[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 84 (Thursday, June 17, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4295-H4305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 681, AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 
                                  2004

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 681

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House 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. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. REYNOLDS. 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

[[Page H4296]]

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 8 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the need to quickly fix the FSC-ETI 
export tax issue. Thousands of U.S. exporters are needlessly paying 8 
percent tariffs to European countries simply because the Republican-
controlled Congress has failed to pass legislation to avoid these 
penalties. These tariffs will continue to climb 1 percentage point each 
month as long as the issue remains unresolved.
  These retaliatory tariffs are especially hard hitting as the United 
States continues to experience difficult times in the manufacturing 
sector, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs under the Bush 
administration. In my congressional district in Massachusetts, jewelry, 
textiles, and small manufacturers have especially been hit hard by 
these sanctions.
  Throughout the WTO process there has been bipartisan consensus that 
the U.S. should repeal the extraterritorial income exemption, the ETI 
and comply with the WTO decision. The disagreement has been over what 
to replace it with. Last year the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and others introduced a bipartisan, revenue-
neutral fix to this problem, H.R. 1769.

                              {time}  1045

  This bill currently has 172 bipartisan cosponsors. When our 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), filed a discharge 
petition in March to bring the bill immediately to the floor, 18 
Members signed that petition.
  The Crane-Rangel bill would take the $50 billion in tax incentives 
that American companies operating overseas receive under the current 
ETI and create new incentives for American companies to produce goods 
in the United States. It lowers the corporate income tax rate for U.S. 
companies and addresses the growing problem of U.S. companies moving 
their plants overseas.
  Simply put, H.R. 1769 is a clean, paid-for bill that remedies the 
FSC/ETI problem without unduly burdening those companies that have 
benefited from this exemption in the past, and without unduly burdening 
our children and grandchildren by adding to our deficit.
  So why did we not fix the problem months ago by passing the Crane-
Rangel bill? Why are we not debating H.R. 1769 this morning? Why is the 
Republican leadership denying the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
the opportunity to offer his alternative on the floor today?
  Because time after time the leadership of this House has demonstrated 
that it would rather offer a goody-bag of corporate tax giveaways to 
special interests than simply and quickly fixing the problem.
  What is in this grab bag of a bill? The closer you look at it, the 
uglier it gets.
  This bill is chock full of sweetheart deals, special fixes, and big 
giveaways to special interests. It looks like every lobbyist in town 
will be celebrating tonight. The list of provisions that favor 
particular companies or industries includes cruise-ship operators, 
whale hunters, Chinese ceiling fans, foreign gamblers, NASCAR track 
owners, timber companies, cattle ranchers, bourbon distillers, movies 
theater owners, small plane manufacturers, bow and arrow sets, fishing 
tackle boxes, and corporate jet owners.
  This is no way to do tax policy.
  The list of narrow special interest giveaways is very familiar 
because we have seen them all before, when a similar set of giveaways 
held up passage of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act for 18 months, 
until finally, finally, they were thrown out and this House decided to 
do the right thing and support our uniformed men and women and their 
families.
  But like the evil poltergeists in the movie, they are back. And this 
time they have brought along some friends. What else is in this bill?
  How about paying a private company to make a profit collecting debts 
owed to the IRS so that all our private tax information will now be 
given to private bounty hunters. How about tax provisions that give 
U.S. companies fresh incentives to locate operations anywhere other 
than in the United States by giving them even more tax shelters for 
their foreign income? At the very core of this bill are $35 billion in 
tax incentives for U.S. firms to invest overseas.
  If you are a small manufacturer or farm cooperative that creates jobs 
and has production solely in the United States, too bad. You are simply 
out of luck in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the frosting on the cake. This bill as 
it is written will add at least another $34 billion to the deficit. In 
just 3 short years, the Bush administration and the Republican-
controlled Congress have taken our Nation from record surpluses to the 
largest budget deficits in the history of the United States, in the 
history of the United States, Mr. Speaker. And now the leadership of 
this House wants to add at least $34 billion more to these deficits.
  The legislation passed in the other body at least has the benefit of 
being revenue-neutral. And the Crane-Rangel bill is fully paid for.
  Why is it that everyone seems to be able to pay for their corporate 
tax legislation except for the Republican House leadership? Why are 
they the only ones that want to pass the burden of debt on to future 
generations? And let us not forget that when all the phony accounting 
gimmicks such as slow phase-ins and phase-outs and sunsets provisions 
are factored in, the amount added to the deficit is more likely to be 
closer to $45 billion.
  This bill may mean more jobs, Mr. Speaker, but they will not be U.S. 
jobs.
  This bill rewards companies that move off shore, that shelter income 
from production abroad, and that outsource even more jobs now and 
forevermore.
  Now, I seem to remember the Republicans saying over and over that our 
Tax Code is simply too complex, too confusing and too costly; but this 
bill, instead of simplifying and tightening the Tax Code and closing 
loopholes, creates over 400 pages of new and expensive special interest 
exceptions.
  This bill makes our Tax Code more complex, not less; more unfair, not 
less. It does too little for those businesses that prefer to produce 
and hire

