Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8651-H8658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1200
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. REYNOLDS. By direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House
Resolution 828 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 828

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of October 7, 2004, providing for
consideration or disposition of a conference report to
accompany the

[[Page H8652]]

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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 828 is a same-day rule
that provides for consideration of the rule to accompany the conference
report to H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The rule
waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider
a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.
Madam Speaker, this Congress has been debating the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 throughout this summer, all the while European
Union sanctions on American exports have been quickly rising at a rate
of 1 percent per month and now stand at a staggering 12 percent. They
will continue their constant uptick at an additional 1 percent per
month until the FSC-ETI is repealed or the rate reaches 17 percent.
Madam Speaker, these sanctions are unnecessarily costing domestic
manufacturers, small businesses, and farmers billions upon billions of
dollars. They are raising the price of 1,600 categories of U.S. goods
sold outside the United States, and they are hindering the exporting
capability of multiple industries. Farm products, jewelry, steel,
tools, glass, toys, and clothing are among the goods subject to the
penalty tariff. We simply cannot delay in delivering the needed relief
to the producers and manufacturers of these products who have been
subjected to the true financial hardship of this situation. Without our
swift action, many small businesses and other employers face financial
devastation and we risk job losses.
A conference report has been prepared that answers the call by
repealing this export tax subsidy and providing tax incentives for
domestic purposes. It simplifies complex international tax law,
provides businesses with more resources to create new jobs, and is
revenue neutral, so it will not add to the Federal deficit.
This Congress must continue its commitment to provide strong economic
policies that spur growth and encourage domestic manufacturing while
generating jobs and protecting our small businesses and farmers.
The answer is clear, Madam Speaker, passing the American Job Creation
Act today is of the utmost importance to American workers and their
families. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
conference report as it later comes about.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my friend from New York has introduced a martial law
rule to allow the House to consider the FSC-ETI and corporate tax
giveaway bill at some point today. This bill has been lingering in
legislative limbo for months, and we could have fixed this problem a
long time ago for a lot less money. But now, one day before we have
been told by the Republican leadership that we are going to adjourn
until after the election, we have been rushed to the floor to consider
a martial law rule to debate and vote on a bill that has barely been
filed.
Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. We are considering a rule for a
bill that was just filed. We are considering a rule for a bill that has
been available for just a few minutes. The American people do not know
what is in the bill, but we are here rushing it through at the eleventh
hour.
I cannot say I am surprised by the Republican leadership's actions.
Unfortunately, the outrageousness of the Republican leadership's
actions in the 108th Congress, from the Medicare vote, to the energy
bill, to the continued fiscal irresponsibility, just to name a few, has
made transgressions like this one pale in comparison.
But this martial law rule is not a trivial matter. It is important
for my colleagues and the American people to know and understand
exactly what the Republican leadership is forcing this body to do
today. Madam Speaker, what we are doing right now on the floor of this
great institution is flying blind, and that is par for the course for
what takes place under this Republican leadership.
We can read in the newspaper reports that this bill is loaded up with
goodies for special interests and friends of the Republican leadership.
The Washington Post today editorializes that this bill should be
vetoed. But I ask you, Madam Speaker, who other than the Republican
leadership has seen the final version of this bill? Can the Republican
leadership provide a copy of this bill for every Member right now so
they can actually read it before we start this process? Why are we
starting this process before every Member has had the opportunity to
read and examine this important conference report--so we make sure it
is exactly what we expect it to be?
I will tell you why, Madam Speaker. Because the Republican leadership
did not finish writing the conference report before they filed this
martial law rule. They are rushing through this process when they
should be doing this carefully and deliberately. Madam Speaker, we
should follow the rules of this House. Let every Member read the
conference report before we vote on it.
Madam Speaker, there is an arrogance in this House that permeates
from the top down. It is an arrogance that flaunts the committee
process and thumbs its nose at the 431 Members of Congress who do not
happen to be part of the Republican leadership. This arrogant attitude
has reached a point that it is now common practice for major pieces of
legislation to be written behind closed doors by just a handful of
Members of the Republican leadership and then shoved down the throats
of this body.
This is not just election-year rhetoric. Let us look at the evidence.
The energy bill was written in the back rooms of the Capitol and the
White House to benefit big energy companies and wealthy corporate
contributors. It was introduced with little time to examine the bill
and then forced through this institution by a heavy-handed leadership.
The Medicare prescription drug bill was written by a handful of
Republican Members of the House for the benefit of HMOs and the big
drug industry. It was brought to the floor of this distinguished body
in the dead of night and the vote was held open for over 3 hours while
the Republican leadership did everything it could to twist arms to
their breaking point in order to win the vote.
The bill to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a bill
that should be among the most bipartisan bills considered in this
Congress, was written in the Speaker's office. The 9/11 Commission held
public hearings. The other body developed bipartisan legislation and
openly debated their version on the floor this last week, yet the
Republican leadership here in the House decided it was in their best
interest to secretly craft this bill behind closed doors.
Important provisions that are approved by a bipartisan majority of
this House and with recorded votes in this body are routinely stripped
away behind closed doors. How many times, Madam Speaker, has this body
voted in favor of amendments to close tax loopholes that benefit the
Benedict Arnold companies that open up a post office box overseas so
they can avoid paying taxes here in the United States? How many times
has this body voted to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs
from Canada only to have the Republican leadership kill these bills in
the dead of night when no one is looking?
Instead of fostering debate and Democratic action, the Republican
leadership has turned the rules of this House from a tool to guarantee
orderly democratic process into a weapon that quashes informed
democratic debate. It

