[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8704-H8726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4520, AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 830 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 830

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill

[[Page H8705]]

     (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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  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 830 is a standard rule 
that provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference 
report will be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, America's economy has 
experienced more than its fair share of setbacks. We have had a triple 
shock of terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and a recession, but 
each and every time, this administration and this Congress has 
responded with sound policies to move forward, to create jobs, to 
stimulate economic growth.
  After inheriting a slowing economy, President Bush and this Congress 
reacted quickly and enacted a series of tax cuts that resulted in the 
shortest and shallowest recession in this Nation's history. We have 
been resolute in our work towards recovery, and today, real GDP has 
grown at its fastest rate in 20 years.
  More than 1.7 million jobs have been created, and more Americans are 
working today than in any other time in our history. The unemployment 
rate is below the average levels in each of the past three decades. In 
the past 4 years, we have seen the fastest rate of growth in 
productivity in more than a half a century. Homeownership continues at 
an all-time high.
  In the particularly hard-hit manufacturing sector, we have seen 17 
straight months of growth in activity, and the manufacturing employment 
index has been growing for 11 consecutive months. When President Bush 
took office, manufacturing employment had been on the decline for 3 
years. In fact, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the 
last 6 months of the Clinton administration. So far this year, 
manufacturing employment is up by more than 107,000 jobs. We have seen 
the addition of 22,000 manufacturing jobs last month alone, and 
manufacturing output is at an all-time high.
  But our work is not done until every American who wants a job can 
find one, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today on 
behalf of the American Jobs Creation Act by supporting this rule and 
the underlying conference report.
  Now is the time to seize on the momentum that we have created and 
continue to enact policies that spur economic growth, generate jobs, 
bolster domestic manufacturing and protect small businesses and 
farmers.
  As my colleagues know, European Union sanctions on American exports 
are costing our manufacturers and farmers billions of dollars. Tariffs 
currently stand at 12 percent and will continue to increase 1 percent 
per month until the FSC/ETI is repealed. That, Mr. Speaker, threatens 
the ability of our domestic companies to create jobs right here at 
home.
  EU sanctions are increasing the price of 1,600 categories of U.S. 
goods sold outside of the United States. They are hindering the 
exporting capability of multiple industries.
  Today, we have the power to stop them. Without our action, many small 
businesses and other employers face financial ruin, while their 
employees face their own job losses.
  By repealing the FSC/ETI through the underlying conference report, 
this Congress will finally put an end to these staggering sanctions and 
help, once again, to put Americans to work.
  This conference report permanently reduces the corporate tax rate to 
32 percent for domestic, and only domestic, manufacturers, producers, 
farmers and small corporations. This is yet another stimulant for job 
growth, encouraging production and manufacturing here at home, giving 
employers incentives to reinvest, expand and, more importantly, create 
new jobs in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying report also addresses the primary 
obstacle in realizing even bigger job growth, the double taxation for 
U.S.-based manufacturers. Our global competitors enjoy a considerable 
advantage over the United States simply due to the burdensome U.S. tax 
code. In reducing this double taxation faced by U.S.-based companies, 
we greatly enhance their competitiveness in the global market and their 
ability to sell American-made goods, all the while making it easier for 
them to create more jobs here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, another important part of H.R. 4520 is its relief for 
millions of small businesses and farmers from the alternative minimum 
tax. Over the years, that tax has unintentionally ensnared more and 
more middle-income Americans. With the passage of the underlying report 
today, this House will deliver much-needed relief for millions of 
American farmers and small businessmen.
  We will end the double and triple taxation of farmer cooperatives, 
and we will provide capital gains tax relief when livestock is sold and 
replaced on account of drought and other weather-related disasters.
  The conference report also makes it cheaper for existing businesses 
to increase their investment and for entrepreneurs to expense new 
ventures.
  Provisions to promote investment in new equipment are extended for an 
additional 2 years. This increased investment opportunity provides 
significant stimulus to the economy, and further aids in boosting job 
growth.
  Partnerships and S corporations also receive a reduction for domestic 
production activities under the conference report. A whole host of 
reforms are included which provide S corporations with $1.2 billion in 
tax relief.
  In total, the conference report gives manufacturing companies, farms 
and small businesses $76.5 billion in stimulative tax relief through a 
reduction for income attributable to production activities here in the 
United States. This relief will help keep individuals from sending 
exorbitant amounts of their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam and use it 
instead to create new jobs and new opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have worked tirelessly on behalf of the 
American people throughout this process. I would like to especially 
commend the Chairman and the conference committee members for their 
steadfast support of sound tax policy and job creation.
  We have the opportunity and the responsibility to not only continue 
but also accelerate the last year of economic growth and job creation. 
We can do that today by passing the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess it is refreshing that the Republican leadership 
is allowing this House to debate and vote on a bill that now has 
actually been filed, and I am glad that the majority has finally 
provided paper copies of this massive bill to Members of this House.

                              {time}  1900

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

[[Page H8706]]

  Like I said this morning during debate on the martial law rule, this 
is not the first time the Republican leadership has broken and flaunted 
the rules to get their way. And while I continue to be disappointed by 
the way the Republican leadership continues to misuse the House rules, 
I want to talk for a few minutes about the substance of this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, to describe this bill as flawed does not do it justice. 
This conference report is a legislative grab bag filled with goodies 
for special interests. Every Member of this body knew about the export 
subsidy that was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. 
Thousands of U.S. exporters are needlessly paying tariffs to European 
countries simply because the Republican-controlled Congress has failed 
to pass legislation to avoid these penalties. Thanks to the Republican 
leadership of this Congress, jewelry, textile and small manufacturers 
in my Congressional District have been especially hard hit by these 
sanctions.
  Now, our colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined together and sponsored a 
bipartisan bill to fix this problem a long time ago, and 177 Members 
are cosponsors of that bill. The Crane-Rangel bill was clean, it was 
simple, and it would bring the United States into compliance with the 
WTO without the extra add-ons that the Republican leadership felt 
compelled to include in this conference report as sweeteners or 
incentives for passage of this bill.
  Crane-Rangel would have been approved by this House if the Republican 
leadership would have allowed the bill to come to the floor for an up-
or-down vote. It would have been sent to the President and signed into 
law by now, if the Republican leadership did not drag its heels while 
pretending to address this problem. And its small cost could have been 
completely paid for.
  Instead of bringing a clean bill fixing this problem to the floor, 
the Republican leadership has delivered this monstrosity. Once again, 
the Republican leadership has turned a noncontroversial issue in a 
noncontroversial bill into bad policy.
  Does this conference report fix this problem we have with the WTO? 
Well, according to the Republican leadership it does. But according to 
press accounts, the European Union is hinting this legislation may not 
accomplish its goal; and, if true, the sanctions on American exports 
will not be lifted.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a better way to do this, and I am disappointed 
that the Republican leadership took the hard way out of what should 
have been an easy problem to fix. But while this conference report 
should be about eliminating the WTO sanctions against American 
corporations, it is really about the tax breaks and other goodies 
provided to special interests.
  This conference report gives tax breaks to various corporate 
interests. There are 276 separate tax breaks that benefit everyone from 
restaurant owners to foreign gamblers. Provisions like the one that 
will help native Alaskan whalers were inserted to help vulnerable 
Members in the other body win reelection. Home Depot and General 
Electric, two companies who have donated large sums of campaign funds 
to the Republican Party, get significant tax breaks in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report should not be used to reward 
corporate contributors. This is no way to do tax policy. We can and we 
should do better.
  Now, if that were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, several provisions 
that actually do help average Americans, which were included in the 
other body's version of this bill, were stripped out by Republican 
leaders. When the Republican leadership had a chance to actually do 
something good for a change, they turned away and ignored the needs and 
concerns of everyday Americans.
  Included in this conference report is a bailout for tobacco farmers. 
This provision will provide $10 million to financially vulnerable 
tobacco farmers in tobacco communities. These funds would come from an 
assessment on tobacco companies, not from taxpayers.
  While this bailout provision is important to a small segment of the 
American population, the heart of the amendment adopted by the other 
body was FDA regulation of tobacco. The Senate amendment would give the 
Food and Drug Administration the broad authority to regulate the sale, 
distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
  We know that each day, 5,000 children try their first cigarette; that 
2,000 children will become daily smokers, and nearly 1,000 will die 
prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. The other body included this 
language as a bipartisan amendment adopted by a vote of 78 to 15. But 
instead of supporting this bipartisan amendment, the Republican 
leadership stripped FDA regulation from this conference report, leaving 
only the tobacco bailout.
  By stripping out FDA regulation, we continue to leave our children 
vulnerable to the dangers of tobacco. This is unconscionable, and I am 
disappointed by the Republican leadership's action.
  During debate on the other body's version of this legislation, two 
amendments were adopted to block President Bush's overtime regulations 
that recently went into effect. These regulations are yet another nasty 
attack by this administration on American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that these overtime regulations will deny 
six million workers overtime protection. The House has voted against 
these regulations twice, and the other body has voted against it three 
times. These overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their 
overtime pay protection, employers force them to work longer hours for 
no extra pay. That is wrong.
  Protecting the 40-hour workweek is vital to protecting the work-
family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of 
this Nation, and I am disappointed that the Republican leadership did 
not stand up to the corporate interests and support these two 
amendments. Instead, they caved to pressure from their corporate 
friends and allowed these misguided regulations to continue to stay in 
effect.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must express my extreme displeasure with the 
Republican leadership for stripping out the provision that would 
provide tax relief to every company in business that voluntarily makes 
up the difference in income to an employee activated in the National 
Guard or Reserves. This provision would also have provided support to 
those same companies to train temporary companies to fill the jobs left 
vacant by active duty employees.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I attempted to offer 
this amendment during the debate on this bill when it was considered in 
June, but the Republican leadership denied us the opportunity to offer 
that amendment to the bill. However, a similar amendment offered by 
Senator Landrieu was adopted.
  During this time of national emergency, when members of the Reserves 
and Guard are serving extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, it 
is vital that the Congress provide help to the hundreds of small 
businesses suffering from long-term vacancies or the families whose 
loved ones have been activated for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 
instead of showing a little compassion, instead of doing the right 
thing, instead of standing with the troops, their families, and their 
hometown communities, the Republican leadership in both Chambers 
stripped this provision from the final bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad day when this body turns its back on 
those who are fighting for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
conference report. We need to draw a line in the sand when it comes to 
corporate giveaways and legislative sweeteners like the ones written 
into this conference report. It is time we say enough is enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts. He 
said draw a line in the sand. I am willing to bet, by the time we 
complete our vote on the bill, the underlying legislation, it is going 
to be quicksand, because I think it will have bipartisan support not 
only in this body but the other body.
  I guess it is okay to come on the floor and see just a half or a 
quarter of what the legislation does, but you cannot write history over 
again. The fact