[[Page H4297]]

in the United States. It hurts farmers, stiffs small businesses, and 
benefits large multinational companies first and foremost.
  It increases the deficit and tacks on major unrelated initiatives. 
Instead of simply fixing the $5 billion FSC/ETI problem, it creates a 
$150 billion special interest giveaway.
  Mr. Speaker, this Special Interests Christmas Tree Giveaway Act is 
quite simply a scandal. Now, in light of such largesse for special 
interests and large corporations, I was surprised when this morning the 
Republican majority in the Committee on Rules did not make in order an 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and 
me. Our amendment would provide tax relief to every company and 
business that makes up the difference in income to an employee 
activated into the National Guard or Reserves and would have provided 
support to those same companies to train temporary employees to fill 
the jobs left vacant by active-duty employees.
  At a time of national emergency, when members of the Reserves and 
National Guard are serving extended deployments in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the Republican majority in the Committee on Rules decided 
that this modest tax relief proposal was not important or relevant 
enough to be considered during the debate on this bill.
  This bill before us helps Halliburton and Bechtel, two corporations 
that are ripping off the American taxpayer through fraud and abuse of 
their defense contracts in Iraq; but the Republican leadership will not 
help the hundreds of small businesses suffering from long-term 
vacancies or the families whose loved ones have been activated for 
service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate on this rule, I will offer a 
motion to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is 
defeated, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I will offer 
our amendment to H.R. 4250 to help the Reservists and small business.
  We have the chance to do the right thing today. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me time to speak on this rule and 
about the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate an enormously important change in 
the Federal income Tax Code that is a key part of the American Jobs 
Creation Act, a return to fairness for the residents of States that 
have no State income tax.
  The Federal 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the State sales tax 
deduction from the Federal income Tax Code, but maintained the State 
income tax deduction from one's Federal income tax responsibilities. 
Washington is a non-income tax State. Americans who live, work, and 
raise their families in Washington, in my view, have been treated 
unfairly since 1986. And Washington State is not alone. Alaska, 
Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and 
Wyoming all do not have statewide income taxes. Clearly these States 
are a minority in this House and, indeed, in this Congress.
  There are not just party majorities and minorities in Congress, there 
are similar divisions on policies and issues, and this is one of them. 
When it comes to trying to fix the Federal Tax Code's discrimination 
against non-income tax States, the congressional delegations from the 
affected States had and have been a distinct minority in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I from the affected States will 
have the first opportunity to correct this longstanding injustice by 
voting to pass the American Jobs Creation Act. It has taken hard work 
on both sides of the aisle to get this change made. The Washington 
State delegation has worked on this issue for years. Republicans and 
Democrats have pitched in where they are able and tried to get this job 
done. But probably the best illustration of just how difficult a 
challenge it has been to correct this injustice is to look back on who 
served as the most powerful member of this body after the 1986 tax 
reform.
  That tax reform became law in October of 1986. In January of 1987 the 
Democrat majority in the House at that time elected a Speaker of the 
House from the State of Texas. When this Texas Speaker's tenure ended, 
the Democratic majority elected a Speaker of the House from Washington 
State. For four Congresses, this House was run by a Speaker from one of 
the nine non-income tax States. Yet even with this powerful office, the 
States' tax codes and fairness did not get corrected by a vote in this 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, this just demonstrates how long and hard a road these 
congressional delegations from these sales tax States have been 
traveling.
  Today we can and will make a big change for the better for our 
States. This bill is a tremendous victory in my view. Comments have 
been made that the State sales tax portion of this bill is not perfect, 
and it does not return the Federal Tax Codes to its pre-1986 reform 
wording and that the State sales tax deduction will eventually sunset. 
I will only say after working so long, after struggling such long odds 
for nearly 20 years when our States have had no deduction, I say let us 
grab the victory; seize the one bird in our hand as tight as we can, 
especially when we have not seen two birds in a bush for nearly 2 
decades.
  This bill will provide billions of dollars of relief to tax payers in 
Washington and the other States in this tax year and for the next year. 
Let us get this enacted into law. It will be working to include a 
change in the future that will make this permanent, obviously.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and 
especially urge all of my colleagues from non-income tax States to 
support the American Jobs Creation Act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) that the sales tax deduction provision phases out in 2 
years. It is not permanent. And this morning the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and other Republicans voted against making it 
permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not really know what the Republicans 
are so frightened of in this bill that they allegedly are so proud of 
that they continuously deny the Democrats an opportunity to say, But we 
got a better idea.
  The Republican majority has been successful in winning the votes in 
order to get legislation passed. I do not think they have been 
successful in allowing the American people to believe that they have 
been fair, that they have been fair to the minority, or that they have 
been fair to the working people, or that they have been fair to the 
manufacturers that work hard every day to try to create jobs. I do not 
think that they think that they have been fair in terms of having some 
sense of patriotism or some sense of pride in saying, Made in the USA.
  Yes, they say this legislation creates jobs, but not jobs for 
Americans. Jobs for people overseas. Why would they not let the Crane-
Rangel bill come out in substitute? It has been rumored because we did 
not have a substitute, but I am so glad to see that my friend who is 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules is on the floor, who is always 
fighting hard to do the right thing, but somehow he is overwhelmed by 
evil forces that deny him the opportunity to do it.
  Early last night, the gentleman came to me on this floor to say he 
wanted to help me to have a substitute. And while we were working with 
the leadership to have this substitute, he came

[[Page H4298]]

with heavy heart to share with me that we would not have a substitute.
  Why, I ask, are Republicans so afraid to allow Democrats to get a 
chance to vote up or down on an alternative to the lousy bill that they 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me 
respond by saying that the gentleman is absolutely correct, that one of 
the things that we try to do is we try to ensure that the minority, 
Democrats in this instance, have an opportunity to have their proposals 
considered.
  In 1994 we changed the rules to ensure that an opportunity for a 
recommital motion would be guaranteed. We also try to add, when we can, 
an opportunity for a substitute to be offered.
  Now, yesterday, as the gentleman is correct, when I approached him, I 
said, we want to work and see if we can put together a substitute 
proposal. And I know from the discussions that I had that there was a 
lot of disagreement on the minority side about exactly what kind of 
shape it would take.
  The proposal that was submitted by my friend was in fact not a 
substitute. It was simply an amendment. And so we made very clear that 
a substitute would be what we would consider. Yes, late last night I 
said I was concerned and was not sure.