[[Page H8653]]

is indeed, in every sense of the word, a disgrace.
Madam Speaker, we all know the United States is the greatest
democracy in history, and this House is a great and noble institution.
But it is the people's House, not the leadership's House, and the
Republican leadership should treat it as such.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully their
rights when they vote on this martial law rule. Members have the right
to know and understand exactly what we will be debating and voting on,
and in this case, I believe few of us will enjoy that right.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I can see, just listening to the observations of the gentleman from
Massachusetts that maybe he and I should go and observe the conferees,
because what I just heard is not what I am hearing from some of the
majority members of the conferees. I understand that all the provisions
that were considered by the conferees either were in the House side or
in the Senate side of the bill, so that both those versions were what
they worked on. There are absolutely no new versions.
My understanding is there was a motion to instruct which failed that
called for an open session, and yet the conferees that wanted that, got
what they wanted. We had an open session on Monday and Tuesday and
Wednesday of this week.
I also understand the Senate finance rules of the other body seemed
to be what was happening, where members of the conference committee
were able to submit amendments that they wanted in the Chair's markup
of what they wanted to do, and there were just numerous expressions of
what they were based on conferees doing that.
I also understand that ranking members and other members of the
Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction, participated as
conferees in this. So there has certainly been an open process.
Madam Speaker, this has been around a long time. We knew that FSC-
ETI, based on the WTO sanctions would require us to move forward. We
have had ample debate and passage of legislation here. It has occurred
in the other body. As the conferees has met, we have seen them work
through an open process that seems to be acceptable to the conferees in
the submission of amendments, in the Chair's mark on those, and in the
completing of our work.
Madam Speaker, there are no new versions of anything. It is either in
the other body's bill or it is in the House bill that they have worked
on. So I think that as we look, at a sense, in a bipartisan fashion, to
see if we can continue to work hard this week and, if we can, complete
our work, that we would be able to return to our districts, that we are
moving there.
I understand, at least from the other body, that there is bipartisan
support from the conferees on this legislation as it continues through
the day.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my day.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the
Committee on Ways and Means and a conferee.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I think most New York Members in the
Congress probably have more self-esteem than we need in order to
negotiate ourselves around this Congress, but my friend from upper New
York is really better than all of us because he is telling us what is
involved in a 600-page bill that has just been filed 5 minutes ago. Now
that is extraordinary.
What is not extraordinary is that the leadership on the Republican
side are using an extraordinary provision to avoid the rules, which
only say that the Members of Congress ought to know what the gentleman
from New York knows. He knows everything that is in the bill. Members
of the Congress ought to know what is in the bill. They should
understand the feeling of fishing tackles, and bows and arrows, and tax
credits for animal manures. They should be able to understand how you
are taking away charitable contribution, how we are converting the
collection of taxes from the Internal Revenue Service to private
corporations. They should understand that we are putting $42 billion in
tax credits to allow our jobs to be exported overseas, which is
something that we were trying so desperately hard not to do.
Martial law? How would the people understand what we are doing here?
What are we rushing off to do? The bill costs $140 billion. They will
come and say to us that it is paid for. Well, how are we to argue that
if we do not have a bill to see how you pay for it? And the truth of
the matter is, they call it paid for, but it is called phase-ins, it is
called delaying the time it comes into operation, it is called
sunsetting. There are so many things in this bill that, if they were so
proud of it, they should let us know.