[[Page H8707]]

is, earlier the gentleman from Massachusetts and I had the opportunity 
to bring back to the floor from the Committee on Rules a same-day 
resolution. It was passed by this honorable body and we are now having 
the underlying legislation brought down, the conference report, to be 
considered here.
  So the will of the House was done today by a vote which allowed the 
bringing of this bill to the floor. It seems that this is a similar 
situation to a discussion we had earlier on the rule on this same-day 
legislation, and that was in reference to the Crane-Rangel legislation. 
I just must remind us again for the record in the rules debate we are 
now having that while my colleagues continue to talk about Crane-
Rangel, many of the provisions that were in the legislation offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) are incorporated in the parts 
of this bill in the conference report. I also note that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has signed this conference report as a 
conferee.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind my colleagues that it has 
bipartisan support, as the conferees deliberated on only those things 
that were in the House bill or in the other body's bill as a final 
product of the conference report. The minority leader of the other body 
has signed this as a conferee.
  And there is good reason why it has bipartisan support. But before we 
discuss that, we might look back at the reality of what the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means said earlier today in the previous rule 
which helped to bring this one to the floor. He said in order to have 
bipartisanship, it goes two ways. Sometimes we lose track of that, as 
it was extended by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance 
version, of having amendments offered from the conferees and then 
considered, as is done in the Senate Committee on Finance.
  Before we conclude on what is in the bill through the eyes of my 
colleague from Massachusetts, let us be reminded that this legislation 
addresses help for exporters, where the European Union has imposed a 
penalty tariff of 12 percent on more than 1,600 categories of U.S. 
exports. And unless the U.S. Congress acts, the European Union will 
continue to increase that penalty tariff by 1 percent every single 
month until it reaches 17 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, that affects Wisconsin's cheese, Florida's oranges, 
California's lemons and limes and other farm products which are subject 
to that penalty tariff; and U.S. manufacturers of jewelry and steel and 
tools, glass, toys, and clothing, and other products subject to the 
penalty tariff.
  I keep hearing, Mr. Speaker, we have a plan for the middle class. 
Well, when I look at small business, that is middle class, on Main 
Street USA. This bill extends and enhances section 179 expensing for 2 
additional years, so small businesses can write off the costs of their 
investments up to $100,000 annually. Partnerships and S corporations 
receive a deduction for domestic production activities. It offers S 
corporations ten reforms providing $1.2 billion in tax relief, and it 
provides for faster depreciation of leasehold and restaurant 
improvements on those mom-and-pop shops all through USA Main Street.
  When we look at our farmers, Mr. Speaker, the impact of what has been 
done in this bill on the deduction for domestic production activities 
extended to farmers as well as to agriculture and horticulture 
cooperatives, it deals with AMT relief for farmers and fisherman who 
income average. It extends an ethanol subsidy for those under current 
law through 2010, thus improving farmers' incomes. It ends double and 
triple taxation of farmer cooperatives. It provides capital gains tax 
relief when livestock is sold and replaced on account of drought or 
other weather-related disasters. It extends capital gains treatment on 
outright sales of timber.
  Mr. Speaker, on domestic manufacturers, the bill provides companies, 
farms, and small business with $76.5 billion, that is with a ``B,'' 
$76.5 billion in stimulative tax relief through a deduction for income 
tax attributed to production activities in the United States. More tax 
relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. 
production operations. The deduction is available for domestic 
production activities only, and the deduction is limited to 50 percent 
of the wages paid to workers in America. The bill does not move jobs 
overseas.
  And for those who do not have income tax, something that I live with 
in New York, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 allows taxpayers, especially those 
in Nevada, Wyoming, the State of Washington, South Dakota, Texas, 
Alaska and Florida, to deduct their sales taxes because they do not pay 
income tax.
  And ending the tobacco quotas, I have seen tobacco States where it is 
clear that the message of opportunity of offering tobacco farmers, 
including those in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Kentucky, a fair buy-out to end the quota system.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous opportunity for middle America to 
get a tax break and to continue stimulating our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule, and I also 
want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for his excellent work, the 
work of the Committee on Rules and also to commend the conference 
committee for their good work on this issue.
  This is a fair rule. It is a good conference report. And it is time 
for us to take action on this. The issue that we have before us is 
about tax fairness, it is about equity, and it is about jobs growth. 
Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague from across the aisle 
talk about tax cuts, you would think that they think that the tax cuts 
are bad, that reducing the tax burden on the American citizens is a bad 
thing to do. I am here to tell you from my constituents in Tennessee, 
reducing that burden is a very good thing to do. It is something that 
the jobs growth bill does. And so I do rise to enthusiastically support 
it.
  There is a provision in this bill that is of great importance not 
only to my constituents in Tennessee but to 55 million Americans. As we 
were hearing from the chairman, he mentioned this was help for farmers, 
help for Main Street, and help for Main Street is what I want to talk 
about, because restoring the deductibility of sales tax to the Federal 
income tax filing for those of us that are in States that do not have a 
State income tax, that choose to fund our State governments by sales 
tax, that is an issue of tax fairness.
  It is also a way to help out Main Street and provide an economic 
boost that is truly needed in our communities. This is a provision also 
that is very important to thousands of female-owned small businesses: 
increasing expensing, leasehold provisions, deductibility of sales tax 
that provides more traffic on Main Street for our thousands of female-
owned businesses. This is a very positive move.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to comment on some of the words of my colleague from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) who read very well from the Republican talking 
points on this bill. I would say that if we followed the rules of this 
House and he actually had the 3-day layover to actually read what was 
in this bill or what was not in this bill, he would have noticed that 
this bill actually undercuts the will of the House and the other body 
with regard to President Bush's nasty overtime regulations which was 
removed from this bill.
  He would realize that the Republican leadership stripped out a 
provision that would provide tax relief to every company and business 
that voluntarily makes up the difference in income to an employee 
activated in the National Guard or Reserves. I think he would see that 
of the 276 separate little provisions that benefit special interests, 
makers of bows and arrows, tackle boxes and sonar finders and even 
importers of Chinese ceiling fans, let me say to my colleague from New 
York that I think those who are serving in our National Guard and 
Reserves and those businesses that are struggling as those brave men 
and women are fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think they 
are more important, quite frankly, than Chinese ceiling fans. I think 
they deserve a bigger break than makers of bows and arrows and tackle 
boxes and sonar fish finders.

[[Page H8708]]

  That is the complaint here, that this bill is filled with special 
goodies for people who do not need it when in fact some of the people 
who need it most do not get anything. What is even more frustrating is 
the fact that people are going to vote on this bill today, this 
conference report, when it was just brought before us today, breaking 
the rules of this House, waiving the rules of this House where we are 
supposed to have 3 days to know what is in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the coauthor of the Crane-Rangel bill.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) for sharing with us what is in this bill 
because the Members probably are still at their Web sites trying to 
figure it out.
  The reason we are here right now is not to go into the substance of 
the bill but for me and others to try to encourage the leadership to 
kill this bill and do this the right way. There are 650 pages to this 
tax bill and 650 pages explaining the tax bill. This adds another 1,200 
pages to the 6,000-page IRS Code that we have here.
  We know that Members are supposed to have 3 days in order to find out 
what is in these 1,200 pages. That is difficult enough. The problem is 
the Members do not have the bill. They have no bills in their offices. 
But our friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has said not to worry, the 
government has bought them Web sites to find out what is in the bill.
  I want to say to those that may be interested in what is in the bill, 
since when you go home people may ask you, tune into wayside and share 
with Members of this august body what is in this bill we are going to 
vote on. We would like to have had 3 days to have looked into this. But 
the Republicans do not have 3 days to give us. We would have liked to 
have used the rules of the House, but they say we have to have martial 
law. I guess it has something to do with combat, but they have put 
martial law to the House of Representatives, denying us the opportunity 
to do anything but to look at the Web site.
  Why are there so few Republicans and Democrats on the floor? Lack of 
dedication? Not wanting to understand this complex piece of 
legislation? No. They are at their Web sites. So, Americans, stop what 
you are doing now, go to waysandmeans.house.com so when we come home 
and share with you the good things we have brought to you, the fact 
that you do not have to totally rely on the Internal Revenue Service, 
we will have the private sector collectors helping us out. It is on the 
Web site. And, of course, if you are in tobacco, bully, $10 billion you 
get it, smoking goes up; but if you manufacture you are in a good 
business.
  What about these charities that they ask you to give cause to? No, 
not in this tax bill. I do not know how to tell you to get that on 
waysandmeans.house.com, but it is there. But if you are into pro sports 
teams, if you are into race track cars being depreciated, if you are 
foreign, of course, and you are into horse racing and dog racing and 
gambling, then go to waysandmeans.house.com.
  If you really want to find out what we are trying to correct, and 
that is the tariff and sanctions that have been put on us by the World 
Trade Organization, we are not certain yet whether we covered that, but 
when Santa Claus sees the sleigh coming, he wants to pile up on it. So 
the little part that this bill was supposed to take care of, we hope 
that they did that. But for the rest, the lobbyists that really believe 
that before this election they have to show their appreciation to those 
people who put the bill together, well, they do make out from what I 
understand.
  I will not be able to speak too much about this. I was in the 
conference, and then they put the Senate piece together with the House 
piece. Therefore, I did not sign it because I did not know how it was 
all going to come together. But I said, I will wait and see what they 
have done. But guess what? It was not until 12:15 that they brought the 
1,000 pages to my desk. So I immediately went out and I said, but it is 
not just for conferees, there are other Members here, there are 
Democrats and Republicans.
  And what do they tell me? Tell them to go to waysandmeans.house.com.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Harris).
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically encourage my 
colleagues to vote for the rule this evening for the conference report 
on H.R. 4520. Once again the U.S. House of Representatives has risen to 
the occasion and placed job creation and tax fairness over simplistic 
rhetoric. For far too long the Federal Tax Code has permitted the 
residents of States with income tax to deduct their State burden while 
discriminating against Florida and other States who choose to rely upon 
sales tax. I commend Chairman Thomas and the House majority leadership 
for their leadership in crafting compromise legislation that has 
attracted significant bipartisan support.
  H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, creates tax 
fairness for Floridians by allowing individuals, not just corporations, 
individuals who pay State and local taxes to have that deductibility. 
This will create jobs in Florida through its repeal of tax rules that 
have led to escalating European retaliation against U.S. exports and 
through its inclusion of offsetting tax relief for domestic 
manufacturers, producers, farmers, and small corporations. The sales 
tax deductibility will provide a direct economic boost to our 
consumers, especially middle-income families.
  In closing, it is not only an issue of fundamental tax fairness; it 
is also an economic stimulus that will create jobs and improve the 
lives of 55 million Americans living in State income tax-free States.
  On a personal note, Florida has been devastated by four hurricanes, 
three of which have crossed my district. This bill is going to be so 
important to those Floridians who will have a chance once again not 
only to rebuild their lives and their homes but a shot at that economic 
viability and restoration. I urge its passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The previous speaker, not the gentlewoman from Florida but the 
distinguished ranking member from New York, when speaking commented as 
to the site that could be viewed by one who was interested, and he said 
it was waysandmeans.house.com. I have been instructed that it was 
waysandmeans.house.gov. It is kind of catching up here, sort of like 
Vice President Cheney. You know, we can make those mistakes sometimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if you had a leaky faucet and your plumber told you it 
was going to cost $150 to fix the leak, you would not go out and put a 
$100,000 second mortgage on your house. That is what this bill does. We 
had a $4 billion problem, a very real and serious problem with respect 
to trade with our European allies and trading partners. What we now 
have to fix that $4 billion problem is a $140 billion raid on the 
Treasury.
  I know we are going to be told that this bill is paid for. That is an 
incredible fiction, it is a delusion, because most of the way this bill 
is paid for is to assume that the tax breaks that are enacted in this 
bill will be repealed in a couple of years when they expire. You could 
make a fair amount of money if gambling were legal betting that that 
would not happen and it will not happen.
  It is bad enough that we are going to reach into the Social Security 
trust fund again and we are going to reach out to foreign creditors 
again to borrow the money for these tax breaks; but when you look at 
what they are for and what they are not for, the bill becomes even more 
odious. What they are for in large part, $42 billion worth of tax 
breaks for American firms to support their overseas operations.

