texas, that there is support.

The question is, under the terms of the debate, we want it altogether, right now, right here, and that is the position we are carrying. Some of that has been now a Blue Dog position that has been laid out by a number of members of that caucus. But the reality is if we keep screwing around with this thing, we are going to shut the government down. We cannot have it both ways.

Each of us has voted for something that makes the government run and takes credit for it when it is the fall of the election year, making sure that voters knew they were working hard to bring some of that Federal money back home.

Any further delay will result in this body's jeopardizing our trust funds, like Social Security, Medicare and highways. We further jeopardize military care and retirement. We put our military at risk. We endanger unemployment benefits and disaster assistance and low- income home energy assistance programs, programs many of us had in our messages back in our respective States and districts.

We also talk about listening to presentations from 2000. At least twice I put on the record in this hour 83 different times over the last 64 years has the Congress taken upon itself to increase the debt limit.

I also put on the record President Clinton's 1996 State of the Union address where he asked for bipartisan cooperation to ask the Congress to do the right thing and increase the debt limit.

So it is not a new thing, it is not a Republican thing, it is not at Democrat thing, it is a government thing. There will be a consequence if we do not keep the government running because, for the history of our Nation, we have never not made sure that we honored what needed to be done with respect to debt limit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, we heard, as I put on the record, President Clinton's appeal to the Congress. I thought I might share a little bit of the appeal of our colleagues. The two I have come from the Democratic side of the aisle at that time who made the appeal for the debt limit to be rising.

Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut stated, ``Lifting the debt limit should not be a matter of politics, but of governance. Ensuring that it is done should not be a question of partisan leverage, but of leadership.''

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ``If the debt ceiling is not extended or is sent to the President in a form he cannot sign, the repercussions will be devastating. Already, the leaders of our European allies are warning of an international financial crisis should the United States default on its debt payments. Bond rating agencies are raising alarm that our Nation's triple A bond rating is in jeopardy.

``An actual default would cause interest rates on Treasury bonds to rise, making a balanced budget almost impossible to achieve. Home mortgage and business borrowing rates would increase, slowing economic growth.

``In the past, many clean debt limit extensions have been passed in a bipartisan manner by this House. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now.''

I do not always agree with my colleagues on some of their viewpoints of getting government solutions, and I am sure that many do not agree with me on government solutions, but we have certainly had a history of administrations, Democrat and Republican, and 83 times this Congress since 1940 has said let us do it.

Now I understand showmanship. I understand consumption back home. I understand we are still in November, so we have a little election spirit in us. But the reality is if we do not increase this debt limit, we are putting America's people in jeopardy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this Congress must honor our commitments and America's priorities. We must stand up today in support of our seniors and veterans and military and all citizens who will be harmed by our inaction. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the rule and the underlying bill.

I also look at the 109th Congress as an opportunity for those who want to look at PAYGO, Republican and Democrat, from those from the left to those on the right to come together in a bipartisan fashion and continue working through the will of the House to see those types of considerations debated in committee and debated on the floor of this great House.

Before I yield back, I would like to quickly thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and all of the members of the Committee on Rules and staff as this is most likely the last time I will manage a rule for this industrious panel. I have been honored to serve on the Rules Committee for the past 6 years.

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

By direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 828 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes 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 purposes of debate only.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 828 is a same-day rule that provides for consideration of the rule to accompany the conference report to H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, this Congress has been debating the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 throughout this summer, all the while European Union sanctions on American exports have been quickly rising at a rate of 1 percent per month and now stand at a staggering 12 percent. They will continue their constant uptick at an additional 1 percent per month until the FSC-ETI is repealed or the rate reaches 17 percent.

Madam Speaker, these sanctions are unnecessarily costing domestic manufacturers, small businesses, and farmers billions upon billions of dollars. They are raising the price of 1,600 categories of U.S. goods sold outside the United States, and they are hindering the exporting capability of multiple industries. Farm products, jewelry, steel, tools, glass, toys, and clothing are among the goods subject to the penalty tariff. We simply cannot delay in delivering the needed relief to the producers and manufacturers of these products who have been subjected to the true financial hardship of this situation. Without our swift action, many small businesses and other employers face financial devastation and we risk job losses.

A conference report has been prepared that answers the call by repealing this export tax subsidy and providing tax incentives for domestic purposes. It simplifies complex international tax law, provides businesses with more resources to create new jobs, and is revenue neutral, so it will not add to the Federal deficit.

This Congress must continue its commitment to provide strong economic policies that spur growth and encourage domestic manufacturing while generating jobs and protecting our small businesses and farmers.

The answer is clear, Madam Speaker, passing the American Job Creation Act today is of the utmost importance to American workers and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying conference report as it later comes about.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I can see, just listening to the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts that maybe he and I should go and observe the conferees, because what I just heard is not what I am hearing from some of the majority members of the conferees. I understand that all the provisions that were considered by the conferees either were in the House side or in the Senate side of the bill, so that both those versions were what they worked on. There are absolutely no new versions.

My understanding is there was a motion to instruct which failed that called for an open session, and yet the conferees that wanted that, got what they wanted. We had an open session on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

I also understand the Senate finance rules of the other body seemed to be what was happening, where members of the conference committee were able to submit amendments that they wanted in the Chair's markup of what they wanted to do, and there were just numerous expressions of what they were based on conferees doing that.

I also understand that ranking members and other members of the Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction, participated as conferees in this. So there has certainly been an open process.

Madam Speaker, this has been around a long time. We knew that FSC- ETI, based on the WTO sanctions would require us to move forward. We have had ample debate and passage of legislation here. It has occurred in the other body. As the conferees has met, we have seen them work through an open process that seems to be acceptable to the conferees in the submission of amendments, in the Chair's mark on those, and in the completing of our work.

Madam Speaker, there are no new versions of anything. It is either in the other body's bill or it is in the House bill that they have worked on. So I think that as we look, at a sense, in a bipartisan fashion, to see if we can continue to work hard this week and, if we can, complete our work, that we would be able to return to our districts, that we are moving there.

I understand, at least from the other body, that there is bipartisan support from the conferees on this legislation as it continues through the day.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my day.

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

I think it is important that while the debate may go wherever it is that is germane to debate, that what I have come to this floor to do as a member of the Committee on Rules is to bring forth consideration of a same-day rule of legislation as it is filed for consideration today.

I outlined in my opening remarks that there is that opportunity that as we pass this rule, if it is passed today, which I believe it will be, that it affords us the opportunity to consider a rule later of a conference report on the American Jobs Creation Act conference

report. As I understand it, the legislation has been circulated to the conferees in final stead and that in a bipartisan aspect, at least in the other body, we have a number of Democratic Senators who have already signed and a number of Republicans. I cannot speak for what they are in this body.

But I know in regular order that as the legislation is filed, it will come up on the Ways and Means Web site, and it will again allow everyone to review it. And I know that before this legislation can come to the floor of this great body, it will require a Rules Committee meeting to also have a hearing which affords an ample opportunity for Rules members to listen and for those who choose to come up to the Rules Committee an opportunity to explain or answer questions on the legislation. And then we will have an hour debate on the rule, and then we will have whatever time the Rules Committee determines the debate will be on the conference report.