{time} 1215

He called the bill FSC. FSC is a short-term expression of foreign
service corporations in which we have been alleged by the World Trade
Organization that we give some $70 billion in tax subsidies to
exporters. What does it really mean? We could have really made
ourselves look good in the eyes of the world by adding the $70 billion
and, if we wanted, give a cut. Instead, we spend twice that much for
items that are so unrelated to the bill in front of us. The bill is so
bad that the Secretary Treasurer condemned the bill in a letter that he
sent to my chairman, Bill Thomas, saying it has taken care of
everything else except the tax issues that the bill was there before
us.
We have everybody here telling us that this thing is so important. I
stand to be corrected because the gentleman from New York is far more a
genius than I thought. I thought the bill was filed. He now understands
bills that are not filed. And he is asking us to please inherit the
genius he has to be prepared to vote on a $600 billion bill. This is
$146 billion and then you take the $140 billion that we borrowed
before, we would have a $286 billion bill that we borrowed the money
for so that we could give it back to the corporations. It may sound
good on the eve of an election.
If I understand this procedure correctly, we have to have martial law
to avoid having 3 days for Members of Congress, who are not as smart as
the proponent of avoiding the rule, to be able in 1 hour to vote on
this bill. That is so truly unfair, not to Democrats, but to Democrats
and Republicans.
It could be in the speed to go home and not to fulfill our
responsibility that one taxpayer, one old lady, one young person that
may just want to know what his future is going to be with the deficits
the Republicans are leaving on them, what did you vote for? I have been
in conference. We voted on bundles of amendments, 15 of them with one
vote. We wiped them out. Was it open? Yes. But crimes are sometimes
committed in the open. It is not all done in the darkness of night.
But at the end of the day, conferees are asking me, What finally
ended up in conference? Because we do not know. Nobody in the House of
Representatives today will know why we needed martial law, what is in
this $600 billion borrowed bill, if you combine it with the other
preelection tax cut; and we should have at least time, no matter how
badly Republicans need to go home, especially to stop the rumors about
the draft, but that is another subject; but you have to get home for
whatever reason. But you should really give Members of Congress, new
Members, older Members, time enough to know what is in the bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think it is important that while the debate may go wherever it is
that is germane to debate, that what I have come to this floor to do as
a member of the Committee on Rules is to bring forth consideration of a
same-day rule of legislation as it is filed for consideration today.
I outlined in my opening remarks that there is that opportunity that
as we pass this rule, if it is passed today, which I believe it will
be, that it affords us the opportunity to consider a rule later of a
conference report on the American Jobs Creation Act conference

[[Page H8654]]