[[Page H8709]]

  I want to repeat that. At a time when virtually everyone except 
apparently the Secretary of Labor thinks that the outsourcing of jobs 
is a major problem in this country, this bill is going to borrow $42 
billion to reward American companies for creating jobs outside of the 
United States of America. That is pretty bad. What makes it even worse 
is the choice that this bill makes not to do as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts talked about a few minutes ago. There was an effort in 
this bill to provide tax relief for employers who voluntarily pay full 
salaries to members of the National Guard and the Reserve serving in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. So an employer who voluntarily says that he or 
she is going to keep paying a Guardsmember or a Reservist while he or 
she is overseas was going to get some help. That was taken out of the 
bill. What was left in was the tax breaks for the sonar detection of 
fish.
  I have a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the sonar detector would very 
clearly detect a fish here. It is a rotten fish. It does not smell very 
good at all. This is a bill that borrows money for the wrong reason. 
The rule should be amended so we could fix these problems in the bill. 
I oppose the rule and would urge my colleagues on both sides to do so.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I listened here, and I have just got to remind people that it is very 
clear this resolution is revenue-neutral, so it is not going to impact 
the deficit. Second, I listened to my colleague from New Jersey as he 
talked about jobs overseas and everybody getting a benefit, and I have 
just got to remind, again for the record, although we put it on in the 
previous rule, that nothing in this bill moves jobs overseas. More tax 
relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. 
operations. The deduction is available for domestic production 
activities only. The deduction is limited to 50 percent of the wages 
paid to workers in America. Income attributable to outsourcing does not 
benefit. Overseas operations of multinationals does not benefit. New 
taxes are imposed on expatriated entities.
  The international tax reforms in the bill would not lead to the 
movement of jobs overseas, as many Democrats claim. In fact, these 
provisions would reduce double taxation on companies, thus encouraging 
them to keep their headquarters in the United States.
  This conference report has bipartisan support, including the minority 
leader of the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp), who is an expert on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying conference 
report, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
  This bill is urgently needed and long overdue. We must send this bill 
to the President as soon as possible. Each month that goes by means 
another tax increase on American manufacturers and another job being 
pushed overseas. Right now the World Trade Organization is slapping 12 
percent tariffs on dozens of American products. These tariffs are 
directly impacting the bottom line of my industries in my home State of 
Michigan like glass, agriculture, and paper. When a company's bottom 
line is hit, a family's bottom line is hit.
  The conference report underlying this rule will end the WTO sanctions 
and enact meaningful reform and simplification of a tax structure that 
has not seen change in decades. Not only will this legislation repeal 
the 12 percent tariffs, but it will give U.S.-based manufacturers a 3 
percent rate cut that will allow them to better compete with their 
foreign counterparts and give them the flexibility to start hiring 
again.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the United States has the second 
highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. While Ireland 
is at 12.5 percent, Korea at 29.7, Britain at 30 percent, the United 
States businesses are saddled with a 35 percent tax rate. We lead the 
world in terms of productivity and efficiency, but we need to begin to 
erase the serious disadvantages the tax code places on American 
companies. Our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone, but 
it is time we stop asking them to do it with one hand tied behind their 
backs.
  Mr. Speaker, these tariffs are punishing our small businesses and 
manufacturers. We need to end the sanctions immediately. This bill is 
about helping American farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, 
and relieving the United States from its dependence on foreign sources 
of oil.
  I urge support for the rule and support for the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a new report indicates that 275 giant, 
multinational corporations have been paying taxes over the last 3 years 
at an effective rate which is actually less than the marginal rate, for 
a family making $35,000 a year. Over this same period, eighty-two 
companies paid zero or they got a refund in federal income taxes in at 
least 1 of these 3 years. These giant, multinational corporations are 
paying less than an insurance agency on East 7th in Austin, Texas; they 
are paying less than a used car dealer on South 23rd Street in McAllen, 
Texas or a cafe on Cage in Pham, Texas. They are paying less than 
hardworking families across this country trying to make a go of it, but 
having to bear much more than their fair share of the Federal tax load.
  But as if that were not outrageous enough, tonight, this Congress is 
about to pour more largess on those same multinationals that are not 
paying their fair share.
  Let me give some specific examples. Exxon Mobil down in Texas: Exxon 
Mobil received $4.3 billion in corporate tax subsidies over the last 3 
years, yet they stand to share in something like ten times that much in 
this bill. About a third of the cost of this $140 billion corporate tax 
bonanza will reward companies like Exxon Mobil for moving more jobs 
overseas.
  Of course, they are a key part of the lobbying coalition that 
produced this bill. And at the top of the list of that lobbying 
coalition is General Electric. General Electric has done pretty well 
under the federal tax system. They have had profits of nearly $12 
billion over a 3-year period. In 2002, it paid zero federal income 
taxes. Instead, it got $33 million back in a refund check, a little 
bigger than that small business or that family with $35,000 a year is 
likely to get when their refund comes, if it does. But General Electric 
has added new meaning to their motto ``We bring good things to life.'' 
In this bill those ``good things'' are billions in tax breaks for GE--
the top recipient of tax benefits from this bill.
  One after another these multinationals are being rewarded in a bad 
corporate grab bag bill that is being pushed through here at the last 
minute. What is happening here gives new meaning to Leona Helmsley's 
infamous comment that ``only little people pay taxes.'' The ``little 
people'' of America are the ones being left to pay the taxes when bills 
like this are passed that allow those at the top to dodge their fair 
share of taxes.
  In addition, these same corporations will use the benefits that they 
get out of this bill to just export more jobs overseas. There are 24 
separate provisions in this bill that deal with offshore operations by 
multinationals.
  We have, therefore, a bill that is tragic in both its gross size and 
in its encouraging even more jobs to be shipped abroad. It outrageously 
shifts yet more of the tax burden for our national security and our 
homeland security to the small businesses across America that are the 
focus for growth in our economy and to the working families of America 
that cannot hire a bevy of lobbyists and a fleet of limousines to come 
to Washington and do the things that are necessary to get the kind of 
special treatment that is being rewarded here tonight.
  And there is another great example. The $10 billion ``buyout'', as 
they call it, of tobacco farmers. Yes, it is a buyout that does not buy 
them out of anything, since they can keep producing just as much poison 
as they were before they were bailed out, which is what this bill 
really represents. The true effect of the bill is to reward big tobacco 
with cheaper tobacco with which to entice and addict even more of our 
children.

[[Page H8710]]