And so we certainly are not looking at the discussion we are having today, while it brings healthy debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, that this is a final act of anything. It is an opportunity to engage in the same-day consideration of the American Jobs Creation Act conference report which has been out there.

I understand that documents are now available on the Ways and Means Web site. That would mean not only all the Members in this body today but throughout our great institution can now see this legislation. To my knowledge, I do not have a time that Rules will convene, so I know we are not rushing it right after consideration of this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to begin to once again look at some facts: that there has been an open process of the conferees, even though a motion was defeated to instruct relative to open session, there has been one, on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, of conferees; that a model of the Senate Finance markup submitted amendments as conferees saw fit and the chairman's mark came from a result of that. We know that there has been a bipartisan signing of the conference report in the other body. We know that there has been certainly signing of at least majority Members in this body and that all this rule does is give us the opportunity to continue moving to get our work done and to level the playing field on the WTO sanctions which will mean jobs for Americans as that comes about.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am not so sure my colleague has read the whole bill, though I realize it has just been on the Web site a short time. But as I listened to some of his description, he did not really talk about the fact that small business, that this bill extends and enhances section 179 of expensing for 2 additional years so small businesses can write off the cost of their investments up to $100,000 annually. I have been a small businessman. I know how big debt is. Maybe some others that have not had that opportunity do not really know how important that is to small business. Partnerships and S corporations receive a deduction for domestic production activities. It offers S corporations 10 reforms providing $1.2 billion in tax relief. It provides for faster depreciation on leasehold and restaurant improvements.

I come from some communities that they do not have chains in there. That is a small businessman on Main Street that is looking for a little expensing, an opportunity to have their building and a leasehold written off a little faster. Sometimes it gets lost in my great State of New York, the number one industry is agriculture like it is in many of my colleagues', but the deduction for domestic production activities is extended to farmers as well as to agricultural and horticultural cooperatives.

The bill provides for AMT relief for farmers and fishermen who income average. It extends an ethanol subsidy under current law through 2010, thus improving farmers' incomes. It extends double tax and triple taxation on farmer cooperatives. It provides capital gains relief when livestock is sold and replaced on account of drought or other weather- related disasters. It extends capital gains treatment to outright sales of timber.

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

I want to also cite to my colleagues, particularly those from the States of Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, and Florida that I know of, you can deduct your sales tax if you do not have income tax like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and my great State has to pay. I look forward to the consideration of this body for a same-day rule which is all this is right now.

It is an opportunity to continue the debate and the rule later today, if the Committee on Rules grants one, and for debate on the floor of all the Members as we look at this legislation. Again, I want to remind my colleagues that I have been informed, and they can verify as they go to the Committee on Ways and Means website themselves, nothing was considered in the conference report other than provisions that were in this body's legislation or the other body's legislation and that we have received bipartisan support on conferees' signing the conference report as it comes to this great body for its consideration.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just listened, and I realize that a couple things need to come about, and that is that, months and months ago; it reinforces my original statements that we have had ample time as we have been debating this throughout the summer; there was a Crane-Rangel piece of legislation. There was a Thomas piece of legislation, and now there is an American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. I just want to remind the gentleman from Ohio, the previous speaker, that my understanding is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who is the number two in seniority man and an individual who had authored legislation previously, has signed this conference report. If the gentleman were still in the Chambers, he would know that my previous remarks talked about the fact that this is all about small business and small manufacturing and farmers as we look at expensing vital everyday assistance to our small businesses, our small manufacturers and our farmers. And that is what this bill has got in it.

I want to remind my colleagues, as all the hysteria comes out here on the question of what it does to the federal deficit, again, I will put on the Record that the conference agreement is revenue-neutral. It does not increase the federal deficit. The manufacturing firms and the farms and the small businesses receive $76.5 billion in stimulative tax relief through a deduction, not a corporate rate cut, and tax relief is

provided for all these businesses and farmers and small manufacturers and co-ops, subcorporations, and other unincorporated businesses. It is all about helping America's small businesses. It is all about helping businesses compete fair and globally across the globe.

So, again, I want to remind my colleagues that this is a rule to consider a same-day legislation under the rules' permission for later today. I want to remind my colleagues that it is available on the Committee on Ways and Means' website, and I look forward to later in the day that we might have an opportunity to move forward on this legislation, that, again, I will remind them has bipartisan support and has had a fair and open process as conferees have moved forward with legislation, as I have repeatedly said.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I took a look at that 12-inch set of legislation, and I just want to alert my colleagues, because it is on the Committee on Ways and Means Web site. If you go to waysandmeans.house.gov and take a look and see what is new and look for the conference documents, you are going to find that. So you do not have to carry that anywhere; it is going to be right on your computer, right in your office.

For those who are looking for some specific things, I urge them to consider the Adobe Acrobat so they can word search anything they are interested in.

But, as I said earlier, and I am sure the gentleman did not hear my predecessor speaking, I come from a small-business world. I took a look to see what small business said.

Over 250 companies and organizations have supported this legislation as this body considered it. So you get the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturing or the Business Roundtable. But we get right down into main street and that village of USA when NFIB and the other small businesses talk about how important expensing and other opportunities that are in this legislation to be considered are.

But I cannot let someone address the fact that the Republican majority is not interested in tax simplification. Quite frankly, it is the opposite. We have been resolute in our commitment to small business, to farmers, to manufacturers and just plain old tax simplification. Not only by action in the House, but in this election season across America, I have heard it time and time again by my Republican colleagues as they talk about the push and the resolute objective of having tax simplification here in the United States Tax Code.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we certainly know that the legislative calendar for this year was set to complete our work on October 1. We are now here on October 7 and working to get our work done. And it is my hope that we continue on the 9/11 debate today and other important matters pending.

It is also my hope that we are able to consider the legislation dealing with the American Jobs Act of 2004.

We know that since this last hour, that we are asking the body to consider a same-day rule so that we can consider the legislation if and when the Committee on Rules meets and sends to this floor a rule for consideration of the underlying legislation. We know that the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) has personally come and filed the report for the conference report before this body, and we have seen in the last hour both what the bill looks like, with some 1,300 pages and 12, 13 inches thick, and we heard me previously say that the Committee on Ways and Means Web site address, waysandmeans.house.gov, if you go to ``What's New'' and you look for conference documents, you will find the conference report, which is bipartisanly signed, in its entirety. And, if you want, the Adobe Acrobat has the word search so that you can find anything you are interested in finding.

This legislation has been around for a while. Again, I will repeat myself, as I have several times in this debate: It has nothing in it within the provisions that was not considered in this body or the other body by as the conferees came together. It was an open conference, even though the motion to instruct was defeated, and we followed the Senate rules whereby members of the conference could file numerous and countless amendments, which were considered, and we now have a final word product.

I know the debate on the floor, as we get through this, either today or this early evening or if it ends up tomorrow, will have all sorts of interpretations. We will get down to the fact that it is going to help American business, and that includes small business, farmers, and small manufacturers.