                              {time}  1100

  I said I was not sure that the Committee on Rules----
  Mr. RANGEL. The last thing you said to me was that we would not get a 
substitute.
  Mr. DREIER. No, I did not say that. I did not say that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, we did not get it; that is the bottom line.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, what I 
said was----
  Mr. RANGEL. I take back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Both gentlemen will 
suspend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The distinguished Committee on Rules 
Chairman will suspend. The time is controlled by the gentleman from New 
York, and if the gentleman from New York chooses to yield to the 
gentleman from California he may do so.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a substitute, and that is the 
bottom line. I would think that we should not have to beg and scrape 
and ask them to give us a chance.
  Are we asking for a chance to win? No. Do we believe that we have 
enough sugar and incentives that we can buy votes? No. We do not have 
that in our bill. We do not turn over the collection of taxes to 
private sector people. We do not have the ornaments that the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott) will tell my colleagues about. All we 
have got is a fair bill to create jobs in the United States of America. 
That is all we have got. We do not buy votes. We just try to sell 
without their profits.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. RANGEL. Only if the gentleman promises to tell me through his 
remarks in response why the Democrats cannot have a substitute to be 
able to say that we got a better idea.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I am happy to respond.
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman did not come and testify before the 
Committee on Rules this morning and was not there when we had the 
markup.
  The proposal that was offered by the gentleman in the Committee on 
Rules was, in fact, an amendment, not a substitute, which is what we 
stated was necessary for us to even consider it. Okay. That was not 
offered, and so when there was no substitute offered, of course we did 
not make a substitute in order because it was not even an option for 
the Committee on Rules.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. RANGEL. You are telling me that the gentleman from California did 
not tell me close to midnight that we would not get a substitute, that 
you had tried and you were unsuccessful? Is that what the gentleman is 
saying?
  Mr. DREIER. If gentleman will yield, what I said was I was concerned 
about the possibility, and I will say that there were other members of 
your leadership team who indicated to me at that point when we stood 
right here that, in fact, there was not a substitute that had been put 
together.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am telling my colleagues that we were told 
last night that we would not get a substitute. I am telling my 
colleagues we did not get one. I am telling my colleagues they have 
denied us the opportunity to express the fact that we have a bill that 
would have brought jobs to the United States and not abroad.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all Members, while 
recognizing that there are strong views held on both sides of the 
aisle, to be more orderly in yielding and reclaiming time. The 
stenographer can only take down one conversation at a time; and the 
Chair would appreciate the courtesy of the Members.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. THOMAS. 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

[[Page H4299]]

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means refused 
to show me or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the same 
courtesy that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) showed the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he refused to answer the 
question as to whether or not the Committee on Rules would have made in 
order the Crane-Rangel alternative, in whatever form it would have been 
in. The answer is clearly they would not have.
  The gentleman mentioned American democracy. Twenty amendments were 
denied in the Committee on Rules. That is not democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one of those amendments denied debate was a 
bipartisan effort by me and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). 
Someone in Washington needs to speak up today for conservative 
principles because this House Republican leadership has lost any 
pretense of fiscal responsibility.
  Today, in this bill, Republicans are awarding $10 billion, this is 
billion with a B, to tobacco growers. They call it a buyout, but it is 
really a sellout to the tobacco industry. If this measure is approved, 
tobacco will get cheaper; more of it can be grown, and all American 
taxpayers will be the losers.
  With the near go-it-alone occupation of Iraq continuously draining 
funds out the Treasury spigot faster than American taxpayers can pour 
their hard-earned funds into it, there is nothing conservative about 
giving away $10 billion to the tobacco industry.
  Ten billion dollars would give tens of thousands of young Americans 
the college education they cannot afford. They could give tens of 
thousands of American mothers the peace of mind that comes when they 
know their children have health insurance. Ten billion dollars could 
also buy a lot of homeland security; but instead, Congress is spending 
that $10 billion to reward the producers of a lethal product that each 
year ruins the lives of families with death and disease.
  This is not a job-creation bill. It is a disease-creation bill. 
Eighty percent of registered voters this week across America expressed 
their opposition to this tobacco bailout by the Congress. 
Unfortunately, the well-heeled lobbyists of Big Tobacco not the people, 
are the ones dictating this. Little wonder that this outrageous 
giveaway never had a public hearing, was never debated in Committee, 
and is being considered today in a way that denies any amendment to 
strike it.
  If this measure is approved, the tobacco industry will once again 
make a killing out of this Congress, a Congress that is addicted to 
nicotine campaign contributions.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the 
gentleman that just spoke. I think he referred to this as Big Tobacco. 
Well, I am from Kentucky, and I can tell my colleagues that we are 
talking about small tobacco farms and family farms where men and women 
and their children get out in the fields every summer and try to eke 
out a living in the tobacco fields by the sweat of their brow.
  They have had to purchase a government program, they have had to buy 
a quota in order to grow tobacco or they could not grow it. They 
contributed through an assessment fee to pay for a price support 
program on their own. It was not from taxpayers; and since 1997 that 
quota program has been cut over half, and now it is pretty difficult 
for them to maintain that living on that family farm.
  It is the last thing that has allowed them to make a profit on their 
farm, if they made a profit. It was a program that allowed them to put 
their kids through college or to buy Christmas presents or to buy 
clothing for their kids. This is about small family farms in about 
seven to 10 States in this country. It is about an asset that they had 
to pay for that now is being taken away from them by the government; 
and we are eliminating something that, it is amazing to me, that for 
years I have heard we have got to get rid of this program, we have got 
to get rid of this program. Well, we are getting rid of it in this 
bill, and we are doing it by being fair with the tobacco farmers and 
the tobacco States and their families, not Big Tobacco, but that small 
farmer down in Kentucky and Tennessee and Virginia and Florida and 
Georgia and North Carolina and all those States that produce tobacco.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that one of the reasons that 
the quota has gone down in recent years is because of the imported 
tobacco that has come in and the quota is based on domestic amount?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Absolutely.
  Mr. COLLINS. Is that not what is hurting? It is time to end this 
program. These are small farmers who need help, who are in debt; and 
the purpose of this program is to buy a quota from the government.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. The gentleman is absolutely right.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) has 14 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of confusion out 
here. I declare that the rubber stamp session is now in order. We are 
back here today doing what the Republicans love to do: That is, come 
out here and rubber stamp this 900-page perfect piece of legislation.
  The Democrats have no opportunity to offer a substitute or an 
amendment. They were denied. They asked for amendments, they were 
denied. This is a perfect piece of legislation. The fact is we have a 
rubber-stamp Congress. And why are we doing that? Because Christmas has 
come on the 17th of June.
  Now my Latino friends call this ``feliz Navidad,'' but I call it the 
fleecing of America. This is a Christmas tree bill that has everything 
in sight on it. If there is an amendment in this bill, there are 5 
votes behind it or 10 votes or 20 votes. They would not accept an 
amendment unless they voted for the bill. That is how it was put 
together.
  The fact is that the chairman of the committee in November of 2003 
lost this piece of legislation on the floor. It got stuck. He could not 
move it. He went over to a meeting with EU in November and told them he 
was sorry