  With one horrible giveaway provision after another, this bill must be 
flavored before it can be swallowed. For the folks in Texas and several 
other States that flavoring is a short 2 years in which they can deduct 
their sales taxes. I am all for that; I have voted to make such 
deductibility permanent. But when somebody is putting a dollar in one's 
hand, you need to consider whether they are swiping the wallet out of 
your back pocket. And that is exactly what this bill does. It is a very 
very high price we are asked to pay for too modest of a benefit.
  Indeed, this is the very kind of bill that causes Americans to become 
cynical about the legislative process and to feel their government is 
failing them because tonight it certainly is.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not know about everyone, but I know that a number of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the fact that H.R. 4520 allows 
taxpayers, especially those in Nevada, Wyoming, the State of 
Washington, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, and Florida, to deduct their 
sales taxes is one that just brings about an opportunity for everyone 
no matter what their tax bracket is at. But let us not forget, while we 
kind of rant and rave about all the different aspects of domestic 
companies that will see taxes decrease, this thing is targeted right 
into middle America, whether it is on Main Street, USA, or in the 
fields of America or in those manufacturing plants of our communities, 
because this is about taking care of small business, our farmers, and 
small manufacturing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We will hear a lot of demagoguery tonight and some just downright 
nonsense, but this is a beautiful thing if we look at the bipartisan 
coalitions that came together to bring this about. And as a 
representative from the great State of Tennessee, we are very pleased 
that farmers and growers of tobacco can finally move on after suffering 
for so long with the inequities that they have and that we are one of 
those seven States where sales tax is where most of our revenue comes, 
but there has not been any deductibility for 18 years of sales tax; and 
yet we do not have an income tax, and our sales tax is almost 10 cents 
on the dollar.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who worked in a very fair 
manner with Members from both sides of the aisle. There was a lot of 
involvement here. And to the gentleman from upper east Tennessee (Mr. 
Jenkins) for really carrying this tobacco settlement through. The 
Senate spoke. The House spoke. We worked it out, and frankly, the 
tobacco companies now have to step up and put the money up to do this 
so that the growers and farmers are not penalized anymore in the 
tobacco business.
  But this sales tax equity is a beautiful thing. Politics is the art 
of the possible, and I am encouraged tonight that, even though it is 
near the end, there is almost an election here, people from both sides 
have worked together.
  I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for carrying his 
sales tax issue and bringing a coalition today. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady) was the champion. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), our majority leader, really helped us bring this about. And it 
is right for all of the people of this country because it really 
affects all 50 States, not just the seven States that have sales tax, 
because every State has the option of taking the income tax deduction 
or the sales tax deduction. This is good for America; $635 million of 
economic impact on the tobacco settlement alone for my State. That is 
important.
  We need to support the rule and pass the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned it is 
almost an election year. Judging from all the special goodies that are 
in this bill, it is an election year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, please do not listen 
to this speech unless they are from California.
  As Californians, we, of course, care that this bill will hurt America 
because it encourages the export of jobs and increases the federal 
deficit. But we care perhaps even more that it is the most anti-
California tax bill in history. If one is from Texas and they pay sales 
tax, they can deduct that under this bill. But if they are from 
California, they pay a higher rate of sales tax, and under this bill, 
they get no deduction.
  The bill contains some loophole plugs for corporations doing funny 
things overseas, but then it provides exemptions for four specific 
corporations, four Houston-based corporations.
  Our kids are dying from tobacco. This bill contains $10 billion for 
tobacco farmers, and of course, not one penny of that is going to a 
Californian. But what we were supposed to get out of it is FDA 
regulation of tobacco to save some of our kids. Well, they stripped 
that out of the bill so the FDA will have no power to regulate tobacco, 
just $10 billion goes to the tobacco farmers.
  This is an export promotion bill, or so it claims. California is the 
number one export State. The entertainment industry, based in our 
State, is the number one export industry. Surely, there must be 
something in it for California. And indeed, there is: $1 billion and 
more of tax increases on America's number one export industry, the 
entertainment industry. Why is that? Are the authors anti-California? 
Perhaps more, they are anti-Democrat. The Motion Picture Association 
hired a Democrat, Dan Glickman. In doing so, they failed to abide by 
the pay-to-play corrupt rules of tax lobbying. So this is a corrupt 
anti-California tax bill.
  I invite my fellow Californians, 20 of them from the Republican side 
of the aisle, to come on down and vote for this bill and then go to the 
Republican club and root for the Cardinals against the Dodgers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I need to help the gentleman from California understand, particularly 
for his State, as I understand this legislation, it is designed for 
States like California and New York that have income tax, that they can 
deduct either the sales tax or the income tax, depending on how the 
taxpayer may choose which one they want to make for the deduction.

                              {time}  1945

  The States that I previously read that do not have an income tax, it 
allows them to use a sales tax deduction as an opportunity to 
participate. So let us not lose sight that the taxpayer has an 
individual option. So I believe that, helping the gentleman who was the 
previous speaker from California understand that, it is a more correct 
provision of what we outlined.
  I also want to remind my colleagues that I believe, as he talked 
about giveaways and some of the other things, the motion picture 
industry, which hales greatly from his State and much less from our's, 
to the dissatisfaction of my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) and me, is the fact there are three tax provisions inside this 
bill that assist the motion picture industry. If he considers those 
assistance, I do not find how he can take some of the other parts for 
corporations and call them giveaways. Each would look at what those 
provisions might mean in their respective categories.
  Let us not lose sight that this goes right after taking care of 
middle-class America, with helping our small businesses, helping our 
farmers, helping our small manufacturers, and making sure it all is 
accountable to domestic production and opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report for 
H.R. 4520, the so-called American Jobs Creation Act.

[[Page H8711]]

  There has been a lot said here tonight, but if I could simply point 
out three numbers: One, this was intended to fix a $4 billion problem, 
a real problem of tariffs that were going to be asserted against us by 
the EU because of violations or noncompliance with international trade 
agreements. But instead of fixing a $4 billion problem, we now have a 
bill before this body that costs $140 billion, $42 billion of which go 
to special interests.
  Mr. Speaker, this country really does need a true jobs bill, but this 
is a snow job bill. This is what we would call in my neighborhood a 
snow job bill. I cannot believe some of the people getting up on this 
floor tonight with a straight face and saying that this is good for 
America. That is truly unbelievable.
  Politics is the art of the possible, but tonight it is politics is 
the art of the unbelievable. It is simply unbelievable, what I am 
hearing tonight.
  Some politicians in Washington claim things are getting better here, 
but we have got to really ask ourselves, are they really? Just this 
past August, we had 8 million people unemployed in this country, 40 
million people without health insurance, and we have a bunch of 
companies in this country being convinced to ship their jobs overseas.
  While the conference report before us calls itself a ``jobs act,'' in 
reality it does little to address the unemployment numbers in this 
country. Instead, we have 276 separate tax breaks for corporations who 
are being actively encouraged and being encouraged by our Tax Code to 
ship American jobs overseas. That is the truth. And even worse than 
that, the conference report strips out language that would have 
provided incentives to companies for keeping jobs here in the United 
States. That is the truth. And beyond that, the conference report 
strips the Harkin amendment, which would have restored overtime pay 
rights for 6 million Americans. That should have happened in this bill. 
It has been stripped out.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I read this in the Record so many times I can almost do 
it from memory, but I cannot allow the beating up of this legislation 
with misnomers or false or inaccurate viewpoints in the debate.
  This bill does nothing to move jobs overseas. Nothing in this bill 
moves jobs overseas. I want to remind my colleagues that more tax 
relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. 
operations. The deduction is available for domestic production 
activities only. The deduction is limited to 50 percent of the wages 
paid to workers in America. The income attributable to outsourcing does 
not benefit. Overseas operations of multinationals does not benefit. 
New taxes are imposed on expatriated entities.
  The international tax reforms in the bill would not lead to movement 
of jobs overseas, as many Democrats claim. In fact, these provisions 
would reduce double taxation on companies, thus encouraging them to 
keep their headquarters in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a provision tucked into this bill 
that has not gotten a lot of attention, but it should grab the 
attention of anyone who cares about fair treatment of the American 
taxpayer.
  I just take you back to 1998 when, in response to concerns about 
overly aggressive IRS collection tactics against individual taxpayers, 
this Congress, the House and the Senate, passed the IRS Restructuring 
and Reform Act. That act specifically prevented IRS agents and their 
supervisors from being evaluated or rewarded based on the amount of tax 
revenues they collect.
  The reason for that was pretty simple and straightforward. We wanted 
to make sure that those agents treat taxpayers fairly and objectively. 
We wanted to make sure they did not have a personal stake, financial 
stake, in how much they collected and the outcome of disputes with 
taxpayers. We did not want to turn them into bounty hunters.
  Well, take a look at this bill. This bill has a provision that will 
authorize private contractors and private debt collectors to go out and 
collect the tax revenues of taxpayers and get a commission on it. They 
get to pocket that tax money, and they get a commission based on how 
much they collect from the taxpayer, and that is money that goes into 
their pockets, not into the public Treasury to spend on the public 
good.
  I do not think anybody in this body focused on this issue on either 
side of the aisle. I think it is going to be tough to go back home and 
explain how you unleashed these private debts collectors on the 
American taxpayer.
  I will say, when the Treasury appropriations bill was on this floor 
just a few weeks ago, by a voice vote, this body said, we cannot spend 
money for the purpose of private debt collection. The body was right 
then, we were right back in 1998 when we passed the IRS Restructuring 
Act, and it is a mistake to reverse that policy and unleash private 
debt collectors on taxpayers and let them pocket the money, rather than 
have those funds go into the public Treasury for the public good.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we close, if you vote against H.R. 4520, you are 
voting against exporters, small businesses, farmers, domestic 
manufacturers, States without an income tax and for ending tobacco 
quotas.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to create jobs. Our domestic companies 
currently face countless disincentives to job creation, including 
onerous taxes, over-regulation, high energy costs, frivolous litigation 
and spiraling health care costs. For manufacturers and small businesses 
and farmers that are the entrepreneurial backbone of this country, 
these obstacles diminish their ability to compete in the international 
arena.
  We need to level the playing field. The underlying bill brings us 
closer than ever before to the equitable and competitive global 
marketplace that can propel our domestic industries into the 21st 
century.
  Free markets and free enterprise are direct outgrowth of the freedoms 
that we hold dear. I urge my colleagues to embrace this spirit by 
supporting the rule and the underlying conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, I and move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 830, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our 
manufacturing, service and high-technology businesses and workers more 
competitive and productive both at home and abroad, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 830, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
earlier today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy has experienced robust growth in the 
past 12 months, and it can be largely attributed to the tax relief this 
Congress provided the American people in 2001, 2020 and 2003.
  Today, we are considering H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act 
of 2004. We believe it will encourage further economic expansion and 
job creation by relieving sanctions and providing tax relief to 
America's job creators.

[[Page H8712]]

  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy has experienced robust growth in the 
past 12 months--which can be largely attributed to the tax relief this 
Congress provided to the American people in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Today 
we are considering H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, 
that will encourage further economic expansion and job creation by 
relieving sanctions providing tax relief to America's job creators.
  Right now 12 percent sanctions are being levied on thousands of 
American products--like agriculture, steel and timber--because the 
World Trade Organization ruled that the FSC/ETI export subsidy is 
noncompliant. These sanctions are making U.S. products more expensive 
in overseas markets, which hurts America's competitiveness in the 
worldwide economy. H.R. 4520 will repeal the offending provision, 
bringing our tax code into compliance, thereby ending sanctions.
  Repealing that provision without providing equivalent relief will 
amount to a tax increase on American businesses. To encourage further 
growth in the U.S. economy, the American Jobs Creation Act will provide 
tax relief to American manufacturers--including corporations, S 
corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships. These American 
businesses will save nearly 10 percent on their income tax bills for 
manufacturing activities here at home.
  Meanwhile, the international portions of our Tax Code are 
antiquated--they have not been updated in four decades. To help provide 
U.S.-based businesses with a more level playing field when competiting 
against their worldwide counterparts, this legislation reduces double 
taxation and simplifies our complex international tax law.
  The WTO ruling forced us to update our tax laws but also provided the 
opportunity to improve the tax code to encourage business growth; to 
close abusive loopholes; to update our antiquated international tax law 
for the first time in 40 years; and to make all of these structural 
improvements without increasing the deficit.
  This conference report rightly enjoyed strong bipartisan support from 
conferees and I urge Members of the House to vote for H.R. 4520, the 
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, well, we have been denied the opportunity, at least the 
Members, to actually see what is in these 600 pages of statute and 
another 600 pages to explain what they mean. But, once again, I would 
ask Americans to go to waysandmeans.house.gov, because if the Members 
do not know everything that is in this bill, then maybe their lawyers 
would be able to tell them, because if this is what simplification is 
all about, we are going to have a pretty rough time filling out our 
taxes
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the outstanding minority whip, to share his views on this 
complex piece of legislation. I have been advised he has been at this 
website all evening studying the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I 
am not sure who he is getting advice from, but I rise in opposition to 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I agree that we must address 
the underlying problems with our international tax rules. We should 
have done that over a year ago. As a result of not doing so, as a 
result of simply delaying until we could get enough special interest 
provisions in this bill to get a majority for it, we have cost American 
manufacturers and exporters millions and millions of dollars.
  But I must voice my opposition to the conference report, a product 
that has not improved with age. In fact, as it has been drawn out over 
time, it gets further and further away from the problem it was supposed 
to address.
  There are more narrowly-crafted tax breaks in the conference report 
than when it left the House in June. There are fewer incentives to keep 
jobs in this country and just as many incentives that will continue to 
move jobs overseas, no matter how often they say that is not the case. 
Read the bill.
  On the whole, the balance of this measure has absolutely nothing to 
do with fixing international tax rules, and were it not for some 
extraneous provisions that are vital in several States, I doubt that we 
would be debating this conference report now, because it would have 
never passed the House in the first place. Period.
  So, once again, after a decade of rhetoric on tax reform and 
increased calls by leaders of the other side of the aisle for action on 
tax simplification, a product has been brought before this House that 
only serves to complicate and carve up the Tax Code even more. As a 
matter of fact, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows, in 
40 months, we have expanded the Tax Code and regulations by over 30 
percent. My, my, my.
  That is why, of course, Joe Scarborough said when informed that he 
campaigned on the basis of tax simplification, he shrugged his 
shoulders and said, ``We lied.'' That is what Joe Scarborough said.
  U.S. Treasury Secretary Snow, U.S. Treasury Secretary Snow agrees, 
indicating earlier this week that its content ``went far beyond the 
bill's core objective,'' which was to resolve a $4 billion trade 
dispute with the European Union.