The Republican leadership and the Committee on Rules has met. They are not acting against the rules of this House. Quite frankly, we have asked for consideration of the body by majority vote to determine if we can have a same-day consideration, and that is what is going to happen as we have a vote here shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution, which is same-day consideration of the legislation before us, and I yield back the balance of time.

The previous question was ordered.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 807 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 807 is a same-day rule that provides for consideration of the rule to accompany H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, the current extension of the highway bill ends at midnight tonight. The Congress must therefore act immediately to ensure that there is no termination in projects or jobs while we continue to formulate the package that will reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for another 6 years. The legislation must be moved forward today in order to continue funding for highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs at the levels approved in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 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 811 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule further provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure currently has under its consideration the multiyear reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act. The current authorization expires at midnight tonight and the bill before us today provides funding for essential programs for an additional 8 months, through May 31, 2005. This extension is necessary to give the authorizing conferees additional time to agree on a larger reauthorization bill.

This Congress recognizes the many needs of our Nation and is answering the call by diligently working through its process to produce a bill that deals with the Nation's priorities in a whole host of areas.

The final authorization bill will ensure that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure from Federal highways and highway safety to public transportation and motor-carrier safety programs.

In the meantime, the extension before us today authorizes $24.5 billion for the Federal Aid Highway program for highway and bridge construction and safety-related infrastructure improvements. Mr. Speaker, $5.2 billion is authorized for the Federal Transit Administration for grants to State and local transit agencies to reduce congestion and ensure mobility for all Americans in urban and rural areas.

Additionally, the bill authorizes $200 million for highway safety programs, including programs to encourage seatbelt use and prevent drunk driving. The $287 million is authorized for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for truck and bus-related safety programs.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also releases the final portion of contract authority and obligation authority for

the highway program in fiscal year 2004. This funding was reserved until the end of the fiscal year and is now being used to ensure that States receive at least a 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed rate of return on their Highway Trust Fund contributions.

Without our action today, vital programs and projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation will be put on hold. States will not be reimbursed with the Federal share of projects. Safety grants will not be provided to States, and transit construction will be halted, all of which puts jobs at risk.

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot allow States and transportation projects to suffer. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.

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

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

It is now almost October 1, and we are getting into the election season. I expect the gentleman from Massachusetts to have some finger- pointing going on. But I was here, as he was, when the debate occurred on transportation, and I would say that the authorizers had some pretty good, wholehearted debate that seemed to almost be on the same page between Republicans and Democrats, the majority and the minority of this House.

I would remind all of us that while we had some harmony passing that legislation in the House and apparently in the other body, they had some harmony on what they passed, we have, as we well know as students of government, to pass an identical piece of legislation in the House, in the Senate and the President to sign it, or if he vetoes it, it would require a two-thirds vote in both of the bodies of Congress.

Now, what we have seen, because the other body has publicly debated some of their positions, is that we have disagreements between the House and the other body and we have some from the White House on just what the spending will be. But while we are in an election year, we need to make sure we also get some of the facts back here. And that is that my understanding of this extender, is that the 2005 authorization is using the 2004 levels, and there is absolutely zero loss of anything, that each State will have their money. As a matter of fact, in the underlying legislation, it is my understanding that we will see that the $2 billion that Members on both sides of the aisle worked hard to achieve for their districts will also be distributed to those States under the current formula.

Now, I cannot speak for Massachusetts, but I know, in New York, number one, that is going to be fair and equitable money. Number two, it is still a jobs bill that is keeping my people working across my State and, quite frankly, I think across the 50 States. So when we look at this, we also need to come to terms with a funding level of transportation authorization in a future 6-year bill that is equitable for all of us. And we know that different regions of the country have different viewpoints, and we know that non-mass-transit States have different views than those who are in high-growth States looking to develop further road infrastructure in their communities. It is not an easy bill to put together to get a 6-year consensus in this body, let alone between the House, the Senate, and the White House.

But the important thing that is to be noted today as we preserve those jobs, those jobs are working, and a ``yes'' vote today keeps these projects moving forward and protects those jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. I will willing to predict, Mr. Speaker, that we will have strong bipartisan support for the extension over the next 8 months.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman and what his view is, but I come from a State that has some complex transportation, from new to old aging infrastructure, to mass transit, to ports, to motor carriers, to dealing with buses and transit systems.

As I look at this, if we keep this moving forward by passing this extender, we are going to keep those projects moving forward to protect jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. It stops transit.

I have taken great care to listen to the transportation experts, and they assure me of the following. We came here with such great spirit in the House to pass this legislation, and it was bipartisan work. We certainly lauded both the chairman of the full Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee chairs who put together this complex bill and in a bipartisan fashion. Yes, there certainly are differences of agreement to different aspects of what I see in the other body just from public statements of negotiation. We have also seen that the White House and Department of Transportation has some of their opinions on this bill as well.

I accept the fact that we are getting into the election season, and we are going to have all sorts of consumption going on back home as to what this means. But what my transportation experts of New York say, as well as talking to experts in this body, they tell me that if we do this extension, it is going to maintain the spending in the 2005 authorization and 2004 funding levels and that basically no one will lose any money at all in any of our States or, for the most part, in our districts unless some of the Members do not have a relationship with their State transportation people on some of the priorities that they might be looking for in their State.

It is important to understand, for those who are listening to this debate, that this maintains the spending of a multiyear plan in the extension of 8 months, and it does in the 2005 authorization as well as looking at the 2004 funding levels that are currently available.

My local folks in New York, the State commissioner and his people, tell me that we will be able to continue in the continuity of a complex transportation system by being able to count on this extension and the funding to continue the multiyear projects.

So I do not quite understand the gentleman's aspect of where it starts and stops maybe as he sees the view, because I have been assured that we have continuity of transportation services in a multiyear fashion by extending this.

Again, I must say to my colleagues, a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs and protects the work and plans that are in our respective States, and a ``no'' vote just plain stops that or puts people out of work.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon for a question.

I said I yield for a question. I do not want to hear the gentleman's debate on my time.

I thank the gentleman for his question, and what I understand is as follows. Sure, I have projects; I think most Members of this body have specific projects earmarked in our legislation. It is my understanding that the other body would not consider earmarks that we would like to begin in the 2005 project year. Therefore, the compromise of extension, because we have had disagreements between the two bodies and we also have the White House in consideration of getting a final bill, was that we would take $2 billion of funding of Member- earmarked items of 2004 and roll them into our respective States on the existing formulas. That is what makes the States content to have that money back into their aspect of continuing in the projects.

The gentleman's influence, as a member of the Oregon delegation, might put an opportunity where the gentleman could talk to the DOT commissioner and begin their projects based on some of the monies they will receive.

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

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

It is a well-known fact in the House that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is probably the largest of membership in our great body. It amazes me when I look at the members of the committee, that might share from the other side of the aisle, kind of going back and forth between an extension and the 6-year bill, kind of mixing it up.

I just want to make sure we have the record straight, although I have said it so many times in this debate already. The extension does not prejudice the 6-year bill. It actually keeps a continuity of funding levels at the authorization of our budget resolution.

