Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4418) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, for the United States International Trade Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418. I am particularly pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and its original cosponsors include the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

The bill was reported unanimously out of the committee on a rollcall vote of 33 to 0.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418, the Customs Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004. I am particularly pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation. The bill was introduced by Congressman Crane, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and original cosponsors included Congressmen Rangel, Shaw, Levin, and Ramstad. The bill was then reported unanimously out of the Committee on a vote of 33 yeas to 0 nays.

Our customs and trade agencies authorization bill is part of our two- year authorization process to provide guidance and exercise oversight of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (or CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (or USTR), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (or ITC).

This week the House will focus on trade legislation as a means to enhance our economic well-being, including legislation to implement the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. While free trade agreements bring obvious economic benefits, the provisions in the customs sections of this legislation are the nuts and bolts of trade facilitation. This legislation provides the critical resources that CBP and ICE need to safeguard our borders while still facilitating the flow of legitimate trade.

The legislation provides resources for USTR, which has done a tremendous job in recent years of negotiating trade agreements and enforcing the obligations in those agreements to ensure that our business, farmers, workers, and consumers reap the benefits of these agreements. This legislation will provide an additional $2 million in funding above the President's budget request for staff in the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement to ensure that USTR can continue to perform its vital functions. This earmark will allow USTR to address a variety of needs that will best enable U.S. companies, farmers, and workers to benefit from the trade agreements to which the United States is party.

Finally, the bill ensures adequate resources for the ITC, which has provided valuable advice on the probable economic effects of U.S. trade agreements and other trade legislation considered by the Congress.

In conclusion, this legislation provides the resources and the administrative flexibility that allows legitimate trade to flow freely across our borders. I urge the support of my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House has a series of procedures which determine whether

or not a bill is a candidate to be placed on suspension. One of the first things that one would look at, obviously, is the way in which the bill was dealt with in committee. I said in my opening statement that this bill passed 33 to 0. One cannot get any more unanimous than that.

I would ask my friend, because he is my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), while he is recounting the amendments that were offered, which were presented, arguments examined, decision made by the committee, and it just so happens that each of the amendments were not accepted. They had every right at that time to vote against the measure. Not being able to completely divine the reason for why they do such things, but they came to the conclusion that the bill, notwithstanding not being amended, was perfectly acceptable.

I do, however, have to ask my colleague, when an argument is made in committee and absolutely and completely refuted, it does not lend itself to a continued positive working relationship to then come to the floor and repeat the same argument, which was absolutely refuted in committee, as though he had no knowledge that what he was saying was not accurate.

The gentleman said that the $2 billion the gentleman from Maryland was kind enough to indicate we all agreed would be appropriate could not go at all for enforcement. The language in the bill is ``and between general counsel and enforcement,'' not ``and/or.'' It is ``and.'' And the gentleman's argument that no money can go there is simply not accurate. It was not accurate when he made it in committee, and it was refuted. It is not accurate on the floor when he makes it.

And so after all is said and done with all of the concerns and all of the arguments which end with ``and we will support the bill,'' the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that the problem is we are the majority and they are not.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to engage the gentleman in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and as the gentleman knows, this is an issue that was just presented to us now, and in trying to do some immediate research, we could not determine whether it is amenable to an administrative resolution or a legislative resolution; but certainly the chairman is willing to work with the gentleman from Washington, as our staffs confer, to try to address those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his rapid response to a problem in his district.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

I will tell the gentleman that as we are moving forward with the integration at the border, this committee and its responsibilities, especially in the area of customs, will always work with the other authorizing committees to make sure that not only is it more seamless in terms of security, but, frankly, we need to be much more efficient in the movement of economic goods across international lines, especially in the areas that you mentioned, especially in the area of Detroit and Windsor where unbeknownst to a lot of people, when you travel south, you go to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I will tell the gentleman from Michigan I have no other speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

To make sure that everyone is perfectly clear, I think we may need to recount what occurred in committee in the discussion of this bill in front of the full Committee on Ways and Means.

There were three Members on the minority side that had indicated that they either wanted to offer amendments or they wanted to discuss points at which they may or may not be prepared to offer amendments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) raised a point, there was a discussion between staff and Members, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) terminated his discussion.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) indicated that he was going to offer amendments. There was a colloquy between the chairman and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and he withdrew his amendment.