[[Page H4300]]

they had not put sanctions on this country because then he lost his 
leverage to move this bill. He had to make the American people 
uncomfortable. In my district, the sanctions went on Weyerhaeuser, on 
paper products and on construction materials. I do not know what the 
sanctions did in central California; but when the Committee on Ways and 
Means is going to the WTO people and saying could you please put some 
sanctions on the United States so I can get a bill through Congress, 
there is something really wrong.
  This Christmas tree bill is put out here in order to give $150 
billion of Christmas presents in June. We are all going home in a week, 
and we will have a fund-raiser, so Members, bring your rubber stamps.

               [From Dow Jones Newswires, June 17, 2004]

               Sanctions Alter Dynamic on House Tax Bill

                             (By Rob Wells)

       Washington.--The reality of European Union trade sanctions 
     against U.S. exporters is a key dynamic propelling a 
     corporate tax bill through the U.S. House this week.
       The House Ways and Means Committee late Monday approved a 
     bill, sponsored by committee chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., 
     to end a controversial U.S. export tax break ruled illegal by 
     the World Trade Organization in 2002.
       That tax break is called ``foreign sales corporation'' or 
     the ``extraterritorial income exclusion act.'' The WTO 
     allowed the European Union to impose up to $4 billion a year 
     in trade sanctions until the U.S. repealed the export tax 
     break, which benefits Boeing Co. (BA), General Electric Corp. 
     (GE), Intel Corp. (INTC) and others.
       A version of Thomas' bill passed the committee in October. 
     It stalled in the House amid opposition from a bloc of 
     Republicans who said the bill doesn't do enough to benefit 
     U.S. manufacturers.
       A frustrated Thomas disagreed, saying his bill helps 
     manufacturers. International tax law changes in his plan 
     would benefit a broad range of companies, including U.S. 
     multinationals, he said.
       In November 2003, Thomas' bill was stuck in the House and 
     he lost another piece of leverage. The E.U. postponed the 
     date it would begin sanctions on U.S. companies from Jan. 1 
     to March 1.
       Thomas, in a November 2003 meeting with European Union 
     Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, expressed disappointment the 
     E.U. didn't impose sanctions on U.S. companies sooner--on 
     Jan. 1 instead of March 1, according to three people familiar 
     with the conversation.
       Thomas said earlier sanctions would have increased leverage 
     needed to push his corporate tax bill through Congress, these 
     people said. One person attended the Thomas-Lamy meeting 
     while the others were briefed by Lamy or other participants.
       A House Republican aide said Thomas ``made the observation 
     reflecting what members had told to him and concerns they had 
     raised.'' Thomas had ``made similar observations in other 
     meetings,'' the House aide said.
       Thomas' comments were interpreted differently by others.
       ``It puts you in a position where you want draconian 
     sanctions placed on U..S. companies early,'' said another 
     House aide who spoke to Lamy after the Thomas meeting.
       The account circulated widely for months among lobbyists 
     and lawyers who handle trade and international tax issues; 
     several offered an unflattering view of Thomas' remarks. One 
     U.S. lobbyist recalled that during a visit with Lamy's staff 
     in Brussels, ``I heard the same story'' that Thomas ``has 
     been cheering on retaliation.''
       A U.S.-based tax professional said his client relayed a 
     similar account after meeting with E.U. trade officials. A 
     Lamy spokeswoman declined to comment on private conns between 
     Lamy and members of Congress.