The gentleman is actually continuing, as previous speakers have, to go back and forth between a simple extension that guarantees all States their money and some planning purposes over the next 8 months versus trying to get to a 6-year bill.

I am used to a situation where legislation does not come to the floor as

fast as some Members would want, that there is finger-pointing. I also acknowledge that we have disagreements between the other body, the White House and this on getting a conclusion of a 6-year bill.

But the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has made sure, with his subcommittee chairmen, that we have an 8-month extension that guarantees each State their money so they can continue in their planning purposes. As I have said before, it clearly says a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work and brings that construction to an end.

I also want to make sure that some of these alarmist accusations, that there is clear, on-the-record information so that they do not get caught up without a response. As the previous gentleman talked about the fact of money going all over the place, this bill includes an extension of the budgetary firewalls and spending guarantees for the highway category and transit category. These firewalls and guarantees protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure the highway user-related fees are used exclusively for highway transit and highway safety programs.

I want to just let America know that we extend those protections in this extension of 8 months, just as it was in underlying legislation in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the comments of the gentleman, but I was at the point where I wondered if the gentleman intends to vote for the extension or not to vote for the extension, based on your remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it well, we should vote for this rule and then the underlying legislation. As I opened my remarks, I commented that I understand it is the election season. So many of us have to get up and try to say something for back home on whatever that may be.

I have talked to planners in my years of service, and some planners I know would like to have an exact fund for the entire length of their career in planning. But the reality is that this bill is going to provide an extension and continuity in both planning and money to our respective States. My State, as I outlined earlier, has a complex transportation network and understands that this extension keeps the funding levels the same as it has been. As a matter of fact, the opportunity of all States will have the same funding levels. So we have continuity of our programmatic services and dollars to the States and for them to also distribute as they see fit the monies that will come in this 8-month extension.

It is not easy to formulate an agreement of an extension, and I laud Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and his subcommittee chairman in working with the other body to get a compromise of extension that works so well for our States as we continue this continuity of transportation projects and creating and maintaining the jobs that these construction opportunities exist through the transportation bill. But as we also look here, it is an opportunity for us to continue to get an agreement that both bodies and the White House will look to be a 6-year plan following the extension that is here.

My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), has been clear. A ``yes'' vote today keeps the projects moving and keeps and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. The extension will do the job and we can continue in having a multi-year plan of the future based on the results of our actions today. So I call upon my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the Swormville Fire Company on the occasion of the dedication of their new fire hall.

The Swormville Fire Company has bravely served the citizens of East Amherst, NY, since its incorporation in 1918. The company was founded by a local resident named William Smith, and originally consisted of fifteen members. In 1937, the company completed work on a fire hall, the fire hall that would serve as headquarters until earlier this year.

Today, sixty-seven years after that fire hall was built, the company boasts over one hundred members and a top-notch volunteer firefighting operation--so it is fitting that the company should have a new, top- notch fire hall from which to run their operations. Working towards this end, we were able to secure federal funding of more than $130,000 for the company last June. Swormville's brand new fire hall, erected on the same site as their previous one, will serve both the company and the community well. This new, 16,500 square foot facility includes five apparatus bays, an emergency communications room, a training facility, a records storage room, and even a weight room.

Since 1918, the Swormville Fire Company has provided a vital service to the community. East Amherst would clearly not be what it is without them. We owe them a debt for gratitude for all they have done over the years, and wish them all the best as they continue to selflessly serve the community in their new fire hall.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in recognizing the Swormville Fire Company and celebrating the dedication of their new fire hall.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 785 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 785 is a same day rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.

The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the legislative day September 23, 2004, providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act.

This rule today is the first step to permit the House to consider a conference report that will infuse our economy with job creating tax relief, investment incentives and overall economic growth.

For well over a year, this body has been debating the relief provided by the Working Families Tax Relief Act and, with today's action, we once again display our continued commitment to strong economic growth. We also demonstrate to American workers, businesses and families that this Congress will protect their stability.

Mr. Speaker, through a series of tax cuts, this Congress has acted to create jobs and protect American families. Our strong leadership has resulted in the shortest and shallowest recession in our Nation's history. A delay in the consideration of this conference report for the Working Families Tax Relief Act will put American jobs and families and the strength of our economy at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we may proceed with debate on this time sensitive tax relief package.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are some points well taken, except we have been working 18 months on this legislation in bipartisan fashion in both bodies and we now have a conclusion. I also think we have certainly got strong opinions as we complete this of Members that will support this and Members that will not. I believe it will pass with some bipartisan support.

But also it is important that we have the opportunity that we can get our work done today, because otherwise my belief is that many would ask that we vote tomorrow, which, if we complete our work today, would keep an

orderly fashion of having our work done and Members also back into their districts.

So, as we move forward, it is my hope that we have a vote on the rule, and that the body will consider that we move forward with the opportunity of reviewing the conference report that was put together in a bipartisan fashion in both the other body and this body.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not a missed opportunity for those millions of taxpayers who are going to be assisted by this. While I respect my colleague from Maryland, I think there is a couple of things we need to look at to set the record straight. I was prepared to do it as we do the rule on the legislation, but maybe now is a good time.

This bill provides nearly $200 million in assistance for our military. This bill has 23 annual extenders for tax provisions that we have worked on in the past. It is going to address child tax credit that we have passed overwhelmingly in this House in a bipartisan provision. It is going to address the marriage penalty, which this House has, again, done in overwhelming provisions in past votes.

We have a 10 percent bracket, which is there. Without passage of the legislation, the bracket would start to fade until it is totally removed from the Tax Code, and that would affect 73 million families who will be paying higher income taxes next year. Over the next 10 years, these families will pay out a total of $2,400 more in taxes. That is a bill that this House has passed in previous times.

When we look at the AMT relief which was created more than 30 years ago as a way to prevent high income taxpayers from avoiding income tax payments, something happened, and the failure to index AMT for inflation has resulted in millions of Americans paying for this onerous double tax.

As a result, by 2010, one in three American taxpayers will be hid in the shadow of the AMT tax. Both in the 2001 and 2003 growth packages, Congress worked to ensure the new tax cuts would not force more taxpayers into the AMT trap. Yet, the provisions preventing millions of middle-class Americans from being hit with the AMT will expire at the end of this year. This is why the legislation is so critical, to prevent these Americans from being hit with the unsuspected tax.

So when we look at this legislation, when the House is scheduled to adjourn on October 1, and we look at this House that may extend itself a few days in closing, we need to also keep on track moving legislation that is ready for the body to consider.

I would also say that when we look at this, which was provided for, the paying of this, in the House-crafted budget that was adopted by this body, the extension of family tax relief is already provided for in the House-passed budget resolution. That resolution would cut the deficit in half over 5 years without raising taxes, so this bill is paid for.

The second aspect is the Democrats have agreed to extending the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and the marriage penalty relief. However, to accomplish the offsets, they want means of more than $130 billion in either tax hikes or spending cuts. The Democrats are not prepared to make the tough choices regarding which taxes to increase or which programs to

cut. We are going to talk about a procedural provision of whether we adopt this rule to consider same-day or not versus the aspect of an alternative, which I welcome as they bring their legislation before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman asking me if I would yield on his time?