The gentleman from Michigan then offered an amendment and had the clarification, which the Chair is grateful for, which was the subject of his amendment and that is that no money could go to enforcement. The gentleman corrected his statement, although he still believes that perhaps the United States Trade Representative is engaged in gamesmanship and perhaps they would send a dollar to enforcement but that would be all.

That was precisely the basis of the discussion that occurred in committee.

The Chair offered to work with the maker of the amendment, the gentleman from Michigan, to put report language that would clarify the concerns that all of us have that this is not an issue over which games should be played.

But what was not mentioned was the fact that an amendment was offered with a specific reference to one country in terms of enforcement. That is, the Chair believes and apparently a majority of the committee believed, because the amendment was put to a vote, there were 11 ayes and 21 noes, that perhaps that degree of direction and specificity is not appropriate; and that had the gentleman not attempted to micromanage, he would have found far more support. Notwithstanding that, he decided to move his amendment.

The offer was made, let us work together to reconcile the concerns, and we can put report language in that shows the concern of the committee that we need money both to general counsel and to enforcement. That offer was rejected.

The gentleman from Michigan instead chose to move his amendment. That amendment was defeated, not for the basic concept of wanting to make

sure that the United States Trade Representative work in the enforcement area as general counsel, because of the way the amendment was written. The degree of specificity and the desire to micromanage and control was the reason the amendment was rejected.

So once the attempt to micromanage failed, then a vote was requested. At any point any Member could have voted no. The vote was 33 to zero, and I think that indicates the true depth of support for this provision.

There truly is no real controversy; and, frankly, there should be no real opposition. I would ask Members to vote for H.R. 4418 with the intent and purpose of its content supported unanimously out of the Committee on Ways and Means.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter

regarding H.R. 4418, the ``Customs Border Security and Trade

Agencies Authorization Act of 2004.'' The Committee of Ways

and Means ordered favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4418

on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by a 33-0 vote. I appreciate your

agreement to expedite the passage of this legislation

although it contains several immigration provisions that are

within your Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your

decision to forego further action on the bill is based on the

understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on the

Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on

this or similar legislation.

Our committees have long collaborated on these important

initiatives, and I am very pleased we are continuing that

cooperation. Your leadership on immigration issues is

critical to the success of this bill. I appreciate your

helping us to move this legislation quickly to the floor.

Finally, I will include in both the Committee report and

the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on

this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. I

look forward to working with you in the future.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4418.

Mr. Speaker, point of clarification.

Mr. Speaker, the two provisions which are referred to under Homeland Security are actually based upon the creation of Homeland Security, one under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, which is the Treasury Department. The other is under the Committee on the Judiciary. We are in receipt of a letter which allows us to move forward, and, therefore, the bill is in order.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 712, I call up the bill (H.R. 4759) to implement the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4759, which is the instrument that implements the United States-Australian Free Trade Agreement.

This particular Free Trade Agreement is good, it is solid, it will benefit American workers, farmers, consumers, businesses, and the U.S. economy. It brings the United States and Australia closer together economically. No two countries in the world are closer in terms of their views of the world, especially in terms of strategic military concerns; and, frankly, as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, this agreement, in my opinion, is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade; and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4759, to implement the United States--Australia Free Trade Agreement. The FTA is a solid agreement that will benefit American workers, farmers, consumers, businesses and the U.S. economy. The FTA also helps to solidify the economic component of our strategic relationship with Australia. While this bill has been proceeding through the legislative process, I have emphasized the commercial benefits that this agreement will bring. Today, I will focus on the broader picture because I think it is important to also consider this FTA in that context.

Australia is a very close friend and important ally of the United States. We share the belief in the power of freedom, democracy, and liberty, and our two countries are examples to the world of how these ideals can foster individual achievement. Australian troops have fought with American soldiers in all of the major conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Like a healthy marriage, our alliance cannot be taken for granted, and it must be continuously nurtured, assessed and adapted to accommodate modern times. Both countries believe that dynamic, open and efficient economies promote higher growth and better living standards and create more jobs in our respective countries.

Consistent with those beliefs, this Agreement will provide real benefits to the American and Australian peoples and our economies. This FTA will do for our economic relationship during the next 50 years what the ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) treaty has done for the political and military relationship during the past 50 years.