  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. How 
many of those amendments were made in order?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. None.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind 
Members on both sides of the aisle that the rules governing debate 
indicate that a Member controlling time may yield time to another 
Member if he or she chooses. It is not appropriate under the rules of 
the House to blurt out questions and statements without having been 
recognized or yielded to.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also say that the Republican leadership made it 
clear last night that no substitute in any form would have been made in 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bizarre priorities of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle this morning are shocking. Faced with a choice 
between taking care of our Nation's citizen soldiers or giving 
employers incentives to ship jobs overseas, the leadership on the other 
side of the aisle has chosen outsourcing.
  As we all know, the continuing activation of military reservists to 
serve in Iraq and Afghanistan has imposed a tremendous burden on many 
of our country's businesses. In fact, the United States Chamber of 
Commerce estimates that 70 percent of reservists who are sent to active 
duty work in small and medium-sized companies. When their employees are 
asked to leave their jobs and serve our Nation, many of these 
businesses are unable to continue operating successfully and face 
severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. These employers are 
sacrificing much so that America can be safe.
  To address this matter, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) and I offered an amendment that would have given all American 
businesses a tax credit to help them continue to pay their employees 
who are called to active duty, as well as help small businesses 
temporarily replace reservists who have been called to duty.
  Mr. Speaker, this common-sense amendment would have encouraged all 
employers, but especially small businesses to rebridge the gap between 
what their employees earn in civilian life and what the military pays 
when they are on active duty. Those who do so would be eligible to 
receive a tax credit of up to $15,000 of the wages they

[[Page H4301]]

pay to members of the Guard and Reserves for as long as they are on 
active duty status.
  Many small employers are having a difficult time hiring temporary 
workers to replace their employees who have been called up to active 
duty in the National Guard or the Reserves. The Lantos-McGovern 
amendment will provide a tax credit of up to $6,000 to help small 
employers defray the costs of hiring a new worker to replace a 
guardsman or reservist who has been called up to active duty. Small 
manufacturers would be eligible for a tax credit of up to $10,000 to 
assist in hiring temporary workers.
  The cost of this amendment was offset by striking a provision, 
section 311, that we let companies invest their profits anywhere in the 
world except in the United States. By allowing companies to get the 
benefits of low tax rates for investments located in high-tax 
countries, the bill is creating a strong incentive to invest overseas, 
which will result in the United States losing both capital and jobs.
  Instead of providing incentives to send jobs abroad, Congress should 
take action to help businesses cope with the loss of an employee to 
active duty and we should protect employees and their families from 
suffering a pay cut while serving our Nation. We cannot let the cost of 
that service force businesses into financial ruin and leave reservists 
and their families to suffer substantial losses in pay.
  What kind of values do our actions reflect if we are prepared to send 
people overseas to fight for our security, leaving their families and 
employers vulnerable to financial hardship, while giving U.S. 
businesses ever more rewards for shipping jobs out of the country. This 
is a topsy-turvy set of priorities which we must reject.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  On behalf of my North Carolina farm families, I rise today to support 
H.R. 4520. Since 1997, tobacco quota has been cut by more than 50 
percent in tobacco-growing regions. Consequently, farm families have 
seen their income cut by more than half. Widows and widowers, who use 
quota rents as their 401(k)s, have likewise seen their income fall.
  I ask Members, could they survive if their salary had been 
permanently cut by 50 percent or more? I think we know the answer to 
that: It would be very difficult.
  The time for action is running out. We need to jump-start the process 
of reforming the current program, and we need to do it now. H.R. 4520 
accomplishes this by including provisions for a tobacco buyout, and 
this is not a buyout for the companies, it is for the small farmers and 
the allotment holders across the tobacco-growing regions.
  They have finally decided it is time for a change. They have had a 
hard time getting there, but the consequences they see is if they do 
not this year, they could face as much as a 30 percent cut this fall 
because of foreign tobacco flooding into America. This really is about 
helping people who work every day in the fields of this country making 
a living.
  On the underlying bill, I would have preferred the approach of the 
Crane-Rangel bill, which I cosponsored, but beggars cannot be choosers. 
I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for including the buyout provision in his 
bill. But I caution the gentleman, when it goes to conference with the 
Senate, remember the advice of the ancient Spartan women who gave this 
advice to their sons before battle, ``Come back with your shield, or 
come back on it.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, come back 
with this buyout or do not come back.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I listened a moment ago as my friend 
from New York talked about: ``dragging it out and messing it up.'' I 
can think of no better terminology to describe the bill before us 
today, because it has been ``drug out and messed up.''
  I heard my friend, the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
somehow assailing our side of the aisle for wanting to ``bend the 
rules'' when the rule that we are debating here today allows all points 
of order against the bill to be waived. So, they bend the rules for 
things that they want to protect; but if we are seeking an opportunity 
to have meaningful amendments, a meaningful alternative, somehow that 
is trying to ``bend the rules.''
  Certified smart people of good faith could have found a way to have 
allowed a meaningful debate on this floor. We have a serious bipartisan 
alternative offered up by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo), people who have a proposal that is paid for, that would not 
increase the deficit, that would not be all ``messed up and drug out.'' 
But we are not going to permit that today. We are limiting debate on 
this proposal to 30 minutes, despite being something that has tied this 
Congress in knots for months and is a problem that is weighing against 
small manufacturers across this country.
  There are legitimate policy differences. There is a great deal of 
emotion. There is a great deal of significant policy underlying it. We 
are not going to have an opportunity to deal with that. There is no 
good reason to have permitted only 30 minutes of debate on the other 
side of the aisle.
  Maybe they think that is better, because this proposal is moving 
through this Chamber in a fog of over 700 pages of technical Tax Code 
and report language that the vast majority of this Chamber has had no 
access to and certainly has not had a chance to study it even if they 
had the time. I would suggest that this is a testimony to how far the 
rhetoric of the majority obscures their action and suggests contempt 
for people in both parties who disagree with them.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in deep sadness about the way this 
House is being run. A rule which denies the ranking member of the 
Committee