No, I will give the gentleman exactly what I said, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. Speaker, I said the extension of the family tax relief is already provided for in the House-passed budget resolution. That resolution would cut the deficit in half over 5 years without raising taxes. I believe that the previous speaker on the minority side, the gentleman from Maryland, made a statement that he felt that it was not paid for.

Mr. Speaker, upon reflection and in listening to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one who is the senior member of the New York delegation, I agree with him that we should phase out and change the AMT tax, and I have watched him advocate a lot of other things. A few times I have not seen him want to pay for it except for raising taxes.

But the thing I heard most out of the debate was not about helping the American family put more money back into their pockets, not about the middle class, which some of the politicians outside this body would talk about middle-class warfare and all of the other type of class war discussion.

Today, if we are allowed to start the debate on this bill, we will begin to help the middle class because, otherwise, if the Congress does not act, families will face a tax increase next year. For example, next year, the $1,000 child tax credit drops to $700 per child. The 10 percent bracket will apply to less than an individual's income, and the marriage penalty provision will provide less relief for couples.

I did not hear the aspect of a debate over how we get it done out of the distinguished ranking member. What I heard was the Democrats may look bad however they vote versus a decision of whether you are going to help the middle class today with a tax cut or whether you are going to raise taxes by not getting the job done. I hope we will pass this same-day rule so we can bring the legislation to the floor.

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

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

I hope my colleague will take the opportunity to brief himself on the income tax savings for middle-income families, a Joint Economic Committee study done by the gentleman from New Jersey (Vice Chairman Saxton) of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress; possibly that will provide him some assistance on some of the points that he has made.

The impending tax increases, unless Congress takes action, the following tax increases will automatically occur. I want all of my colleagues from all walks of life to look at what actually is at risk here if this legislation is not passed before we adjourn. The impending tax increases, unless Congress takes action, the following increases will automatically occur: In 2005, the child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $700.

The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard deduction for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 174 percent, reinstating the marriage penalty. The top end of the 15 percent marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 174 percent, reinstating the marriage penalty.

The 10 percent marginal income tax bracket will contract from covering the first $7,000 of income for singles and $14,000 for joint filers to covering only the first $6,000 of income for singles and $12,000 for joint filers.

The bonus depreciation will decrease from 50 percent to 30 percent.

The exemption of the alternative minimum tax will decrease from $40,250 to $33,750, Mr. Speaker, for single filers, and from $58,000 to $45,000 for married couples filing jointly.

In 2006, the section 179 small business expensing cap will decrease from $100,000 to $25,000, and the definition of small business will decrease from $400,000 to $200,000.

In 2009, the personal capital gains rate will increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dividends will no longer be taxed on the personal capital gains rate, thereby increasing the double taxation of dividends by as much as 62 percent.

In 2011, the marginal income tax rates will increase as follows: 35 percent bracket will increase to 39.6 percent; 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent; 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; the 25 percent bracket will increase to 28 percent; and the 10 percent bracket will increase to 15 percent.

The child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500. The annual education IRA contribution limit will decrease from $2,000 to $500.

The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard deduction for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 167 percent, reinstating the marriage penalty. The top end of the 15 percent marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 167 percent, reinstating the marriage penalty.

The estate tax using the stepped-up basis will return with a 60 percent maximum rate, including surtax, and a $1 million exemption after years of decreasing estate tax rates, increasing exemptions, and one year using the more fair carry-over basis to calculate the tax due. The annual IRA contribution limit will decrease from 5,000 to a post- 2008 inflation of 2,000.

So we can see that if Congress takes action, we will help all taxpayers that are paying taxes to put money back in their pocket versus having it in the government. As we consider whether we have a same-day, I again urge the adoption of this rule so we can consider the underlying legislation in the next rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this gentleman and any others coming to the Committee on Rules if we get consideration of the same-day so we can hear any amendments that they would like to discuss. But as we well know, a conference report is not amendable, so it will be an up or down vote.

I do not know many taxpayers that are $11,000 that have to pay an income tax that we are considering. I thought the earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit offered by the Federal Government; I know New York has its own EITC, and that rate is 27.5 of a qualifying taxpayer's Federal EITC in the tax year 2002 and that the Federal and State EITC or for the working people that earn low or moderate income. So I certainly will continue to listen to my colleague, as I always do on his thoughts, both on this as an individual, Member to Member, but also anything he would like to bring on the floor of the debate when the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means will continue in what I believe will be a proper debate.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I will bring this debate to a closure.

Then I will not yield so I can complete my question on my time. If the gentleman gets time from his ranking member of this debate, we will certainly continue.

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Committee on Ways and Means and, of course, this is more appropriate on the underlying legislation, or I suppose even we could request them on the next rule, EIC has been expanded dramatically in this legislation which is going to assist in a number of fashions. I am not exactly sure as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has outlined a particular part that he has talked about on 11,000; but the EIC is expanded just on the aspect of making sure that we capture helping low income wage earners so that they are not caught in this.

As I said, in my State, the EITC has been extensively of assistance to our poor and low income family wage earners.

I would hope that we can move forward to a closure of this rule on same-day, take a vote on it, see if the body will consider then the rule on the underlying legislation, to consider this legislation so that all Members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate, and then we can have consideration of whether we pass this conference report, which has been 18 months in the making. Most of these are extenders and legislation that all Members are well aware of.

We have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation as has been considered in this body in the past. Otherwise, as I understand it, if we are not able to take this legislation up today, it will cause us to be continuing our work tomorrow if we cannot complete our work today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the record as this has had substantial debate on the underlying bill of future consideration of the next rule. There is only one change to the EIC in this bill which is an expansion for military families, in contradiction to some of the debate before.

The bill allows military families to include combat pay in the EIC and child credits, and that provision is in the legislation that will be considered later if this bill is now passed as a rule before us.

So to get back to where we are, we have a rule that is requesting consideration of this body of a same-day rule that if we pass it today, we will continue in being able to do our work on a conference report rule to consider the legislation, the underlying bill today. If not, it would seem to me, as I understand it from previous briefings before coming to the floor, if we are not allowed to continue our work today, we will then find ourselves working tomorrow on this legislation because we were not able to complete it today.

So the resolution before us today and the rule is for same-day consideration of the legislation that will be the underlying legislation rule next. I would hope that we could pass this legislation and vote for the previous question so that we can move forward.

Mr. Speaker, when I was responding to Mr. Ford's remarks about those earning under $11,000 per year, I inadvertently referred to the EIC, when I meant to refer to the refundable portion of the child credit. It is important to note that the bill does not increase taxes on anyone and actually increases the refundability of the child credit for low-income families.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 794 is a customary rule providing for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides the conference report will be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to head home to our districts for the weekend, there are two things that I look forward to telling my constituents that this Congress accomplished today: Cutting taxes and creating jobs. They are two of the most important things we can do for the hard-working people who sent us here to represent them.

We all know the unfortunate hits America's economy has suffered over the past several years. But through the strength of this administration and the will of this Congress, we have made great strides in recovering from horrific terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and a recession.