The FTA will solidify a strong economic partnership in the World Trade Organization, where the United States and Australia share many goals. I encourage my colleagues to send an overwhelming message of approval to our friends ``down under'' and vote ``yes'' for this Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my short time to address all those Members of the House of Representatives who are not from California. They do create a majority in this body after all.

We have a rather unique situation with the chairman of the full committee from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee from California, and the chairman of the subcommittee from California; but that is not what is important.

What is important for my colleagues not from California to understand is this is a State of more than 30 million people that has a significant impact on the economy of the United States and, frankly, the quality of life in the United States.

In the 1930s, the Federal Government began developing the water resources on the east side of California. Californians in the 1960s took the responsibility on themselves to build a multi-billion dollar water project on the west side of California.

They have been discussing CALFED. The State and the Federal Government water projects have never been coordinated, and the resources of California have never been maximized for the benefit both of the environment and the economy and individuals.

Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), talked about the fact that as other States, Arizona and others in the area of the Colorado River, have gained population, California is using a source of water that we have relied on for a long time. This is the first time that we have not had a partisan fight; that we are not going to have a regional fight; and that California has come together to begin to solve the water problems of the largest State in the Union.

I would ask my colleagues, if they are not from California, witness the bipartisanship, witness finally in California the understanding that north and south need to work together, and please, give us a strong vote on this legislation which is important to California and important to the United States.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) because those of us who came in the 96th Congress in 1979, and I see my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), is with us who was a member of that class, there were 77 of us, both Democrats and Republicans who came. And when you come in the same class, you then have seniority established alphabetically.

So you need to understand that from the first day Doug Bereuter was envied by me for the seniority which he achieved immediately in the House. However, the years, and it is now 25, Doug and Louise and my wife, Sharon, and I have gotten to know each other in a way that you can say that we are colleagues. We professionally deal with a number of issues, but probably as much as any other person in the House, Doug is a friend, and I admire him so much.

If you look at his background, rarely is anyone as prepared as he was to take on the responsibilities as a Member of the House of Representatives. And then when you look at what he has done and the manner in which he has done it, I admire him so much for the professionalism that he has brought to this House. And I know that as he now decides to go a different way, and Louise leaves her home by the river and they move into other activities, that Sharon and I will keep in touch with them because the memories that we have shared will be renewed as he moves on.

I will conclude, I will tell the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), by saying this: Republicans have now been in the majority for a decade. Some of us have been privileged to be able to chair committees in this great body. I can without refutation say that up to this point the most well-qualified mind-set approach, Member of the majority not to be able to be a chairman is Doug Bereuter. It saddens me. Although he has done a marvelous job in his professional career here in the House, in a number of committee assignments, I want to underscore that Doug Bereuter should have been a chairman of a full committee.

He and I will lament that over drinks in a number of countries over the next few years as we continue to share our lives in many ways. I am saddened to see Doug go, but I am not sad because I get to move up one spot in seniority. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues and those paying attention to what is going on to appreciate what has occurred on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman who is managing the bill for the rule for the minority took some time to discuss the Crane-Rangel bill. Had that been offered, that would have been a substitute. That would have been, under the rules, appropriate; but they did not offer the Crane-Rangel substitute, notwithstanding the fact that what was offered was an amendment; but I want my colleagues to understand this.

In the Committee on Ways and Means on Monday, the gentleman from New York had every opportunity to offer the Crane-Rangel substitute. It was his choice. He did not offer a substitute. He offered an amendment.

Last night, with the option of offering a substitute, he did not offer a substitute. He offered an amendment. Under the rules, it has to be a substitute.

Now why is the Crane-Rangel substitute not before us? Because it did not offer a tax cut to small business, because it did not include the appropriate and necessary elimination of the tobacco subsidy program; because it did not include the assistance to small business, called section 179, expensing; and it did not include the provisions for small S corporations to continue to reform. Those are in the underlying bill, and what the gentleman from New York and his staff did was simply cut and paste various provisions of the underlying bill, and they wanted that to be accepted.

A letter was submitted by the gentleman from New York in which it says in part, ``I request that I be allowed to add to the amendment.'' Additionally, he says, ``the additional language . . . would include.'' At one time we were able to submit material like that without having legislative language and it would be accepted. When we became the majority, there was a thrust by the now-minority to require everything to be in legislative language. That is the rules, and the gentleman wanted not to follow the rules. He wanted the rules bent for him, the very same rules they insisted that we follow.