                              {time}  2000

  At a time of record job loss, especially in the manufacturing sector, 
Republican leaders rejected a bipartisan solution that could have 
passed well over a year ago, at far less cost to the country and 
without the delaying tactics that allowed 1 percent tariffs on our 
exports.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has expired.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland, but I want to advise the gentleman that when he suggests 
that we read the bill, that the bill has not been distributed to the 
Members.
  Mr. HOYER. Then that advice cannot be followed.
  To date, Mr. Speaker, business across this country have been harmed 
to the tune of nearly $187 million, because the majority did not pass 
this bill last year, as they should have. After having ignored fiscal 
discipline for the last 43 months, the majority has miraculously 
rediscovered the principle of revenue neutrality, but are using 
gimmicks, phase-outs, and controversial revenue-raisers that punish 
working families, small business taxpayers, and charitable 
organizations to do so.
  True, hidden among the largesse are a few deserving provisions. I 
would like to support those. But I cannot support this bill, which 
continues the path of extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility, which took 
us from a $5.6 trillion surplus told that we had by George Bush back in 
March of 2001, to the time now when we have a $3 trillion deficit 
confronting the children and grandchildren of this country. How sad the 
performance. How ill-timed and ill-conceived this legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Maryland has, in 
essence, kicked off the debate, because he indicated that since we did 
not operate on his timetable, that there is a 12 percent assessment 
imposed as sanctions, and basically shamed us for not moving sooner. If 
my colleagues did not pay attention to what he said during the 
remainder of his speech, what he said was, if it was up to him, the 
sanctions would stay in place, because he is going to vote no on this 
conference report, which means the sanctions would go up to 17 percent, 
which means all of the burdens that he described would be even greater. 
He wants it both ways. He wants to criticize for not moving, but he 
does not want to help to solve the problem.
  I am pleased that in the conference, there were a lot of people who 
wanted to help, especially on the Senate side. There were 23 Senators; 
17 of them voted to support the conference report. Six of them were 
Democrats. Three-quarters of the Senate conferees support this measure, 
a majority of the gentleman's own party in the Senate.
  On the House side, of the 17 conferees, two-thirds of them supported 
the conference report. So an overwhelming majority of the conferees 
urge a yes. The gentleman from Maryland lambasts Republicans for not 
getting it done, but will not help solve the problem. That, I think, is 
a theme we are going to hear repeated over and over again on the other 
side: you folks did not do it right, but we are certainly not going to 
help. What a message.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on

[[Page H8713]]

Trade, and let me say that without his yeoman work, we would not be 
here today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of the American Jobs 
Creation Act. This important legislation will end EU sanctions against 
our exporters, which is harming U.S. workers while delivering much-
needed tax relief to America's job creators.
  In April 2003, with U.S. exporters facing EU sanctions, I introduced 
bipartisan legislation that repealed WTO illegal provisions in our Tax 
Code, while simultaneously lowering the corporate tax rate for domestic 
manufacturing from 35 percent to 32 percent. My goal was simple: to 
make sure that U.S. manufacturers can compete on a level playing field 
with our foreign competitors.
  H.R. 4520 includes my legislation, which means that every U.S. 
manufacturer will see their taxes reduced by 3 points. That means more 
jobs here at home, and at great Illinois companies like Boeing, 
Caterpillar, Abbott Labs, Motorola, Baxter, and Brunswick.
  In addition, this legislation contains a number of provisions I have 
long worked on passing that are very important to my home State of 
Illinois. For instance, hundreds of small businesses in my district 
will be able to take advantage of provisions I have authored to allow 
them to deduct up to $100 for the cost of new equipment every year. The 
life insurance industry, including Allstate, which employs some 3,500 
of my constituents, will benefit from the repeal of policyholder 
surplus accounts; and Lake County Partners, which helps businesses 
transform opportunities into success, will benefit from a provision I 
have championed allowing States to expand their small issue bond 
programs.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) 
for working with me to include these very important provisions in the 
legislation that he has presented before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, we certainly have traveled a long road in bringing this 
legislation to the floor, and I am glad to be here today in support of 
a great bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the American Jobs 
Creation Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member, a senior member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we needed to replace FSC, and the chairman 
knows that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) and I introduced a bill over a year ago. It was before it was 
loaded up by this House with bills that have nothing to do with this 
issue. And I read from the letter of Secretary Snow of October 4: 
``Both the House and Senate-passed bills include a myriad of special 
interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the 
complexity of the Tax Code.'' That is his letter: special interest tax 
provisions.
  We have heard laudatory comments about major provisions, the small 
business expensing, the ethanol excise tax credit, that is agriculture; 
the State and local sales tax. I want to ask any Republican who signed 
the conference report, because these three provisions are sunsetted, 
will you come to the well and tell the people of this country that you 
will let the sunset occur. You will not do that.
  What is really happening here is that these provisions are sunsetted 
in order to bring down the cost of this bill. In a real sense, it is 
not revenue-neutral. Do not say it. Those three provisions alone, $35 
billion, $5.9 billion, $25 billion, that is $66 billion more are sure 
to continue. You laud them; you should have included the cost.
  Let me say a word about another way that you brought down the cost, 
and that is you deferred the effectiveness of several of these 
provisions, including the interest allocation and the basket 
provisions. The effect of deferring them is that companies will keep 
their profits overseas longer, not bring them back home in order to 
gain the benefit of those tax provisions. In that respect as well as 
others, you are creating incentives for companies to invest overseas 
instead of the United States of America. This is a form of outsourcing.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) said that there are 
proportionately more monies here for U.S. producers. That is not true. 
The provision of proportionality was stricken from the Senate bill.
  Also, when you put together the benefit under the so-called 
manufacturing provision, $27 billion versus $42 billion for overseas 
activities, even if that is what you mean by proportionality, there is 
an incentive here for operations overseas. In a real sense, not only 
special interest wins, so does outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to go back and do this right.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes and 15 
seconds to a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) might respond to a colloquy. I specifically have a 
question about how to interpret one of the rules contained in section 
422 of the conference agreement.
  Would the chairman please clarify what the rule that disallows 
deductions for expenses ``properly allocated and apportioned to the 
deductible portion'' of the dividend is intended to cover?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
his question.
  The rule and the Statement of Managers upon closer examination, we 
believe, contain some ambiguity as to which deductions are disallowed. 
The intent of the rule is to disallow only deductions for expenses that 
relate directly to generating the dividend income in question.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a conference report today that repeals 
the FSC/ETI regime and, while doing so, boldly strengthens our 
manufacturing sector. Passing this conference report will fulfill our 
duty to end the punitive job-killing tariffs that are being levied 
against American products.
  Manufacturers in my home State of Pennsylvania are being hard-hit by 
the tariffs, and that is why ending the tariffs has been a top priority 
for many of us. The repeal of the export regime also provides us with 
an opportunity to enact pro-growth, pro-manufacturing policies, 
resulting in new and higher-paying jobs across the United States. This 
bill acts on that opportunity and significantly reduces the tax burden 
on manufacturers in the United States and begins to address the 
uncompetitive tax system U.S. employers are faced with.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to draw attention to one particular 
job-creating provision in this bill, which mirrors legislation I 
introduced and will lead to in-sourcing. This provision, known as the 
Homeland Investment Act, is one of the strongest stimulus proposals 
brought before Congress in recent years, and I think it is going to 
have a huge impact. It temporarily reduces the tax rate on foreign 
earnings of U.S. companies, when that money is brought back to the 
United States for investment here at home.
  The billions of dollars that will be brought back will be used by 
American employers to hire new workers, invest in top-of-the-line 
equipment, and build new plants right here at home, instead of in the 
countries where their earnings are currently stranded. This is critical 
legislation to rebuild our manufacturing base.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader 
who has been a credit to our country and to this Congress.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for his great leadership on issues of importance 
to middle income Americans. The gentleman tried very hard to correct 
this problem in a way that would not decrease the deficit and would 
increase jobs in America but, unfortunately, that approach was 
rejected. I wish that we had a chance to vote on it today.

[[Page H8714]]

  Mr. Speaker, in commending the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
for his excellent work on so many issues emerging from this committee, 
I deeply regret that we would not have the opportunity to take the 
approach he took, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) shared 
with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for a long time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the 
committee, gave the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) a dubious 
distinction by saying he did yeoman duties in bringing this bill to the 
floor, but this is a terrible bill for working families in America.