Time and time again, this Congress has responded to adversity with sound economic policies that continue to grow our economy. Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act, we have given taxpayers in my district and all across America greater control over their hard-earned dollars.

Not only does this provide greater motivation for savings and investment, but it also protects and creates jobs. The Working Families Tax Relief Act before us today is yet another step in our plan to create a fair and reasonable tax system for hard-working Americans and continue the path of new job creation.

In March of 2003, this House passed our original version of the bill by a voice vote under suspension of the rules. In June of that same year we passed the bill for a second time.

Mr. Speaker, in the 18 months that we have been debating this bill, our constituents have waited patiently for the tax relief they deserve. Today, that long wait ends.

The underlying conference report includes much of the previous House passed language, providing more and longer lasting benefits for families of all income levels.

It extends the child tax credit of $1,000 per eligible child that is currently scheduled to sunset in 2005. The conference report makes this a meaningful credit available through 2010.

Important tax relief for married couples is also extended in the conference report. The House voted overwhelmingly in April of this year to make marriage penalty relief permanent, and we have yet another opportunity today to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report also expands the 10 percent bracket originally created in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and which overwhelmingly passed this House once again just over 4 months ago. This provision means substantial tax relief for low-income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of earnings for married couples and the first $7,000 for single taxpayers at a 10 percent rate instead of a 15 percent rate.

Without extensions of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, working families would face a $109 billion tax increase over the next 10 years. This House simply cannot delay and must pass this measure in order to remove these excess tax burdens from our hard-working families.

Mr. Speaker, the report additionally provides the middle class with relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the AMT. While the calculation for the AMT is quite complicated, the negative result is simple to understand: It is an extra tax some have to pay on top of their regular income tax.

Originally conceived to prevent those with a very higher income from abusing tax benefits to unfairly reduce or eliminate their tax liability, the AMT has unintentionally ensnared millions of middle- class taxpayers. In May of this year, the AMT tax exemption was widely supported in this House on a bipartisan basis. Without this much needed extension, more middle income families will be pushed into the AMT, resulting in a tax hike of $23 billion in the next 10 years.

The conference report also continues to honor our servicemen and women in combat zones with nearly $200 million in tax assistance through the inclusion of tax-free combat pay when calculating their refundable child credit and an increase in the Earned Income Credit.

Our brave men and women in uniform continue to defend the freedoms this Nation holds dear, and every day they work to protect us from those who would do us harm. They do not just deserve our thanks and appreciation, they deserve this sensible assistance for their hard work and sacrifice.

The conference report further provides that the tax-exempt status of an organization is automatically suspended during any period in which the organization is designated as a terrorist organization or is listed in or designated by an executive order as supporting terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, also included in the underlying conference report is a 1-year extension of over 20 various expiring tax provisions, including the research and development tax credit, which is so important to business across the country.

In all, $13 billion of needed tax relief is provided for with these extensions.

Of particular importance to my home State of New York is the expansion of authority to issue advance refunding of Liberty Zone bonds through 2009. The Liberty Zone bond financing was intended to encourage the commercial revitalization of Lower Manhattan, and in particular, the World Trade Center site following the devastating attacks of September 11.

Currently scheduled to expire this December, I am pleased this conference report recognized the importance of the program and has included this much-needed extension.

Mr. Speaker, a yes vote today seizes on the momentum we have created towards a strong economy and job creation and sends a clear message that this Congress supports putting real dollars back where they belong, into the hands of hard-working men and women. A no vote simply prevents us this needed relief from becoming reality and denies our constituency the assistance they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 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.

First, in listening to the gentlewoman's remarks on the general preliminary estimates that were there, as I understand it, that is what is published before the legislation is passed. Also, for the Record, I would like to have the final, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is on their website for the Members who may not be in the chamber now if they choose to use it, but I would like to have this inserted into the Record as the final numbers.

Also, as I have listened to some of the aspects about this bill, both in the previous rule and now, that it is not paid for, I think there are a couple of things that also need to be on record. This bill prevents a tax increase on families, and it is very clear, if we do nothing, that taxes will go up, and so, actually, we are preventing that. Secondly, the relief that is provided for in the President's budget which holds the line on spending, it cuts the deficit in half over 5 years. The recent data from the Treasury Department show we are on track to meeting the President's budget goals. Finally, the Treasury data shows that tax receipts are increasing, despite the President's tax relief, proof that tax relief leads to economic growth.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.009

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

We are getting into some of the theatrics of politics 40 days before an election. I accept that. But I also want to say that before Joe Scarborough was elected in 1994, in the time he served, it was the failed liberal policies of 40 years that knew tax and spend, in this House and allowed the policy that started in 1995 which was to stop a train wreck, and also begin to move forward in recovering from the largest tax increase in American history in 1993.

Now, what I also find ironic, the Democratic leadership of the House never listened to Joe Scarborough when he was a Member but might choose to now that he is a pundit and an author.

But the fact is, as we look at this legislation on the underlying bill, as we consider this rule today, this rule prevents a tax increase on families, middle-class American families that the politics of America has been addressing day in and day out while the 2004 election is underway. If you do not vote for

it, you begin to threaten the aspect that middle America will have a tax increase.

This relief is provided for in the President's budget, which holds the line on spending and cuts the deficit in half over 5 years. Recent data from the Treasury Department shows we can and we are on track in meeting the President's budget goals. The Treasury data shows that tax receipts are increasing, despite the President's tax relief, proof that tax relief leads to economic growth.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Report, in their summary it clearly says in there that raising taxes to cover budget deficits is usually a bad idea because it reduces incentives to work, save and invest.

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

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

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

Well, there they go again. Let us have a plan where we will sell a loaf of bread that says we will cut middle class taxes, but then again, I do not really have a plan on how to do it.

I have been in the majority before getting here and serving in the majority since the day I got here, but that majority of the previous 40 years has nicely gotten trenched into the minority because they have a lot of rhetoric but they have not put forth a plan as to how to get the job done.

So when you look at this, the Democrats have agreed to extending child tax credit, the 10 percent tax bracket, the marriage penalty relief, however, to accomplish the offsets they want, it means they have to come up with $130 billion of either tax hikes or spending cuts. The Democrats are not prepared to make that tough choice regarding which taxes to increase or which programs to cut. They want to come up and say, I am for cutting the middle class tax, but then again, I do not see this, I do not see that, BBA, debt, but there is never a solution.

So the Democrats' plan is a zero sum game here, it provides tax relief with one hand and takes it away with the other. So the Members who should vote no on this rule are the ones not interested in helping millions of American families that deserve tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are getting down into election year, and I am so used to the other side of the aisle using class warfare, more importantly, I guess the American people are, that it is totally false, the information coming out here.

The information is false. The bill does not increase taxes on anyone. It actually increases the refundability of the child tax credit for low income families; $23 billion comes back to low income working families to help them, and they do not pay income tax in the category that is the outlay.

So, in other words, low income families who pay no income tax at all still will receive an additional $23 billion in the bill.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is an election year. Prior to 2001, the child credit was refundable only for those families with three or more children. This President, under 2001 tax relief, made all families with children eligible for the refundable child credit.