[[Page H4302]]

on Ways and Means an opportunity to offer a serious, responsible 
amendment on an issue as important as this is should embarrass all of 
us who care about this House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there was no substitute 
submitted to the Committee on Rules. I think it is important for us to 
note that we would have had an opportunity to consider that if we had 
had a substitute put together. We had a cut-and-bite amendment, a 
perfecting amendment provided from the ranking minority member. I thank 
my friend for yielding.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully differ with the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules. The majority has justified the 
decision of the Committee on Rules to not allow the minority to offer 
an amendment because it is not a complete substitute. That explanation 
would be laughable if it were not so sad. The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) submitted a comprehensive substitute to all of the 
provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
He did not get into the Committee on Agriculture, which is what we 
should do around here. I would be perfectly willing as the ranking 
member of the Committee on Agriculture to work with the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules. But for the gentleman from 
California to stand on the floor and say that he followed the rules of 
the House is not correct.
  I am troubled, also, that this rule waives budget points of order and 
allows us to pass legislation adding another $34 billion-plus to the 
deficit. The other body passed a bill that would not add to the 
deficit. Some of us are making the argument that we ought to go with 
pay-as-you-go. I believe that. I heard speech after speech after speech 
last night arguing about a million here and a million there, and today 
it is billions, and wink and smile and then come to the floor and say, 
well, we are following the rules.
  Anytime this body begins to deny the minority party the opportunity 
to have a say and to honestly have it applied by the rules of this 
House, we are in danger of big trouble. This rule should be defeated. 
The Committee on Rules should go back and draft a fair rule, and I am 
talking about the rule. The merits of the bill, there are a lot of 
things in it I want to work with them on. This rule should be defeated 
by anyone that cares about fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and customary rule. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, a bipartisan group of legislators has been 
fighting to get tobacco regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. 
The FDA regulates products from Tylenol to bottled water to macaroni 
and cheese; yet it does not have the authority to regulate tobacco, the 
only product that will kill you if used specifically as directed.
  This year we stand on the verge of a historic compromise to get 
tobacco regulated by the FDA, but the shameless $10 billion tobacco 
buyout in this bill threatens the progress that we have made. This 
sweetheart deal gives billions to Big Tobacco from the pockets of 
taxpayers with no strings attached. It requires nothing to improve 
public health in return. This buyout kills our hope for FDA regulation 
by taking it off the negotiating table.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against this bill. 
It is inexcusable and indefensible that this product, macaroni and 
cheese, is regulated by the FDA; but this product, one of the only 
products that will kill you if used specifically as directed, we cannot 
get FDA regulation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the continuing activation of military Reservists to 
serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on 
many of our country's businesses. For too many of these small 
businesses, the temporary loss of these employees makes it difficult to 
continue operating successfully, and many are faced with severe 
financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. Why not help alleviate some of 
this burden for these employers who are doing the right thing for their 
employees and their families?
  It is ironic that the party that never met a tax cut they did not 
like and that claims to support small business would deny small 
businesses a tax credit to help pay their employees who are serving 
their country in a time of war. I cannot imagine why the Republican 
leadership denied the full House an opportunity to vote on this 
amendment. Certainly this is a more important issue than tax relief for 
Chinese ceiling fan makers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and let 
this House vote on tax fairness for small businesses whose employees 
are bravely serving their country in the Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset talk briefly about this 
issue of minority rights. I feel very strongly about the rights of the 
minority, doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that in the 
Madisonian spirit of minority rights, their ideas are considered. That 
is why when we went from minority to majority status exactly 10 years 
ago, we guaranteed something that was often denied to us, and I served 
for 14 years in the minority, it was often denied to us as members of 
the minority, and that was an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit 
the bill, a bite at the apple. It was often denied to us, and we have 
guaranteed that. I will say that we try whenever we possibly can to 
make in order a substitute, a substitute measure when it is brought to 
us in the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that working back and forth with Members 
of the minority, I tried to last night see if we could, in fact, have a 
substitute and make it in order. I will admit I said to them that I was 
not sure that we would be able to, but the opportunity was still there 
for Members of the minority to give us a chance to consider a 
substitute measure in the Committee on Rules, and it did not happen.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe that we 
should be here celebrating, celebrating the fact that we are on the 
verge of passing very important legislation that is going to build on 
the fact that the measures that we have passed in a bipartisan way 
dealing with our Tax Code under the leadership of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the proposal that initially was submitted to 
us by the President of the United States, has created in excess of 1 
million jobs over the past 3 months.
  We are going to be able to have a chance today with this legislation 
to build on that. That is why I want to say something that has not been 
raised here at all. I want to thank the European Union and the World 
Trade Organization for getting us to this point. In 1947 when the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established, the goal was a 
very clear and simple one. It was to eliminate tariff barriers so that 
we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital.
  What is it that has happened? We have seen the WTO build on that and 
one of the goals, of course, is the elimination of subsidization. The 
WTO was right. The FSC/ETI provisions have been subsidies; and what we 
are doing is we are, in fact, phasing those out. We are phasing those 
out because they have chosen to, at a rate of 1 percent a month, 
increase the burden on U.S. products trying to get into their markets.
  So what is happening? Rather than simply pointing outside, we are 
looking