report. As I understand it, the legislation has been circulated to the
conferees in final stead and that in a bipartisan aspect, at least in
the other body, we have a number of Democratic Senators who have
already signed and a number of Republicans. I cannot speak for what
they are in this body.
But I know in regular order that as the legislation is filed, it will
come up on the Ways and Means Web site, and it will again allow
everyone to review it. And I know that before this legislation can come
to the floor of this great body, it will require a Rules Committee
meeting to also have a hearing which affords an ample opportunity for
Rules members to listen and for those who choose to come up to the
Rules Committee an opportunity to explain or answer questions on the
legislation. And then we will have an hour debate on the rule, and then
we will have whatever time the Rules Committee determines the debate
will be on the conference report.
And so we certainly are not looking at the discussion we are having
today, while it brings healthy debate on the floor of the House of
Representatives, that this is a final act of anything. It is an
opportunity to engage in the same-day consideration of the American
Jobs Creation Act conference report which has been out there.
I understand that documents are now available on the Ways and Means
Web site. That would mean not only all the Members in this body today
but throughout our great institution can now see this legislation. To
my knowledge, I do not have a time that Rules will convene, so I know
we are not rushing it right after consideration of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to begin to once again look at some facts: that
there has been an open process of the conferees, even though a motion
was defeated to instruct relative to open session, there has been one,
on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, of conferees; that a
model of the Senate Finance markup submitted amendments as conferees
saw fit and the chairman's mark came from a result of that. We know
that there has been a bipartisan signing of the conference report in
the other body. We know that there has been certainly signing of at
least majority Members in this body and that all this rule does is give
us the opportunity to continue moving to get our work done and to level
the playing field on the WTO sanctions which will mean jobs for
Americans as that comes about.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say to my friend from New York a couple of things. He
began his opening statement talking in great detail about all the
things that are in this legislation. Yet we have learned that it has
not been filed. So until it is filed, we do not have the final product.
He has now told us that it is on the Web page, documents are on the Web
page that were made available about 3 minutes ago. I guess we should be
grateful for that.
Let me ask the gentleman, is that supposed to replace the 3-day
layover that conference reports are supposed to have under the rules of
this House? That is the rules of this House, that we are supposed to
have 3 days to look at this stuff. Instead, we do not have a bill that
is filed; but we are told, be happy, don't worry, because there is all
kinds of things coming over on people's Web pages and that is supposed
to suffice.
What has us on this side frustrated is that you do not follow the
rules. The leadership of this House on a regular basis breaks the
rules. What we are simply saying is on a bill of this significance and
a bill that has a whole bunch of goodies that have been added on, that
you should follow the rules so that everybody in this House, not just a
few select groups of the elite in the leadership, but there are 435
Members of this House, and every one of them is entitled to know what
they are voting on before they go to vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today's martial law bill is necessary
because we need to pass this Republican tax bill which is a cookie jar
of tax cuts for corporate interests.
The bill contains goodies for the restaurant association, the ethanol
producers, the big timber companies. It provides sweets for those who
have enough money to own their own corporate jets. It even dishes out
rewards to the railroads like Treasury Secretary Snow's former company,
CSX.
What is appalling, Madam Speaker, is not that the bill provides
goodies for U.S. firms. The Republican Congress does that all the time.
What is appalling is that most of the cookies here in the jar are U.S.
companies that take their profits and their operations and American
jobs overseas. This is an overseas cookie jar.
Some of the biggest winners in this jar are multinational
corporations. There is a cookie here for big oil and a cookie here for
big tobacco and a cookie here for the alcoholic beverage industry and a
cookie for the pharmaceutical industry. Imagine that. They have been
doing so badly, you know.
These companies enjoy record profits. Oil is $52 a barrel today.
American consumers are getting gouged. But instead of passing an excess
profits tax, this Congress is going to give the oil companies another
tax break. No wonder ExxonMobil's stock is now up 30 percent. If you
sniff real carefully, you can see why Wall Street can smell these
cookies. They have been hanging around in the halls up above my office
for the last couple of days. This bill is going to raise taxes on
America's biggest exporters and lower taxes for businesses that go
offshore. For those firms that move offshore, we are going to give you
some cookies.
Republicans think that passage of this bill the day before the
President's debate on domestic issues with Mr. Kerry will somehow
either get lost in that or will be used in it about how I gave big tax
breaks to the companies. I do not know what they are going to do with
it, but they have got something planned for tomorrow. It did not come
up today under martial law because they had not planned it for 6
months.
Now, come the 2nd of November, Madam Speaker, this Congress is going
to learn that that is not how the cookies crumble. I urge my colleagues
to vote against this rule and against the conference agreement and get
the special interests' grubby hands out of their cookie jar. If you did
not get a cookie in your area, you can have one from my jar. Just come
on over and get it.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am not so sure my colleague has read the whole bill, though I
realize it has just been on the Web site a short time. But as I
listened to some of his description, he did not really talk about the
fact that small business, that this bill extends and enhances section
179 of expensing for 2 additional years so small businesses can write
off the cost of their investments up to $100,000 annually. I have been
a small businessman. I know how big debt is. Maybe some others that
have not had that opportunity do not really know how important that is
to small business. Partnerships and S corporations receive a deduction
for domestic production activities. It offers S corporations 10 reforms
providing $1.2 billion in tax relief. It provides for faster
depreciation on leasehold and restaurant improvements.
I come from some communities that they do not have chains in there.
That is a small businessman on Main Street that is looking for a little
expensing, an opportunity to have their building and a leasehold
written off a little faster. Sometimes it gets lost in my great State
of New York, the number one industry is agriculture like it is in many
of my colleagues', but the deduction for domestic production activities
is extended to farmers as well as to agricultural and horticultural
cooperatives.
The bill provides for AMT relief for farmers and fishermen who income
average. It extends an ethanol subsidy under current law through 2010,
thus improving farmers' incomes. It extends double tax and triple
taxation on farmer cooperatives. It provides capital gains relief when
livestock is sold and replaced on account of drought or other weather-
related disasters. It extends capital gains treatment to outright sales
of timber.

[[Page H8655]]

When we look at our domestic manufacturers, the bill provides
manufacturing companies, farms, and small businesses with $76.5 billion
in stimulative tax relief through a deduction for income attributed for
production activities in the United States. More tax relief is provided
for business with proportionately more U.S. production operations. The
deduction is available for domestic production activities only. The
deduction is limited to 50 percent of wages paid to workers in America.
The bill does not move jobs overseas.
I want to also cite to my colleagues, particularly those from the
States of Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, and
Florida that I know of, you can deduct your sales tax if you do not
have income tax like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and my
great State has to pay. I look forward to the consideration of this
body for a same-day rule which is all this is right now.