                              {time}  2015

  Please do not paint him with that brush. He really did try; but, 
unfortunately, he succumbed to the bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deeply flawed bill, and I 
thank the ranking member again for his steadfast leadership on behalf 
of our manufacturing sector.
  This conference report is yet another example of the stark 
differences between Republican and Democratic priorities. We are faced 
with a simple problem caused by your trade sanctions, but Republicans 
are using a $4 billion trade issue to pry open the door wide for 
special interests. This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full 
of pork for the special interest. This is not, just as the expression 
goes, this little piggie goes to market. This is the whole hog lot goes 
to the public trough. The oinking is so loud the Republicans cannot 
even think straight.
  If you listen closely you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear 
them?
  That may be why at every step of this process Republicans have 
consistently made decisions that are against the interests of middle-
income Americans.
  The difference between the parties is clear. In our New Partnership 
for America's Future, Democrats pledge to create new jobs here in 
America. But Republicans under this bill are exporting jobs overseas. 
For more on the subject, I will follow the lead of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) and say please visit HouseDemocrats.gov for more 
on the New Partnership for America's Future.
  Can you believe this? In the past 3 years nearly half a million jobs 
have been shipped overseas. But instead of working to stop this 
hemorrhaging, this Republican bill tonight has in it tax incentives to 
export American jobs. Think about it. You are a U.S. taxpayer in a job. 
They are using your tax dollars to export your job overseas. In fact, 
as businesses around the country are hit with 12 percent tariffs on 
more than 1,600 products, Republicans have been holding this bill 
hostage so they could include 24 extraneous provisions that will create 
jobs overseas rather than here at home.
  No, Mr. Speaker, our distinguished whip and I in criticizing this 
bill are not saying that the problem should not be corrected. We said 
it should be done right, not at the expense of middle-income Americans, 
not at the expense of increasing our deficit.
  This bill includes a whopping $42 billion in tax cuts for the foreign 
operations of U.S. multinationals. We all recognize the importance of 
multinationals to our economy, but we must face the facts. Many of 
those very same corporations pay no income tax whatsoever. Many of the 
multinational corporations getting tax breaks in this bill, pay no 
income tax whatsoever. And from 2001 to 2003, Federal corporate tax 
collections fell to their lowest sustained level in 6 decades, in 6 
decades.
  Democrats led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pursued a 
bipartisan bill that was tailored to create good-paying jobs in the 
U.S. without sacrificing our long-term fiscal health.
  The difference is clear. In our Partnership for America's Future, 
Democrats have made a commitment to fiscal responsibility and the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) pay-as-you-go. 
Republicans chose in this bill to spend as they please and then hide 
the true costs of their bill with expensive gimmicks. A convoluted 
combination of phase-in, sunset dates, changes in scoring rules mask 
the true cost of the bill and how it will constrict our choices in the 
future.
  This conference report is being touted as revenue neutral. But, in 
fact, it will cost nearly $80 billion over the next decade. The 
difference is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, 
Democrats put forth an agenda to support manufacturers and small 
businesses. In this bill, Republicans choose to give handouts to 
special interests. Please again visit us on HouseDemocrats.gov.
  Our manufacturing sector is struggling to stay competitive in global 
markets. The erosion of our manufacturing base is cause for serious 
concern in our country, but not in the Republican Party. Under the Bush 
administration, we have lost nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. 
Despite this depressing fact, this conference report stripped language 
that would have given bigger tax cuts to companies that manufacture 
more of their goods in the U.S.
  That was one of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rangel) 
provisions. They stripped from the bill a provision that would have 
given tax incentives to companies that manufacture more of their goods 
in the United States. The conference report also has broadly expanded 
the definition of manufacturing to include activities wholly unrelated 
to the manufacturing of goods and products.
  Now, listen to this: the bill is riddled with special interest 
giveaways including suspension of customs duties on ceiling fans and 
steam generators, tax deductions on bows and arrows, fishing tackle 
boxes and sonar devices, as well as tax incentives for other 
specialized industries. Even the Bush administration's Treasury 
Secretary has criticized the Republican FSC/ETI bill as including a 
myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers 
and increase the complexity of the Tax Code.
  How is that for an indictment? The choices that Republicans are 
making are clear, and it is clear that they are the wrong choices. The 
same Republicans who today will find enough money for their special 
interest giveaways have not found the funding to secure loose nuclear 
materials to protect the American people. They have shortchanged 
veterans health care by $1.3 billion. They have underfunded No Child 
Left Behind by about $9 billion every year, 9.4 billion this year; and 
they have broken their promises on Pell grants.
  They have defeated a $1,500 bonus for our brave men and women in 
uniform returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, 213 to 213. Every 
Republican who voted against that bonus is responsible for its defeat 
because it failed by one vote.
  I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and defeat this job-
exporting, budget-busting, special interest handout.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said ``they'' stripped from the bill. 
Well, who is they? How about six of the 10 Democrat Senators who were 
on the conference. The Democrats who were on the conference were the 
minority leader, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  A majority of those Democrats support, signed a conference, and 
agreed with what we did. It seems to me that when the minority leader 
on this side describes ``they,'' the world should know who ``they'' is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for yielding me time.
  I too listened with great interest to the remarks of the minority 
leader who preceded me here in the well. Mr. Speaker, I think she 
offers ample evidence as to why she will remain the minority leader in 
this body unless she is involuntarily returned to the private sector 
where perhaps she can take up a career in writing more fiction. 
Although I would offer some friendly advice: it is probably not good to 
try to rewrite the Orwellian tale of ``Animal Farm,'' but the valid 
theme rings true

[[Page H8715]]

here as borne out by my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) the minority leader.
  I guess in her mind some animals are more equal than others. Rather 
than an imaginary sound of a porcine species, perhaps if we listen 
closely, we hear the braying of the typical tired, shopworn refrain. 
The notion that somehow the highest and best use of the people's money 
is to be captured in the coffers of the government to offer this type 
of job growth. Job growth for bureaucrats, money always in the coffers 
being overspent. Not really accountable to the people but that for some 
of our friends is the highest and best use of the money for the 
American people.
  And if there are businesses, be they small businesses, S 
corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, whatever category, 
why certainly they are part and parcel of some evil cabal of special 
interests. Certainly they exist only for greed and to rob the noble 
public treasury.
  That is one vision of the future that was endorsed in this well by 
the minority leader. But a bipartisan coalition and majorities in both 
Houses rises to say no to that thinking with this, the American Jobs 
Creation Act of 2004 eponymously named, Mr. Speaker, because by 
reducing taxes, yes, even on corporations, we create more jobs. That is 
the key. Support the legislation.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would advise all 
Members that, although it is not out of order to recite the content of 
the signature sheets by which the conference report was approved, 
parsing the votes of individual Senators, for example, by party 
affiliation or other characterization, goes beyond the factual 
descriptions permitted by the rule.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  That was exactly what I was about to say, Mr. Speaker. They are 
telling us what is going on in this conference with those other people 
over there. What you should be telling us if this bill is so exciting 
for working people in America, why did you not give it to the Members 
to look at?
  The distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, he may not have a bill. No 
one else got a bill except we conferees, and I am not up to the 1,100th 
page yet. So all of the exciting things that you are hearing about what 
they finally put in the bill, I hope people go to 
waysandmeans.house.gov because none of the Members except the conferees 
have the bill. I do not know why they do not have the bill. But I 
suspect there are things in here that we are going to speculate that is 
in here and they will refer us to the problem page, wherever they are 
holding that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal), a great friend and a great legislator and a senior member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I can, 
respond to the remarks that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
offered a moment ago.
  You would have thought he was Robin Hood here at the well. He talked 
about the tax relief that they are giving to the little guy. The tax 
relief that this Congress has given now in terms of four tax cuts has 
overwhelmingly gone to the people at the very top of the income scale 
in America. But we have an obligation to object not only to the actions 
but to the rhetoric that was offered a few moments ago.
  We are now fighting two wars with four tax cuts. The Republican Party 
says with a straight face that Social Security has got a problem, after 
they took $2.2 trillion out of the budget during the next 10 years. 
Have a $4.5 billion problem here with European Union and our other 
trading partners? Let us have a $140 billion solution.
  Do you know what that is the equivalent of? Using a machine gun to 
clean the wax out of our ears. That is how far-reaching this is.
  Now, just here 3 years ago the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) and a number of us were involved in what I thought was an 
entirely legitimate campaign to keep Stanley Works in America instead 
of reincorporating to Bermuda. Well, Stanley Works decided to stay in 
America. I was reminded of it the other night as I came through the 
airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. Stanley Works, New Britton, an 
American address.
  What does this legislation do to one of its competitors? You grant 
them a permanent grandfather clause so that they can stay in a foreign 
tax haven and not be assessed the same obligation that that company 
that we fought valiantly to keep in America, to keep an American 
address, is assessed.

                              {time}  2030

  My Dad used to have a great line when I was a child when he saw 
something that was outrageous. He used to simply say, At least Jesse 
James had enough honor to wear a mask.
  What we are seeing here tonight is another giveaway. They are pushing 
jobs offshore, and what do they wrap themselves in? Patriotism. This is 
all we hear from them is the line about patriotism, and then we witness 
the arguments and its aftermath and we know what it is going to be in 
terms of this argument some sense of justice?
  Well, the news media is going to go through this legislation over the 
course of the next couple of weeks because we all know tonight we would 
not have a chance to go through the legislation. Heaven forbid that the 
minority might have an opportunity to look it over, and then the media 
is going to pick it apart and they are going to look back and say, who 
was watching in the House?
  This is a bad piece of legislation. I close on the remarks I opened 
with, we are fighting two wars with four tax cuts.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire the time remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, a member of the conference 
committee, for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the ranking 
member of the House Committee on Agriculture, a member of the 
conference.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill provides financial assistance for producers in 
return for the termination of tobacco marketing quotas and related 
price support. For kinds of tobacco other than flue-cured and burley 
tobacco, the payments to producers will reflect ``the basic tobacco 
farm acreage allotment for the 2002 marketing year established by the 
Secretary for quota tobacco produced on the farm.''
  My understanding is that for this calculation, the Secretary will 
take into account nondisaster transfer of allotments that were made for 
the 2002 marketing year. Is that correct?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, yes, that is correct. 
For producer payments, such transfers for these crops will be taken 
into account as they are for the other tobaccos. The payments will be 
based on the actual amount available on the farm after those transfers.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the chairman for that clarification.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I also would 
like to thank the Chair and the members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means who worked with the Committee on Agriculture so diligently to 
finally accomplish something that has been badly needed for a long 
time, and that is, to buy out a bad program that has been working 
against America's tobacco farmers for a long period of time. I thank 
the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to thank both of the gentlemen, members of the 
conference committee, Republican and Democrat. Both of them voted for 
the conference report, and the Chair appreciates that.
  The Chair would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Florida and will consume as much time as is required.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H8716]]