[[Page H4303]]

at ourselves, realizing that one of the challenges that we face as we 
try to compete globally is the tax and regulatory burden that exists in 
the United States of America, impinging on our workers, our 
manufacturers, our producers the chance to get into new markets 
worldwide. That is why what we are doing with this policy in bringing 
about a reduction in that tax burden, it is the right thing to do. It 
is going to create more jobs right here at home.
  How the other side of the aisle can constantly complain that this is 
going to do nothing but create jobs overseas is beyond me. What we are 
doing here is we are reducing the burden that exists on job creators, 
meaning that there will be a greater chance to create even more jobs 
here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time in coming. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and members of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and many of the rest of us have been involved working for 2 years on 
this measure. It has been discussed, it has been debated, there have 
been hearings; and we now have had an hour of debate on this, and we 
will now have another hour of debate and an up-or-down vote. It is not 
perfect legislation. We all know that there is no such thing as 
perfection emerging from this place; but as we deal with this 
challenge, it does create a wonderful new opportunity for the workers 
of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support 
the underlying measure which we are going to be voting on.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

                   Previous Question for H. Res. 581

             H.R. 4520--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004

       In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) the amendment printed in Sec. 2 of this resolution if 
     offered by Representative Lantos of California or 
     Representative McGovern of Massachusetts or a designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to a demand 
     for a division of the question, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
       Sec. 2.

                  Amendment to H.R. 4520, as Reported

                  Offered By: Mr. Lantos of California

       At the end of subtitle H of title II of the bill, add the 
     following new section (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 297. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD EMPLOYEE CREDIT AND 
                   READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD REPLACEMENT 
                   EMPLOYEE CREDIT.

       (a) Ready Reserve-National Guard Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 45G. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD EMPLOYEE CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the Ready 
     Reserve-National Guard employee credit determined under this 
     section for any taxable year with respect to each Ready 
     Reserve-National Guard employee of an employer is an amount 
     equal to 50 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(1) the actual compensation amount with respect to such 
     employee for such taxable year, or
       ``(2) $30,000.
       ``(b) Definition of Actual Compensation Amount.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `actual compensation 
     amount' means the amount of compensation paid or incurred by 
     an employer with respect to a Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee on any day when the employee was absent from 
     employment for the purpose of performing qualified active 
     duty.
       ``(c) Limitations.--No credit shall be allowed with respect 
     to any day that a Ready Reserve-National Guard employee who 
     performs qualified active duty was not scheduled to work (for 
     reason other than to participate in qualified active duty).
       ``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Qualified active duty.--The term `qualified active 
     duty' means--
       ``(A) active duty, other than the training duty specified 
     in section 10147 of title 10, United States Code (relating to 
     training requirements for the Ready Reserve), or section 
     502(a) of title 32, United States Code (relating to required 
     drills and field exercises for the National Guard), in 
     connection with which an employee is entitled to reemployment 
     rights and other benefits or to a leave of absence from 
     employment under chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, 
     and
       ``(B) hospitalization incident to such duty.
       ``(2) Compensation.--The term `compensation' means any 
     remuneration for employment, whether in cash or in kind, 
     which is paid or incurred by a taxpayer and which is 
     deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1).
       ``(3) Ready reserve-national guard employee.--The term 
     `Ready Reserve-National Guard employee' means an employee who 
     is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve component of an 
     Armed Force of the United States as described in sections 
     10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(4) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of section 52 shall apply.
       ``(e) Portion of Credit Refundable.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an employer of a 
     qualified first responder, the aggregate credits allowed to a 
     taxpayer under subpart C shall be increased by the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) the credit which would be allowed under this section 
     without regard to this subsection and the limitation under 
     section 38(c), or
       ``(B) the amount by which the aggregate amount of credits 
     allowed by this subpart (determined without regard to this 
     subsection) would increase if the limitation imposed by 
     section 38(c) for any taxable year were increased by the 
     amount of employer payroll taxes imposed on the taxpayer 
     during the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.

     The amount of the credit allowed under this subsection shall 
     not be treated as a credit allowed under this subpart and 
     shall reduce the amount of the credit otherwise allowable 
     under subsection (a) without regard to section 38(c).
       ``(2) Employer payroll taxes.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `employer payroll taxes' means 
     the taxes imposed by--
       ``(i) section 3111(b), and
       ``(ii) sections 3211(a) and 3221(a) (determined at a rate 
     equal to the rate under section 3111(b)).
       ``(B) Special rule.--A rule similar to the rule of section 
     24(d)(2)(C) shall apply for purposes of subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Qualified first responder.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `qualified first responder' means any 
     person who is--
       ``(A) employed as a law enforcement official, a 
     firefighter, or a paramedic, and
       ``(B) a Ready Reserve-National Guard employee.''.
       (2) Credit to be part of general business credit.--
     Subsection (b) of section 38 (relating to general business 
     credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of 
     paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (15) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(16) the Ready Reserve-National Guard employee credit 
     determined under section 45G(a).''.
       (3) Denial of double benefit.--Section 280C(a) (relating to 
     rule for employment credits) is amended by inserting 
     ``45G(a),'' after ``45A(a),''.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 45F the 
     following:

``Sec. 45G. Ready Reserve-National Guard employee credit.''.