{time} 1230

It is an opportunity to continue the debate and the rule later today,
if the Committee on Rules grants one, and for debate on the floor of
all the Members as we look at this legislation. Again, I want to remind
my colleagues that I have been informed, and they can verify as they go
to the Committee on Ways and Means website themselves, nothing was
considered in the conference report other than provisions that were in
this body's legislation or the other body's legislation and that we
have received bipartisan support on conferees' signing the conference
report as it comes to this great body for its consideration.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to pay a compliment to my colleague from New York, with
whom I am on the Committee on Rules, for his eloquence in describing
all the great things that are in the bill that has not been filed and
nobody has read yet. I am looking at my watch, and it is almost 12:30,
and the bill has not been filed. I would hold my breath, but I am
afraid I would die waiting for this bill to be filed.
I am on the Committee on Rules, and we are supposed to meet on this
later today. We have not gotten a copy of the bill. We do not even know
when we are going to meet. This is not the way this process is supposed
to work. And while I have nothing but the greatest respect for the
gentleman from New York and I want to believe everything he says, that
everything is great and there is nothing bad or sinister about this
bill, I have learned long ago that I need to verify everything here.
Every Member of this House has an obligation to know what they are
voting on. And again, they have undermined this process, which I think
does a great disservice not only to the Members of this House but to
the people we represent.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
The FSC conference report is the wrong solution for America's
manufacturing sector. This stack of fliers and literally hundreds of
others was given to me by a group of people, the Akron machine shop
operators in Akron, Ohio. They represent literally thousands of
manufacturing companies in this country going out of business.
``Complete Liquidation,'' Dover, Ohio; ``Something for Everyone,''
Piqua, Ohio; another going out of business, Pettisville, Ohio;
Independence, Ohio; Tallmadge, Ohio. All of these represent companies
that are cannibalizing themselves, that are selling their equipment,
that are going out of business, that simply are closing their doors and
laying off American workers.
Ohio, my State, has lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs under President
Bush. The Nation has lost 2.7 million jobs. It is not ancient history.
It is currently reality. In my State in August, Ohio lost 4,000 more
manufacturing jobs. During the Bush administration, one out of six
manufacturing jobs in Ohio has disappeared, one out of six; 150 jobs
every day in my State alone have disappeared during the Bush
administration. President Bush will be the first President since
Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his administration.
And all of these tax bills that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) bring in front
of this body, they have promised, President Bush promised, 6 million
new jobs in this country. So far, we are 7 million short of that 6
million job goal.
President Bush, during the Republican convention, during his speech
that all the pundits said was tough because the President stood there
strong, mentioned the word ``jobs'' once, one time; he also did not
mention Osama bin Laden at all. But he mentioned the word ``jobs'' once
during that speech.
My mom taught me, if I am going to stand up and criticize, I ought to
have something to say in its place; I ought to suggest something else.
There is a bill that offers hope to small manufacturers, that will help
States like Ohio and Michigan and New York rebuild their manufacturing
base. The bipartisan Crane-Rangel bill that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) worked on would reward companies that produce in America
and employ U.S. workers. If they do 100 percent of their production in
the U.S., they get 100 percent of the tax benefits. It was endorsed by
the Manufacturers Association, by the AFL/CIO. It helps also
proprietorships and partnerships. It is budget-neutral, adding nothing
to the national debt. If has 170 cosponsors, roughly even number of
Republicans and Democrats.
Let me be clear to my Republican friends, if they cosponsored Crane-
Rangel and they turn around and vote for this conference report, they
are selling out America's small manufacturers and they are selling out
our communities. If they turn around and vote for this special interest
bill instead of the bipartisan Crane-Rangel bill, they are selling out
American manufacturing and selling out American jobs because the
conference report takes us in the exact opposite direction.
Instead of rewarding investment in America, this conference bill
continues to encourage giant multinationals to ship more jobs overseas.
Instead of supporting the small business community, the conference bill
rewards special interests, friends of particular Members of Congress,
as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) pointed out. Instead of using honest policy to reach budget
neutrality, it fudges the numbers to hide its multibillion dollar cost
to American taxpayers. So not only is this a special interest bill that
is going to undercut jobs today, it is also going to load even more
debt on our children and grandchildren. It is the wrong direction to
take the country. It is more of the failed economic policies we have
seen out of this Congress and out of this President. It is time we
change direction and help rebuild U.S. manufacturing.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just listened, and I realize that a couple things need to come
about, and that is that, months and months ago; it reinforces my
original statements that we have had ample time as we have been
debating this throughout the summer; there was a Crane-Rangel piece of
legislation. There was a Thomas piece of legislation, and now there is
an American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. I just want to remind the
gentleman from Ohio, the previous speaker, that my understanding is the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who is the number two in seniority
man and an individual who had authored legislation previously, has
signed this conference report. If the gentleman were still in the
Chambers, he would know that my previous remarks talked about the fact
that this is all about small business and small manufacturing and
farmers as we look at expensing vital everyday assistance to our small
businesses, our small manufacturers and our farmers. And that is what
this bill has got in it.
I want to remind my colleagues, as all the hysteria comes out here on
the question of what it does to the federal deficit, again, I will put
on the Record that the conference agreement is revenue-neutral. It does
not increase the federal deficit. The manufacturing firms and the farms
and the small businesses receive $76.5 billion in stimulative tax
relief through a deduction, not a corporate rate cut, and tax relief is