The size of the refundable credit is based on the family's earned income in excess of $10,000, which is indexed for inflation; and what I am seeing from the other side of the aisle is argument that the $10,000 limit should not be indexed for inflation so that families can receive a bigger check from the government. Ironically, they did not make this argument in 2001 when the refund was created in the first place.

It is very important that our colleagues understand $23 billion of outlays are going to help people who do not pay income tax in the low- income levels of our society.

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

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

Half of the cost of this bill is child credit, which has an income limit. High-income people do not qualify. So I want to make sure that is on the record after my colleague just spoke.

My colleague is right, though, that low-income families do need help, and that is just exactly what this conference report does. It provides $23 billion in outlays. In other words, low-income families who pay no income taxes at all will receive an additional $23 billion from the government under this bill.

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

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

Just as I listened carefully, I thought I understood that the Republicans since being in the control of the majority have brought about a third of the country's debt in policy decisions. I guess that would mean two-thirds of the debt would be borne by the Democratic minority party.

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

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

It just is something, I would almost like to look at that particular time transcript before 1994, when I think of the failed liberal spending policies of the previous majority; but we are here today and we have to reflect that in the 21st century we have faced 9/11, a recession, corporate scandal, reinvestment into the types of things that we have had to do in order to get the economy moving again, create jobs, open opportunity, but also to make sure that we are moving again and moving strong on homeland security and our national defense, which was all but beaten up pretty well in the nineties.

As we move forward, we have also done it with the aspect of a President outlining in this budget, which I hope this Congress, both sides of the aisle, might hold the line on the spending and cuts so that we can achieve the deficit reduction by cutting it in half over 5 years as the President outlined, and then how the House Republican majority put forth in its budget this year as well, the plan to do that.

But I will also say that while I have enjoyed listening to comments from the sidelines about the aspect of tax cuts or how to help middle- class Americans not see a tax increase or low-income Americans not see a tax increase or expanding $23 billion of outlays to low-income Americans who would be benefited by this legislation today, I have not seen any plan that is even on the table from the other side of the aisle that will make the tough choices we have with this legislation and the underlying bill or they have a proposal of raising taxes or cutting programs, some other solution than this.

But I do know this, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' on this, they are voting to raise middle America and the low-income families of this country's taxes, and if my colleagues vote ``yes'' for this rule, and they vote ``yes'' for the underlying legislation, they are going to keep millions of Americans from having to pay more in taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and in my closing remarks, I just want to remind my colleagues that this rule gives us the opportunity to have the debate on the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It extends family tax provisions through 2010, it provides assistance to military families in combat zones, it provides and extends relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, through 2005, it creates a uniform definition of a child for tax purposes, and it extends 23 expiring tax provisions that end this year unless they are authorized in extension.

Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote today seizes on the momentum we have created towards a strong economy and sends a clear message that this Congress supports putting real dollars back where they belong, in the hands of hardworking men and women. A ``no'' vote simply prevents this needed relief from becoming a reality and denies our constituents the assistance they have earned. In other words, will provide a tax increase on them if this bill is not passed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I was incorrect when I mentioned in my opening remarks that the conference report included a provision suspending tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. While it was included in an earlier version of the bill, that provision has already been signed into law under the Military Family Tax Relief Act and it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Working Families Tax Relief Act.

The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for yielding me this time. I also appreciate the strong support of my concurrent resolution by both the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture today.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to recognize the National Farm Safety and Health Week and to thank our farmers and ranchers nationwide for their hard work day in and day out.

Over half the land in the United States is used for agricultural production; and without the work of our farmers and ranchers, our Nation and others around the world would not have the safe, stable supply of food and fiber that we enjoy today.

In my home State of New York, agriculture is the number one industry, and I am proud to represent one of the largest agricultural areas in the State. In districts like mine all across this great land, farmers work long, hard hours and make tremendous sacrifices. They should be applauded for their efforts.

Unfortunately, those long, hard hours are not risk-free. Sadly, there are hundreds of farm-related fatalities and thousands of injuries every year, and sadder still, many of these accidents could be prevented through increased awareness and better safety practices.

The National Farm Safety and Health Week is a national effort to reduce the number of farming- and ranching-related deaths and injuries through educational and awareness initiatives. Helping educate our farmers and their families on necessary safety precautions is essential to ensuring the strong productivity of our agricultural sector.

I would like to commend the National Safety Council for their leadership and continued work towards achieving these goals through the National Farm Safety and Health Week. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 770 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 770 is an open rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5025, the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year ending September 30, 2005. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

The rule also provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph. Further, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record. And, finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations had an extremely difficult task this year in funding the many needs of our Nation. They answered the call by diligently working to produce a bill that deals with our needs in a whole host of areas, including the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, along with the Postal Service and the Executive Office of the President.

In total the bill provides $89.8 in total budgetary resources. This funding represents the commitment of this Congress to provide the necessary resources for programs and projects across the Nation. The bill provides close to $35 billion in highway spending, a boost of $1 billion over last year's guarantee. This amount fully funds the House- passed authorization level and will go a long ways towards constructing and improving highways and roads in our communities.

Transit spending of over $7 billion includes over $1 billion for new fixed guideway systems. Amtrak is provided with $900 million, which is equal to the President's request. Included in this funding is $500 million for capital improvements and $60 million to ensure that important commuter operations continue.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also provides significant support for the Federal Aviation Administration with a total of $14 billion. This includes $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program and $102 million for Essential Air Service. The total FAA funding also includes $9 million above the budget request in order to hire and train additional traffic controllers.

From highways and transit programs to airports and the FAA, the underlying bill ensures that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also gives support to the Treasury Department, bringing their appropriation to over $11 billion. Included under the General Services Administration is over $90 million in funding for new border stations. This will not only enhance protection of our borders but also improve commercial efficiency. The bill also includes an increase of $2.8 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is tasked with implementing the Treasury Department's anti-money laundering regulations.

Also included in the bill is considerable funding for support of national anti-drug efforts. The Office of National Drug Control Policy is provided with just over $468 million. Within that funding is assistance to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and full funding for the Drug-Free Communities program. This funding is essential to keep our children safe from drugs through education and community support.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more vital programs funded in the appropriations bill that I have not mentioned but that I know will be highlighted in detail during our debate later today.

I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member of both the full Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee for their hard work on this extensive bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and the underlying rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I looked over the transcript from last year and noticed how similar the debate is coming from my colleague, as the presentation was: we have to keep spending more money. There is not a district or a State or, quite frankly, a region of the country that does not feel that there is more need in transportation appropriations, whether it be this or from the trust fund; but the reality is, it becomes a time to look at working within a budget, working within the allocations.

I also want to remind my colleague that while the Committee on Rules is a traffic cop, deciding many things that comes before the Congress as it comes from committees to the floor, we have to be a little careful of just how much legislating we do on appropriations bills. I do not have to remind my colleague that there was a great deal of legislating on the appropriations bills via the amendments offered before the Committee on Rules today, thus making a decision not to make them in order, as they were not germane; and also there becomes the subject of looking at paying for some of this by raising taxes.