       (5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after September 30, 
     2004, in taxable years ending after such date.
       (b) Ready Reserve-National Guard Replacement Employee 
     Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended 
     by adding after section 30A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 30B. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD REPLACEMENT EMPLOYEE 
                   CREDIT.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an eligible taxpayer, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year the sum of the employment 
     credits for each qualified replacement employee under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Employment credit.--The employment credit with 
     respect to a qualified replacement employee of the taxpayer 
     for any taxable year is equal to 50 percent of the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) the individual's qualified compensation attributable 
     to service rendered as a qualified replacement employee, or
       ``(B) $12,000.
       ``(b) Qualified Compensation.--The term `qualified 
     compensation' means--
       ``(1) compensation which is normally contingent on the 
     qualified replacement employee's presence for work and which 
     is deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1),
       ``(2) compensation which is not characterized by the 
     taxpayer as vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, 
     or as any other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of 
     absence, and
       ``(3) group health plan costs (if any) with respect to the 
     qualified replacement employee.
       ``(c) Qualified Replacement Employee.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified replacement 
     employee' means an individual who is hired to replace a Ready 
     Reserve-National Guard employee or a Ready Reserve-National 
     Guard self-employed taxpayer, but only with respect to the 
     period during which such Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee or Ready Reserve-National Guard self-employed 
     taxpayer participates in qualified active duty, including 
     time spent in travel status.

[[Page H4304]]

       ``(2) Ready reserve-national guard employee.--The term 
     `Ready Reserve-National Guard employee' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 45G(d)(3).
       ``(3) Ready reserve-national guard self-employed 
     taxpayer.--The term `Ready Reserve-National Guard self-
     employed taxpayer' means a taxpayer who--
       ``(A) has net earnings from self-employment (as defined in 
     section 1402(a)) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States as described 
     in section 10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(d) Coordination With Other Credits.--The amount of 
     credit otherwise allowable under sections 51(a) and 1396(a) 
     with respect to any employee shall be reduced by the credit 
     allowed by this section with respect to such employee.
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Application with other credits.--The credit allowed 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 
     the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the 
     sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and sections 27, 
     29, and 30, over
       ``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Disallowance for failure to comply with employment or 
     reemployment rights of members of the reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer for--
       ``(A) any taxable year, beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, in which the taxpayer is under a 
     final order, judgment, or other process issued or required by 
     a district court of the United States under section 4323 of 
     title 38 of the United States Code with respect to a 
     violation of chapter 43 of such title, and
       ``(B) the 2 succeeding taxable years.
       ``(f) General Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible taxpayer.--The term `eligible taxpayer' 
     means a small business employer or a Ready Reserve-National 
     Guard self-employed taxpayer.
       ``(2) Small business employer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `small business employer' 
     means, with respect to any taxable year, any employer who 
     employed an average of 50 or fewer employees on business days 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(B) Controlled groups.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     all persons treated as a single employer under subsection 
     (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as a 
     single employer.
       ``(3) Qualified active duty.--The term `qualified active 
     duty' has the meaning given such term by section 45G(d)(1).
       ``(4) Special rules for certain manufacturers.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any qualified 
     manufacturer--
       ``(i) subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$20,000' for `$12,000', and
       ``(ii) paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection shall be applied 
     by substituting `100' for `50'.
       ``(B) Qualified manufacturer.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `qualified manufacturer' means any person 
     if--
       ``(i) the primary business of such person is classified in 
     sector 31, 32, or 33 of the North American Industrial 
     Classification System, and
       ``(ii) all of such person's facilities which are used for 
     production in such business are located in the United States.
       ``(5) Carryback and carryforward allowed.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the credit allowable under subsection 
     (a) for a taxable year exceeds the amount of the limitation 
     under subsection (e)(1) for such taxable year (in this 
     paragraph referred to as the `unused credit year'), such 
     excess shall be a credit carryback to each of the 3 taxable 
     years preceding the unused credit year and a credit 
     carryforward to each of the 20 taxable years following the 
     unused credit year.
       ``(B) Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 39 
     shall apply with respect to the credit carryback and credit 
     carryforward under subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall 
     apply.''.
       (2) No deduction for compensation taken into account for 
     credit.--Section 280C(a) (relating to rule for employment 
     credits) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or compensation'' after ``salaries'', 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``30B,'' before ``45A(a),''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 55(c)(2) is amended by 
     inserting ``30B(e)(1),'' after ``30(b)(3),''.
       (4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by 
     adding after the item relating to section 30A the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 30B. Ready Reserve-National Guard replacement employee 
              credit.''.

       (5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after September 30, 
     2004, in taxable years ending after such date.
       (c) Application of Annual Exclusion Limit Under Section 911 
     to Housing Costs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 911(c) (relating to housing cost 
     amount) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Limit on exclusion for employer provided housing 
     costs.--The housing cost amount for any individual for any 
     taxable year attributable to employer provided amounts shall 
     not exceed the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the product of--
       ``(i) the exclusion amount determined under subsection 
     (b)(2)(D) for the taxable year, and
       ``(ii) a fraction equal to the number of days of the 
     taxable year within the applicable period described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1) divided by the 
     number of days in the taxable year, over
       ``(B) the foreign earned income of the individual excluded 
     under subsection (a)(1) for the taxable year.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 911(c)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (4), the''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Strike section 311 of the bill (relating to look-thru 
     treatment of payments between related controlled foreign 
     corporations under foreign personal holding company income 
     rules), redesignate sections 312 through 316 of the bill as 
     sections 311 through 315, respectively, and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly.

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               YEAS--233

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo

[[Page H4305]]


     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Conyers
     DeMint
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Kilpatrick
     Quinn
     Ruppersberger


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members 
are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1209

  Mr. MARSHALL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 195, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Conyers
     DeMint
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Kilpatrick
     Quinn
     Ruppersberger
     Waxman

                              {time}  1218

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________