[[Page H8656]]

provided for all these businesses and farmers and small manufacturers
and co-ops, subcorporations, and other unincorporated businesses. It is
all about helping America's small businesses. It is all about helping
businesses compete fair and globally across the globe.
So, again, I want to remind my colleagues that this is a rule to
consider a same-day legislation under the rules' permission for later
today. I want to remind my colleagues that it is available on the
Committee on Ways and Means' website, and I look forward to later in
the day that we might have an opportunity to move forward on this
legislation, that, again, I will remind them has bipartisan support and
has had a fair and open process as conferees have moved forward with
legislation, as I have repeatedly said.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the prestigious Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I could not help but hear some of the discussion, which is obviously
tied to the underlying matters rather than the question of a same-day
rule. And the argument that someone has not seen it, I find it ironic
that this particular conference, the first conference in my memory, was
held entirely with the public permitted complete access, televised over
the internal television structure for the entire time of the
conference. There were no separate conference meetings. All of the
conference meetings were public.
As the gentleman from New York said, the Committee on Ways and Means'
website is now available. We have just filed a conference report, and
under the rules, hard copies are required and hard copies are
available.
The one point I want to make is, the constant and the only word that
comes to mind is ``harping,'' the constant harping about the fact that
we are not bipartisan. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. The Senate
had 23 Senators on this conference. Twelve of them were Republicans.
Ten of them were Democrats. And one was an Independent. Of the 12
Republicans, 11 supported the conference; i.e., they signed the
conference report. Of the ten Democrats, six supported the conference
report, including, I might tell the Members, the minority leader of the
United States Senate and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance
Committee. The Independent member on the Senate side chose to pass. So
17 of the 23 Senate conferees, a majority of both the Republican and
the Democrat conferees, support the conference report.
Now let us take a look at the House side. Submitted for the entire
House were three Republicans from the Committee on Ways and Means and
the majority leader and two Democrats. For the Committee on
Agriculture, two Republicans and one Democrat. For the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, three Republicans and one Democrat. For the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, two Republicans and one
Democrat. And for the Committee on the Judiciary, two Republicans and
one Democrat.
The four Republicans from the Committee on Ways and Means and the
majority leader supported the conference report. None of the Democrats
supported the conference report. From the Committee on Agriculture, two
Republicans supported it, and the Democrat supported the conference
report. From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the three
Republicans supported the conference report; the Democrat did not. From
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Republicans supported
it; the Democrat did not. The Committee on the Judiciary, one of the
two Republicans supported it; the Democrat did not.
When we look at what the House does, it is not bipartisan because the
people who were appointed by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) and the Democrats do not want to be bipartisan. They are the
hardnosed partisans. If, in fact, the House would appoint people who
want to come to a reasonable resolution, as the Senate does, it would
be bipartisan in the Senate and bipartisan in the House.
I chaired that conference to produce a bipartisan conference. The
only group that did not seem to want to be bipartisan is the same group
that argues we ought to be bipartisan over and over and over again, and
as one might guess, they are the partisans.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Chair would like to
remind all Members that while a Member may reference those Senators who
signed a conference report that has been filed, it is a violation of
rule XVII to characterize the position of the Senate or individual
Senators.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise to compliment the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, indeed of the conference,
for his eloquent remarks on the subject of partisanship and this
Congress and assure him that, in the next Congress, I hope that the
Democratic majority would be able to be more bipartisan.