Now, I look at the fact that there is a tax cut on the books and it is the law of the land, and that is the rate and what people are going to pay. Every

time we want to add something by taking it from the tax cut, we are raising taxes. I think the Committee on Rules, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, did not want to get into raising taxes.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy budget. The entire 13 appropriations bills and the transportation bill is no easier than the others that we have moved before us or a few that we have to complete our work on. But the fact is, the Committee on Appropriations has worked hard. They have worked under the allocations that they had available, and we should always be on the lookout for an opportunity where we can provide assistance in transportation needs as money becomes available.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I know that he is an expert on rules and rules policy. That is, with an open rule, any Member can offer any germane amendment to change however they want this transportation and postal bill. So as we bring the rule, which is an open rule, to the body and the House makes its decisions of passing the rule, it allows us to get into the debate on the appropriations report. That certainly allows, under an open rule, any germane amendment to be offered that any Member chooses, and I know we will have many. This bill always has a tremendous amount of amendments to it.

So I look forward to the debate and the votes as they come, and I am sure there will be many where individual Members will offer amendments that they deem are important for consideration here; and if they are germane, they will be entertained by the House.

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

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

Again, the Committee on Rules has to sort it all out. I suppose each of us would like our own personal waiver of something that we would like to add into this appropriations bill, whether it is our favorite road, our favorite bridge, our favorite railroad station or track or some other aspect, or ports or harbors or whatever else we can stick in the bill.

The reality is that we have a budget. We have 302(b) allocations to 13 appropriations bills, and we have some tough work to do. Our appropriators on this subcommittee have done their job, and they have brought the bill here. It is now, as we consider it under an open rule on the appropriations bill, one that will come to the floor so that any Member can provide any amendment they so desire that is germane to this bill for consideration, and that becomes the process of a decision of whether 218 Members of this body decide in favor of that amendment or not.

It is not up to the Committee on Rules to sort through each and every personal agenda item that may come up through the rules hearings for deliberation. This is a fair and open rule that is before this House for decisions today and as long as it takes to complete this appropriations bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make sure that there was no question in my comments earlier as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) brought forth some thought.

I believe it is for the Committee on Rules to listen to each and every Member on its amendments. What I said was that the Committee on Rules, that it was not responsible and necessary to give every member a waiver on everything they wanted as they came up there, which you well know.

A couple of things that become important also while I listen to both the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the minority member managing this rule, and that is that appropriations has a very unique aspect here. They can move privileged measures right to the floor without any rule. Now, I know the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations knows that because last year the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies came through exactly that way, as a privileged measure that was regular order and never had a rule, and it came right to the floor as they have that opportunity here in the House of Representatives.

In fact, as we look at this bill, this bill started with the aspect that the Committee on Appropriations was going to move it to the floor as a privileged measure that would not require a rule at all. And it was also, as I understand, that the Committee on Appropriations did not want to accommodate waivers, they did not want waivers on this bill, so they elected that the Committee on Rules would come to play, make its decisions and bring the bill to the floor without those waivers under an open rule where every single Member of this body can introduce any germane amendment he or she so desires. And that is what will happen today if this rule is passed and we are able to move on to the appropriations matter.

When we look at the discussion, and there is a debate. I remember when we had a discussion saying I want to add back all this stuff and I want to raise taxes to do it, as the minority ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations brought a measure before this House. I respect his ability to bring that amendment. I also think we were fortunate that it was defeated so we did not raise taxes on the American people. But the fact is there was the opportunity to have that vote after the debate and the decision was not to raise taxes.

I accept those in the minority who want to raise taxes to spend. It is a fact of life over some of the policies that this body had when the other party was in power. But the fact is that we are holding the line on spending. We are making difficult choices. And today as we move this appropriations bill to the floor, it gives everyone ample opportunity to amend it with germane amendments how they see fit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I must recall it has only been about a half hour when I listened to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who

brought his viewpoint to the floor that said there is not enough money in this thing because there was a tax cut and, therefore, we have got to increase taxes in order to have more money to spend. And so while I did not necessarily hear that from the gentleman today, the ranking member led the debate on increasing taxes so we could put more stuff back into programs that you put forth in a line by line fashion that you wanted back from money.

That was not today but you certainly brought that forth and it was something that you very much wanted to bring forth and we have accommodated that opportunity. But today the Member managing this rule on the minority side did bring forth the fact that he did not see the goals of what he wanted to see in a transportation bill because the tax cut did not allow him to have that.

Again, I want to remind my colleagues that we have ample opportunity for every Member to offer whatever amendment they want that is germane to this bill; and I am sure we will see many of those in the forthcoming hours on this Committee on Appropriations item.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question when we look at our infrastructure and our roads and bridges and our transit systems and our ports and our airports, there is always an additional need for money. That is why we have invested so much as what we have done in our trust funds as well as annual appropriations. But there also comes a time where you cannot just keep taxing and spending on the aspect of wanting to provide a big government to the entire country on every single item, every single day.

It requires some of the tough looks of where we have to hold some line item spending. It comes to looking at a budget, and 302(b) allocations that set forth those tough decisions that both the appropriators and then this body have to do. Just as the difficulty that everyone knows we have in bringing forth the final solution for

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the cities and residents of Boston and New York City for their tremendous efforts in hosting this year's national political conventions. With two of the Nation's most historic and vibrant cities as their backdrops, the Democrat and Republican conventions were both great successes.

Boston and New York have long been known as centers of culture, education, and heritage. After this summer's conventions, it is apparent why they are also recognized for their hospitality, charm, and warm spirit. As tens of thousands of delegates, elected officials, volunteers, and tourists converged on these great cities, countless others worked behind the scenes and on the front lines to make sure programs ran smoothly and safely. These individuals labored tirelessly, not just during the conventions but for several weeks prior, crossing every ``T'' and dotting every ``I.''

These events would not have been possible without the efforts of everyone involved. A special thanks to those at the city, State, and regional, as well as national, levels who coordinated and secured the safety of Boston and New York. This includes, of course, the city police and fire departments, the United States Secret Service, the United States Capitol Police, and numerous other agencies that coordinated protective services for both convention-goers and city residents alike.

As the first political conventions held in the post-9/11 world, our police, firefighters, and first responders faced security risks never before envisioned. True to their great reputations, the respective agencies of New York and Boston exhibited consummate professionalism and ensured the safety and security of all those attending and visiting these greats cities.

Those accolades extend as well to our Capitol Police and those Federal agencies that worked side by side with their brethren in New York and Boston to ensure a seamless coordination.

Mr. Speaker, the cities of Boston and New York have long represented the freedoms and liberty that nurtured democracy in this country. Today, several hundred years later, one of the best enduring examples of these fundamental rights is the ability to participate in the political process. National political conventions provide a forum for this participation like no other.

To all those who helped make the conventions possible, and to the gracious residents of Boston and New York, I wish to extend a heartfelt thanks on behalf of the House for helping to foster greater political participation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in expressing gratitude to the cities of Boston and New York.

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 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.