I want to offer my colleagues three quotes: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; all politics is local; and patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

My colleagues heard the gentleman from Washington. I have here the 1985 markup document from the then-Democratically controlled Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The position in the House was to remove from the Tax Code the sales tax exemption, the income tax exemption, and the property tax exemption. Fairness.

What happened in the final law was that if you were a renter in a State that raised its revenue by sales tax, you got no relief; but if you paid income tax in a State that used income tax and you were a homeowner, you got relief. That is not equitable. That is not fair. Twenty years ago that occurred. I say it is fairly reasonable to

give people 1 day out of 20 years. This is their day.

A provision in this bill will be ridiculed about eliminating the excise tax on arrows for goodness sakes. We are going to hear a lot of crocodile tears hitting the floor about us not helping small business. The technology that is currently controlling the arrows market was invented in the United States; but if you have a foreign arrow coming in, it is on the shelf cheaper than the arrow made in the United States. Why in the world would we let, longer than absolutely necessary, discrimination against an American product? That is in this bill. It is time to eliminate it. They should get a day.

Tackle boxes. If it is pink and it is called a cosmetic box, it does not carry a tax. If it is olivedrab and called a fishing tackle box, it is exactly the same, except for the color, it carries a tax. Whether it is pink or olivedrab or red or black, the color of something should not determine how it is treated. It should be fairly treated if it is the same box.

We have sonar fishing equipment in here. Guess what? If you do not use the latest technology LED screening, you do not get relief from the 3 percent excise tax. Why in the world would we stop technology? Why? Because the law is written that way. They deserve a day.

When my colleagues argue that it is eliminating American democracy to not let somebody not follow the rules, that is not American democracy; that is un-American.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 681, I call up the

bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high- technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement of Administration Policy

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

The Administration supports foreign sales corporation/

extraterritorials income (FSC/ETI) legislation that reforms

the tax code, removes the underlying reason for the tariffs

that have been imposed on American exports by the European

Union (EU), and further advances the competitiveness of

American manufacturers and other job creators.

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

promptly. If Congress does not act to replace the current

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

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

increasing burden on American exporters, American workers,

and the overall economy. To support the continued

strengthening of our economy and to create more jobs,

Congress should act now to end the threat posed by these

tariffs and to promote the competitiveness of American

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

economy. The Administration looks forward to working with the

conferees on this legislation to move it toward budget

neutrality, and to enacting legislation that removes the

threat of escalating EU sanctions and encourages economic

growth and job creation at home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4520.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that an exchange of letters between the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, be made a part of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4103) to extend and modify the trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, as amended.

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

H.R. 4103, the AGOA Acceleration Act, was ordered favorably reported by the Committee on Ways and Means and was amended by a voice vote on May 5. Once again this bill provides the means for African countries to develop a more prosperous economic environment, a well-grounded rule of law, and efficient and acceptable government practices. I am very pleased that, as in the past, this bill has garnered broad support. Especially I would like to reference the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who has been one of the Committee on Ways and Means' leading advocates for additional assistance and trade to Africa.

I am also pleased to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) of the Committee on International Relations and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of that committee for the courtesies they extended to us in getting this bill to the floor. The Committee on International Relations indicated there were two provisions in this bill that were under the jurisdiction of the committee. In working with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), I am pleased to indicate that in expediting consideration of the bill, the chairman graciously agreed to forego consideration by that committee, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of that committee, and to exchange letters. And I would include the letters in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for this bill. A provision allowing the poorest African countries to use third-country fabric and apparel production will expire at the end of September if we do nothing. My plea, I guess, is to a certain extent hopefully heard on the other side of the Capitol by the other body. This bill would extend the provision subject to a cap for 3 years and phase it out in the final year, a pragmatic approach that balances the needs of the African countries while assuring the U.S. industry is not threatened and can even be helped through the development of partnerships, especially in the area of raw materials.

Our bill does not merely extend these benefits. It accelerates Africa's utilization of the original AGOA benefits by expanding African capacity and infrastructure to attract investment in regional fabric production so that Africa can hope to compete in a post-quota world.

One of the best ways the Africans can make themselves competitive is to work with us to achieve trade liberalization in the World Trade Organization. Such liberalization will benefit Africa enormously by reducing the duties it must pay and by facilitating trade. In addition, as long as they are comprehensive, I support ongoing free trade negotiations with the Southern African Customs Union, which will help to deepen and make permanent existing AGOA benefits for Africans in Africa. At the same time, we expect meaningful access to the markets of these African countries for U.S. goods and services in an open trading arrangement.