  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means about the short line 
railroad incentives.
  The tax credits in H.R. 4520 will apply to expenditures for 
maintaining railroad tracks. Does this definition of qualified 
expenditures include signalization and grade crossing devices and 
protections?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I tell the gentleman it 
does and he is correct.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, the fact that we 
have a retaliatory tariff that has been imposed against us because of 
our sales corporation fix. We need to take care of that.
  The Foreign Sales Corporation Act has caused us a retaliatory tariff. 
The problem is, Mr. Speaker, we have an easy way to do it. There was a 
bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), bipartisan, that would have fixed 
it. It would have done it in a true revenue-neutral way.
  Instead, we have a bill that is going to cost tens of billions of 
dollars in unrelated provisions. Let me just mention one of those 
provisions.
  It would authorize private tax collection on a contingency fee to 
harass our taxpayers, giving these private collectors government 
immunity. We tried that before and it did not work. That is wrong. It 
should not be in this bill, and yet it is.
  When we take away the sunsets and all the other provisions, we really 
have $80 billion that is not funded in this legislation, adding to the 
deficit of this country.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is another provision that was left out of 
this bill. There was a tobacco buyout that was put in, even though we 
had no hearings in our committee on it or any hearings at all, but the 
other body at least had the good sense to subject the tobacco to the 
FDA, using taxpayer money. That seems to make sense, and yet the final 
report leaves that out.
  There are more people who die every year from tobacco than from 
alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders collectively. We had 
a chance to do something about that in this legislation. Instead, we 
are spending taxpayer money and not taking care of the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, there are numerous provisions unrelated that should be 
in this bill, and for those reasons I regret that I will not be able to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This conference report is in front of us tonight due to a number of 
Members doing yeoman's service. There is a provision in this bill that 
was alluded to by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture that is 
long overdue to be changed.
  This gentleman from California started his congressional career on 
the Committee on Agriculture, and I tried to do something about it at 
that time. This was an opportunity to do something to correct the 
record that is long overdue for correcting.
  The gentleman I am going to recognize to speak was one of the first 
to come to me to suggest that this might be an opportunity that we 
could take advantage of.
  I have to tell my colleagues that as far as a State-wide race in 
North Carolina, I have received only one phone call from those 
individuals. I have worked beside only one of those individuals for far 
more than a decade, and the provision of removing the tobacco buyout 
was placed in the House bill long before it was placed in the Senate 
bill.
  I can assure anyone that had we not been able to put it in the House 
bill, it would not have been in the Senate bill, and so for all of 
those people who are now going to receive a payment, the argument about 
how much they are going to get, whether or not it is greater than 
someone other's offer, is all moot.
  The fact of the matter is, tonight, we are finally going to end a 
depression-era government created program that is long overdue for 
repeal, and the primary gentleman that worked with me to make sure that 
it would be in there is my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Burr), a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the 
time.
  This is indeed a special night for many people across this country, 
farmers who have struggled over the last 5 years, who have made a 
livelihood on the farm, because of a commitment to the land, and 
throughout North Carolina and many other States, we see the benefits of 
their success in the schools and the churches because it is their 
generosity that built the communities that, in fact, they live in.
  Because of that program that we put them into decades ago, which has 
now served as a noose around their neck over the past 5 years, the 
Federal Government has cut their livelihood by 50 percent. I ask anyone 
in this body who were in business before they came here if they 
artificially got 50 percent of their revenue eliminated, would they be 
able to survive? The answer is likely they would not, and the fact is 
that our farmers are not.
  This piece of legislation that this body will pass tonight will 
probably enable 10,000 individuals in North Carolina alone not to file 
bankruptcy this year. It is inevitable that communities will exist 
tomorrow because we are willing to step up and to provide the necessary 
help that they need.
  Mr. Speaker, former Senator Helms once said that getting a tobacco 
buyout through the United States Congress would be one of the hardest 
legislative efforts ever undertaken. He was certainly right about that. 
Mr. Speaker, not only was it a long road, it was an uphill road. The 
obstacles were many, but they have been overcome tonight, and I believe 
tomorrow both bodies will have passed this legislation.
  I would like to take the time remaining to thank those individuals 
who helped so much: My colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Jenkins), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Lewis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), individuals that for over 10 months met to try 
to strategize on how we move a piece of legislation, not that that was 
the richest, but one that could be signed into law, the single most 
important objective. We are not the first to stand in this well and 
promise people back home that we can deliver, but we are the first to 
be able to deliver.
  I would also like to thank the staff members who put their long hours 
in and probably spent too much time with each other: Brenda Otterson, 
Jeff Hogg, Michael Higdon, Megan Spindel, Jerr Rosenbaum, Emily Howard 
and Chris Joyner.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas). He was truly a partner in this every step of the way. It is 
not often that we take an agricultural piece and we ask to put it on a 
tax bill, but let us face it. We needed a vehicle that could become 
law. I thank the Chairman for his willingness to work with us. I thank 
him for the informative response that we always had with the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and I praise him tonight for a great piece of 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. This 
legislation contains a number of critical provisions. It ends sanctions 
on our exports, and provides tax benefits for our Nation's 
manufacturing sector. It provides tax incentives for businesses, 
including much needed S-corp reform. It extends important electricity 
production and alternative fuel tax credits.
  But it also includes a long-overdue and desperately-needed provision 
that is near and

[[Page H8717]]

dear to my heart--and the hearts of countless farmers in my State and 
across the southeast: A tobacco quota buyout and repeal of the Federal 
tobacco program.
  It is hard to find an agriculture issue in my State that has taken on 
more passion--more emotion--than the tobacco buyout. My State's tobacco 
farmers--like their colleagues in other tobacco States--are trapped in 
the depression-era tobacco program. It is a program that promises 
little more than bankruptcy and foreclosure. It is a program that 
promises economic collapse for their communities. Today, at long last, 
we are taking action to restore some hope to our tobacco farmers and 
their communities.
  With the inclusion of the tobacco buyout and reform package, this 
Congress is extending a lifeline to rural communities that were built 
on tobacco, but have faced difficulties as tobacco use has declined. It 
is offering tobacco farmers a way out, and the assistance they need to 
transition to new crops. It is providing tobacco families with some 
certainty, and the promise of a better day ahead. It is restoring hope 
to those who thought that this city had forgotten them.

  The inclusion of the buyout in this legislation is the culmination of 
years worth of work. It has been a long road since Charlie Rose began 
his work on the issue in the early 1990s. It is a road that saw few 
travelers in the early years--but it is a well-traveled road now.
  So difficult has it been at times to see the end of the road that 
most people said it would be impossible to reach it--that we would 
never get to our destination. It was always just out of reach--just 
over the next hill. Over the years, the ``buyout'' took on an almost 
mythical status. It was talked about in feed stores and coffee shops in 
almost reverential tones, but people began to believe they would never 
see it in their lifetime.
  Former Senator Jesse Helms once said that getting a tobacco buyout 
through the United States Congress would be one of the hardest 
legislative efforts ever undertaken. He was certainly right about that, 
Mr. Speaker. Not only was the road long, it was uphill.
  The obstacles were many, but they have been overcome. I would like to 
take what time I have left to thank some of my fellow travelers on this 
long journey. We would not be here today if it were not for my 
colleagues Bill Jenkins, Mike McIntyre, Hal Rogers, Ron Lewis, Virgil 
Goode, and Jack Kingston. I would also like to thank their staff 
members, who put in long hours--and probably spent too much time with 
each other--over the last year: Brenda Otterson, Jeff Hogg, Michael 
Higdon, Megan Spindel, Jerr Rosenbaum, and Emily Howard.

  I would also like to thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for 
their hard work--and for recognizing the critical need for this buyout.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have reached our destination. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to join in thanking the chairman for expanding the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means so all of us could have 
a better understanding of these agricultural problems. Quite frankly, 
coming from New York, I never did understand the plight of farmers and 
tobacco farmers, and I do not know how far we are going to go in 
expanding this, but I am glad that we have a gentleman from outside of 
the committee to recognize and to praise the chairman, as I do.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise and yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) so we can further edify 
the Committee on Ways and Means about problems other committees of 
jurisdiction have.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
being kind enough, our distinguished ranking member, for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of North Carolina farm families and really a 
lot of farm families who grow tobacco across the southeast, I rise this 
evening to offer my support for this conference report on H.R. 4520.
  The $9.6 billion buyout this bill provides to tobacco growers and 
quota holders will stave off the economic disaster that my tobacco farm 
families currently face in my district.
  Since 1997, North Carolina farm families and really other tobacco 
families throughout the southeast have seen their income cut roughly in 
half. This December they faced the prospect of another 30 percent cut 
in quota, and that will mean a resulting income loss.
  But this evening, a new day dawns for the American tobacco farmer. 
Eliminating the current quota system will make American tobacco leaf, 
the finest in the world, more competitive on the world market.
  In addition, the buyout will give many debt-ridden tobacco growers a 
chance to either retire with some dignity, invest in production of a 
different crop or restructure their current tobacco production.
  Almost $4 billion will flow into rural North Carolina during the next 
10 years. Three-quarters of that billion will flow into my 
congressional district. This will have a tremendous transformative 
impact upon my mostly rural people.
  While North Carolina's tobacco growers and quota holders are grateful 
to get this level of assistance, we wish the conference committee would 
have accepted either of the two amendments offered that would have 
increased the funding for the buyout.
  I want to thank the Ways and Means chairman for honoring his pledge 
to keep the tobacco buyout in the bill. Four months ago, I told him, 
``Come back with your shield, or on it.'' He did bring his shield back. 
It is pretty beaten and battered, has a few holes, and has lost some of 
its original shine since it was given to him, but he brought it back, 
and North Carolina farmers are better off this evening.
  I will support the adoption of the conference report.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady), an important member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
who, I daresay, virtually single-handedly made sure that there was an 
additional item in this particular conference report for those States 
that do not have income tax.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans do not ship jobs overseas and neither do 
Democrats. Our own Tax Code does, though, and it is the responsibility 
of both parties. It is time to stop pointing fingers and start working 
together to save American jobs.
  That is what this bill does. It removes the job killers in our Tax 
Code. It is a common sense principle: Stop punishing those who build in 
America and lower the tax burden on those who manufacture and produce 
here, and have a higher rate if you build it overseas.
  This bill also restores sales tax fairness to the Tax Code, easing 
the burden on American families and giving a direct economic boost to 
Main Street. To States like mine, it means delivering $1 billion of tax 
relief to Texas families each year. Best of all, every taxpayer in 
America will have the option of choosing to deduct either their State 
and local income taxes or their sales taxes, whichever is highest.
  Thanks to the leadership of the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and with the key support of the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), we have reopened the door to 
sales tax fairness that has been locked shut for 18 years. Every 
legislator from a sales tax State should support this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
just note that I now get it. If you do not have enough votes to get a 
tax bill passed, reach out and get some farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McIntyre), to further explore the problems that have been resolved 
for our farmers.
  (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report for the American Jobs Creation Act. This carefully crafted and 
skillfully negotiated piece of legislation would end the unfair tariffs 
that have been targeted at textile, agriculture, high-tech and 
manufacturing industries.
  For thousands of families not only in my home State of North 
Carolina, but also from tobacco producing States from across the south, 
this legislation is monumental because it ends the Federal tobacco 
price support system and gets our farmers out from under a government 
mandate. The current Federal