{time} 1245

The question I thought was on the floor was not of being partisan,
but the question of why are you suspending the rules of this House
bringing in marshal law for a 600-page bill that is so complex that
lawyers around the country are going to call it the lawyers' welfare
bill?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means for finally filing the bill. I am glad
somebody is listening to us and has been responsive. But the fact of
the matter is, and I will say this again, the rules of this House
matter, at least they are supposed to, and we are supposed to have 3
days to review conference reports, the final product.
In the good old days, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will
tell you, the conference reports routinely laid over for 3 days. People
had a chance to read them. Members of both sides of the aisle had a
chance to read them.
The fact is that the Republican leadership continues to ignore and to
violate and to break the rules of this House, and no matter how you try
to sugarcoat it and change the subject, the facts are the facts.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I want to spend just 30 seconds on process.
It has been covered well.
If I can lift this bill, here it is. No speed reader can read this, I
would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), nobody.
On partisanship, this bill was handled in this House without a stitch
of effort at bipartisanship. The two of us who were conferees and our
Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means never had a
chance to participate in the creation of the House bill.
I want to talk about the substance. This is a $5 billion problem with
a solution that is three times that in terms of the 10 year result.
Five times ten is 50. This bill is $150 billion.
Who are going to be the main beneficiaries? Not the workers who are
going to lose their overtime, because the House Republicans stripped
the overtime provision that had been passed by the Senate, stripped it
on a partisan basis. Not the kids who are going to end up smoking and
the families who will also suffer with them. Why? Because the House
Republicans stripped the FDA provision out of this bill that was part
of the Senate bill. And not the workers in communities who are going to
lose because of jobs going overseas.
I want to say a word to the gentleman from New York about some of the
provisions he mentioned. Small business, the sales tax provision, these
are sunsetted. It is dishonest budgeting, because we know they will not
be sunsetted, and when you take all the sunsets out, the bill is really
not revenue-neutral; there is an $80 billion deficit.
Madam Speaker, this continues to the pattern of Republicans talking
one

[[Page H8657]]

way and acting another. I think you can call it flip-flopping.
Let me read the letter from Secretary Snow that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) referred to. This is his letter a couple days
ago: ``The administration believes a conference report to replace FSC-
ETI should be budget neutral. Both the House and Senate-passed bill
include a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few
taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code. Legislation
taking up more than 1,000 pages of statutory language or even 400 pages
goes far beyond the bill's core objective of replacing the FSC-ETI tax
provisions with broadbased tax relief that is WTO compliant. The
administration will work with the conferees to eliminate these
narrowly-crafted provisions.''
Madam Speaker, that has not happened. The administration essentially
has flip-flopped, has caved in. So all of these special interest
provisions that have been mentioned have stayed in--for railroads, for
shipbuilders, for bow-and-arrow manufacturers, for importers of Chinese
ceiling fans, for the horse- and dog-racing industries.
Madam Speaker, we could have done better. We needed to replace FSC
with a bill that the four of us introduced relating to manufacturing.
Instead, we have this huge monstrosity of a bill. We should go back to
the original purpose.
I urge we turn down this provision here of martial law and then turn
down the rule and then turn down the conference report, and come back
quickly and do the work that is necessary to preserve manufacturing in
the United States of America.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I took a look at that 12-inch set of legislation, and
I just want to alert my colleagues, because it is on the Committee on
Ways and Means Web site. If you go to waysandmeans.house.gov and take a
look and see what is new and look for the conference documents, you are
going to find that. So you do not have to carry that anywhere; it is
going to be right on your computer, right in your office.
For those who are looking for some specific things, I urge them to
consider the Adobe Acrobat so they can word search anything they are
interested in.
But, as I said earlier, and I am sure the gentleman did not hear my
predecessor speaking, I come from a small-business world. I took a look
to see what small business said.
Over 250 companies and organizations have supported this legislation
as this body considered it. So you get the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
the National Association of Manufacturing or the Business Roundtable.
But we get right down into main street and that village of USA when
NFIB and the other small businesses talk about how important expensing
and other opportunities that are in this legislation to be considered
are.
But I cannot let someone address the fact that the Republican
majority is not interested in tax simplification. Quite frankly, it is
the opposite. We have been resolute in our commitment to small
business, to farmers, to manufacturers and just plain old tax
simplification. Not only by action in the House, but in this election
season across America, I have heard it time and time again by my
Republican colleagues as they talk about the push and the resolute
objective of having tax simplification here in the United States Tax
Code.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, what I object to is the fact that the Republican
leadership does not want to follow the rules of this House.
Madam speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time, and I thank the ranking member and everyone who
believes they come from certain communities.
I come from a small-business community, and I remember, just a few
weeks ago, standing with my bipartisan colleagues on the single focus
that is crucial for a State like Texas, and that is the ability to
deduct our sales tax in Federal income tax filings.
Madam Speaker, I enthusiastically support that, but in flipping
through this bill, it is a maze, and it is almost impossible to
determine where that provision is. If there was a freestanding response
to the small-business community and a freestanding response on the
sales tax, we would have bipartisan unity.
I stood alongside of a bipartisan House and supported tax child
credits for Americans and the marriage penalty relief for Americans,
but the question to my colleagues is, how are you going to pay for it?
And let me tell those who will vote for it, this relief on sales tax is
only a 2-year relief. What family can plan their income, can plan their
future, knowing that they can only deduct sales tax for 2 years. I wish
we could have had a clean vote on this single relief for small
businesses and working families.
So I would simply argue, if someone can give to me the reason why we
could not go in a bipartisan manner on giving relief to those who are
suffering under the burden of sales tax and cannot deduct them, why you
could not do that without the enormous loopholes, the overburden of
taxation, and when I say overburden of taxation, the ability to give
others the ability not to pay taxes?
Let me remind my colleagues on this marshal law, we are paying $5
billion a month in Iraq, and I understand $1 billion a month in
Afghanistan, and we do not know where it is going to end. There have to
be choices in this House.
We are about to debate homeland security, and I expect that that is
going to be a mighty penny, no matter how much and what we ultimately
pass, unfortunately, not with the kind of consensus we need. I argue,
tell me, where are we giving relief to our families in Texas? I will
give further consideration to this bill, however, I believe further
deliberation is necessary. I want most of all to give relief to the
working families and small business tax payers of Texas. My
constituents really need this relief.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 2 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, this is bad procedure to adopt bad tax
policy. I want to get parochial and address my fellow southern
Californians. This bill shafts southern California.
Take a look at Roll Call. ``Studios Take a Hit in the Tax Bill.'' The
article explains how America's number-one exporter, how the
underpinning of our southern California economy, gets shafted in this
bill. It quotes Mr. Foley by saying, ``I am sure it is not entirely
based on the fact that the motion picture industry hired Dan
Glickman.'' Well, it is substantially based on that.
The article goes on to say that the bill neglects our number-one
exporter, even though it is supposed to be an export-promotion bill,
because of the hiring of Glickman. It quotes a lobbyist as saying, ``No
Republican will fight for the movie industry.''
My fellow southern Californians, prove them wrong. Vote against the
martial law rule, vote against the rule and vote against the bill. This
is not just a shafting of southern California; it is the entry of
corruption into the congressional process. It is a corrupt shafting of
southern California.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking
Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means and also a conferee.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for giving
me this opportunity to close, and I suggest to my colleagues that they
vote against this marshal law. Marshal law means there is an emergency,
that we have to get this bill on the floor. It does not mean that you
take a complex 600-page tax bill and tell the Members, ``go to the Web
site.''