I believe helping Africa through trade will contribute to more fundamental improvements in governance and of course the overall quality of life in Africa. Critical benefits for our African partners will expire soon if Congress does not take immediate action.

Mr. Speaker, this was delayed a week because of the circumstances surrounding last week. We need to move forward with this legislation. My fervent hope is that with the House acting today in the manner in which I believe we will act, that is, overwhelming bipartisan support, that we can focus the attention of the other body that this is a measure that needs to move expeditiously through both bodies so that we can provide this kind of accelerated help to Sub-Saharan Africa, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4103.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2004.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,

Committee on International Relations

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hyde: Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 4103, the ``AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004.''

As you have noted, the Committee on Ways and Means ordered

favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4103, the ``AGOA

Acceleration Act of 2004,'' on Wednesday, May 5, 2004. I

appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this

legislation although it contains two provisions within your

Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your decision to

forego further action on the bill is based on the

understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on

International Relations with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives or the appointment of conferees on this or

similar legislation.

Our committees have long collaborated on this important

initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing that

cooperation. Your leadership on African issues is critical to

the success of this bill and the AGOA program. I appreciate

your helping us to move this legislation quickly to the

floor.

Finally, I will include the Congressional Record a copy of

our exchange of letters on this matter. Thank you for your

assistance and cooperation. We look forward to working with

you in the future.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the record a statement of administration policy. It starts, ``The administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 4103.''

I would say to my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from Ohio, that I do not see on the floor, that this broad-based, bipartisan coalition is always open to having pointed out our inability to be as responsive to Africa as perhaps many would want. One of my responses back would be, notwithstanding all of the things that need to be done, this was a piece of legislation that languished for a long time.

To the degree that we can do better, we always want to focus on doing better. But with the underlying provisions expiring in September, what we need is momentum now, with an understanding that far more needs to be done. This is the start of a positive, cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship with a portion of Africa, here sub-Saharan Africa. It ought not to be the only legislation that we ever consider and that we need to work together to move forward.

But it is the only legislation available within the time frame prior to the expiration of the current legislation.

So I would tell my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, that I look forward to working with him on additional pieces of legislation, with the understanding that our goal is to be bipartisan and make law. What we cannot do in dealing with Africa is to be partisan and make statements. That has gone on far too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4103, the bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 97) approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I support extending sanctions on Burma for an additional year within the framework enacted into law last year under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I generally do not believe in unilateral trade sanctions. They are often emotional responses to atrocious acts and have unintended consequences, oftentimes harming the people that we, in fact, were seeking to assist. For example, the State Department notes that the Burma import restrictions have caused 50,000 to 60,000 workers in Burma to lose their jobs. These people were not narrowly helped by the sanctions.

But, at the same time, the actions of the ruling junta in Burma continue to be unacceptable. I believe sanctions are appropriate if the circumstances are, 1, limited; 2, targeted; 3, reexamined yearly, and if we continuously analyze them to make sure they are not causing more harm than good. We must also examine the question of harm and good in short term and in long term.

The law passed last year requires the administration to issue a report on whether sanctions have been effective in improving conditions in Burma and furthering U.S. objectives. The State Department, in its first report, states that the sanctions represent ``a clear and powerful expression of American opposition to the developments in Burma over the past year.'' The Department observes that the overall human rights record in Burma has worsened over the past year. While the junta has made some apparently superficial efforts toward democracy with its ``road map,'' it does not appear that Burma is on the road to true, fundamental democratic reform.

The State Department's report, however, also notes that no other country has implemented the same set of economic sanctions as the United States; and the U.S. import ban would be, according to the report, ``far more effective'' if other countries would do the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, although I support the extension of the sanctions for 1 year, I strongly encourage this administration to pursue a more aggressive multilateral sanctions approach in Burma. That government must be truly isolated. It is vital that the administration work with other countries to reach multilateral sanctions. This effort is key if we are to continue sanctions against Burma.

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

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

I thank my colleague for the kind words. I too want to make sure that the record reflects that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) once again shows that his concern is in the forefront for peoples all over the world and simply for their ability, their right to express themselves.

I strongly urge passage of H.J. Res. 97.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of House Joint Resolution 97.