[[Page H8658]]

Believe it or not, this is not a partisan thing, because I would be
on this floor to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules if
we were in the majority. You keep cutting away from the
responsibilities of the committees and the subcommittees, and
especially the Committee on Rules.
The Committee on Rules, they are the traffic cops. They are supposed
to have an equitable distribution of the time and allow for Members to
know what they are going to debate. If you do not have a bill filed, if
you do not know what is going to be in front of you, you are caught in
the embarrassing position of saying, I do not know.
Go to the Website? How can you go to the Website and be on the floor?
How can you ask the Website a question? You are supposed to want to
pull up this Tax Code, which we got today, by the roots. Instead, you
bring 600 pages of fertilizer and make it more complicated.
This is not simplification. People may ask you what is in the bill. I
want to give you a chance.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, we certainly know that the legislative calendar for
this year was set to complete our work on October 1. We are now here on
October 7 and working to get our work done. And it is my hope that we
continue on the 9/11 debate today and other important matters pending.
It is also my hope that we are able to consider the legislation
dealing with the American Jobs Act of 2004.

{time} 1300

We know that since this last hour, that we are asking the body to
consider a same-day rule so that we can consider the legislation if and
when the Committee on Rules meets and sends to this floor a rule for
consideration of the underlying legislation. We know that the gentleman
from California (Chairman Thomas) has personally come and filed the
report for the conference report before this body, and we have seen in
the last hour both what the bill looks like, with some 1,300 pages and
12, 13 inches thick, and we heard me previously say that the Committee
on Ways and Means Web site address, waysandmeans.house.gov, if you go
to ``What's New'' and you look for conference documents, you will find
the conference report, which is bipartisanly signed, in its entirety.
And, if you want, the Adobe Acrobat has the word search so that you can
find anything you are interested in finding.
This legislation has been around for a while. Again, I will repeat
myself, as I have several times in this debate: It has nothing in it
within the provisions that was not considered in this body or the other
body by as the conferees came together. It was an open conference, even
though the motion to instruct was defeated, and we followed the Senate
rules whereby members of the conference could file numerous and
countless amendments, which were considered, and we now have a final
word product.
I know the debate on the floor, as we get through this, either today
or this early evening or if it ends up tomorrow, will have all sorts of
interpretations. We will get down to the fact that it is going to help
American business, and that includes small business, farmers, and small
manufacturers.
The Republican leadership and the Committee on Rules has met. They
are not acting against the rules of this House. Quite frankly, we have
asked for consideration of the body by majority vote to determine if we
can have a same-day consideration, and that is what is going to happen
as we have a vote here shortly.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution, which is
same-day consideration of the legislation before us, and I yield back
the balance of time.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________