[[Page H8718]]

tobacco price support system is the last depression-era farm program in 
America. Indeed, it is time to get out of the 1930s.
  This is not a bailout. It is a buyout. It is a buyout of a Federal 
property interest that dictates what a farmer can and cannot do with 
his own land. Indeed, with this, our farmers, everywhere, will be 
relieved from the possibility of facing yet another 30 percent cut in 
their income this coming winter for the new growing season next year, 
farmers who have already suffered a 50 percent cut in income in the 
last 5 years.
  I want to thank Members of both parties who have courageously stepped 
forward to pass this bill, and especially the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) for his commitment. Let us give our farmers a choice. Get 
the government off their backs and out of their pockets. Let us do what 
is right and stop the uncertainty that has existed for everyone: the 
farmers, our government, and the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report for 
H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act. This carefully crafted and 
skillfully negotiated piece of legislation would end the punitive 
tariffs that have been targeted at our Nation's textile, agriculture, 
high-tech, and manufacturing industries, and would replace those 
portions of our tax code found to be non-compliant in international law 
with provisions that will INSOURCE jobs to our Nation's economy. This 
must be done, and it must be done now!
  For thousands of families--not only in my home state of North 
Carolina, but also from tobacco-producing states across the South--this 
legislation is monumental because it ends the federal tobacco price 
support system, allows our farmers to compete in a free market system, 
and gets them out from under a government mandate.
  By including the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act with the 
American Jobs Creation Act, with which I had the privilege to coauthor 
with my friend from Tennessee, Rep. Bill Jenkins, we create trade 
opportunities for American farmers and prevent our farm jobs from going 
overseas.
  The current federal tobacco price support system is the last 
Depression-era farm program in America! It's time to get out of the 
1930s! Tobacco production has dramatically changed. Our federal tobacco 
policy, unfortunately, has remained the same: farmers producing tobacco 
in an overly-bureaucratic, government-controlled system which is unable 
to respond to market pressures and opportunities.
  This is not a bailout, it's a buyout--a buyout of a federal property 
interest that dictates what a farmer can and cannot do with his own 
land.
  Without this bill, tobacco farmers everywhere face the real 
possibility of a quota cut of over 30 percent next year under this 
antiquated price support system.
  When I introduced the first comprehensive tobacco buyout proposal two 
and one-half years ago, I said then what I say now, ``It's time for the 
uncertainty to end!''
  Although this bill before us is not perfect, it puts an end to the 
uncertainty that has plagued our farm communities for so many years. 
This bill is the right bill for our families, our farm communities, and 
our future.
  While the underlying Jobs bill will Create, Cultivate, and Conserve 
American jobs, the long-awaited tobacco reform will Replace lost jobs, 
Revitalize rural communities, and Restore the American farmer to a 
competitive role in the world marketplace.
  Instead of turning our backs on the families and rural communities 
across our Nation, we are on the cutting edge of ending discrimination 
against our farmers, and we are providing them with the tools to 
compete on the world market.
  So many people have worked so hard to get us to this momentous time. 
I thank the Members of both parties who courageously stepped forward to 
pass this buyout. I also thank Chairman Thomas for his commitment to 
helping our tobacco producing communities by including tobacco reform 
legislation in the FSC/ETA Conference Report.
  Let's give our farmers a choice! Get the government off their backs 
and out of their pockets. Do what's right, and stop the uncertainty for 
everyone--the farmer and his children, the government, and the American 
taxpayer. Support passage of this Conference Report!
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When there is a problem that is overdue for fixing, and has been for 
more than half a century, someone who argues process is the reason why 
we should not fix it, does not get it. Given the kind of problem that 
we have seen, it needs to be fixed. Tonight we are fixing it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means who helped us fix this more than half-a-century-old problem.
  (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to also applaud 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); and, Chairman Thomas, I 
think you not only came back with your shield, but for the Kentucky 
tobacco farmers and their families, I think you came back as a knight 
in shining armor.
  This is a fair and comprehensive final product that came out of the 
conference. And as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I 
recognize the importance of stimulating continued economic growth by 
enabling a fair and free market for U.S. companies with their 
competitors overseas. H.R. 4520 provides a comprehensive solution to 
ensure fair play, invigorating our economy by reducing taxes and 
creating new jobs.
  In addition to the important international provisions, the bill also 
includes a much-needed buyout for our tobacco farmers. Those of us who 
represent tobacco growing States have been working on a bipartisan 
basis for many years to end the depression-era price support system.
  Since the late 1990s, burley tobacco quotas have been cut in half, 
causing significant financial loss for family farmers who currently 
earn less than half the amount they could have earned only 5 years ago. 
A tobacco buyout is essential to protect their futures and to ensure 
the prosperity of many States and local economies, and Kentucky thanks 
you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
note that I am not saying this problem should not have been fixed, I 
just wondered whether it should have been in a tax bill. I am certain 
that those that want to see other problems that were fixed can go to 
WaysandMeans.House.gov and they will understand why we had to fix bows 
and arrows, and fishing tackle boxes, and foreign made seal fans, how 
we had to help native whaling tribes, how we had to help foreign horse 
racing and dog racing gambling, how we had to help pro sports team 
owners, how we had to shorten the depreciation period for car race 
tracks.
  This is really not admonishing, or, in any way, degradating the 
chairman, it is just we do not have the bill and we do not know what 
else is in there. So it is good to hear from Members that do know, 
because they know they promised to vote for the bill in order to get 
relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), whose taxpayers will be 
hurt seriously.
  (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4520 for 
the damage that it does to our EDC program and the loss of jobs in my 
territory.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a new but a very hardworking Member who is 
going to get us away from taxes and the complexity of the legislation 
and get back to tobacco.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a much-
needed and much-overdue tobacco quota buyout. I want to thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their tireless work on this important 
issue. The conference has worked very hard, and now we are coming to 
the end of a process that will recognize the commitment of tobacco 
farmers for so long.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 1,040 tobacco producers in my congressional 
district producing a crop of 35,147 acres of land. Every single one of 
these producers is in dire straits. They are cashing in their 
retirement to continue farming. They are mortgaging their houses to 
stay in business. They are going deeper and deeper into debt. A buyout 
is not a luxury payment, it is a desperately needed infusion into an 
economy that depends on a depression-era program that no longer works.

[[Page H8719]]

  Even farmers that would ordinarily be wealthy are instead being told 
by their bankers that their loan will have to be reevaluated in future 
years. Mr. Speaker, American farmers need a buyout.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
join with the gentleman in thanking the ranking member for his tireless 
work on the tobacco buyout as well.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a senior member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time and for this bill, and I rise in strong support 
of it.
  Let us remember why we are here. We are here because punitive tariffs 
are making U.S.-made products high priced. We are here because that 
reduces sales and endangers American jobs.
  Some say this bill will result in exporting jobs. Inaction will 
result in exporting jobs. This bill provides $77 billion in tax relief 
to every domestic manufacturer for work they do here at home. From the 
smallest S corporation or partnership to the largest C corporation, 
companies will be encouraged to produce more goods in the United States 
of America.
  Furthermore, it provides a new source of funding for cleaning up 
brownfields in our cities and encourages the growth of manufacturing in 
the small, medium-sized cities of America, so important to their 
economic revitalization.
  My colleagues, this is the best bill that has come on the floor of 
this House for American manufacturing in the 22 years I have been here, 
under Republicans or Democrats. Manufacturing is the foundation of our 
economy, and I consider this landmark legislation in laying the 
foundation for a competitive 21st century American economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his remarkable leadership in 
making passage of this legislation possible here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American Jobs Act. 
Critics fail to remember why we are here. We are here because punitive 
tariffs on U.S. made products are increasing their price, reducing 
sales, and endangering U.S. jobs.
  Every day we fail to comply with the WTO ruling American companies 
are losing market share in Europe. Tariff rates on some American goods 
stand at 12 percent and will rise to 17 percent. Our trade relationship 
with Europe includes $1 trillion worth of goods and services and we 
cannot compromise that many goods without forcing many Americans into 
unemployment. We have an obligation to protect the jobs of our 
constituents and strengthen our economy to meet the challenges of the 
21st century global economy.
  Our bill creates greater incentives for domestic manufacturing, helps 
small businesses by increasing the amount of money they can just write 
off for investing in equipment to improve their productivity or the 
quality of their product. It strengthens our competitiveness abroad by 
eliminating complex rules that hamper commerce.
  Some critics complain that this bill will result in exporting jobs. 
They are wrong. The truth is we need to support American multinationals 
or we will fail to have a U.S. economy that produces good paying jobs 
here at home.
  Literally millions of small firms depend on the successful 
performance of large companies abroad. The more business they win 
overseas, the more business they generate in the United States. It is 
that simple.
  Important international reforms are matched by a firm commitment to 
domestic manufacturers. As we all know, the manufacturing sector has 
suffered disproportionately since 9/11. Our bill provides nearly $77 
billion in tax relief to every domestic manufacturer for work they do 
here at home. From the smallest S corporation or partnership to the 
largest C corporation, companies will be encouraged to produce more in 
the United States.
  It should also be noted that we accomplished all of this without 
adding a single penny to the federal deficit. We were able to craft a 
revenue neutral package that clamps down on abusive tax shelters and 
corporate inversions.
  The dispute that brought us here has lingered for too long. We owe it 
to American businesses and consumers to complete our work and rid 
ourselves of punishing tariffs.
  I want to commend the chairman for remaining steadfast in his desire 
to get a bill passed and to the president's desk before we adjourn. I 
congratulate the Chairman on a bill that will help American 
manufacturers more than any bill ever passed by this body under 
Republicans or Democrats. Since manufacturing is the foundation of our 
economy, I consider this landmark legislation as laying the foundation 
for 21st century prosperity.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
do not have anyone left who wants to talk about tobacco, but I wish I 
had known the chairman would be this flexible. I had some draft 
legislation that I could have possibly gotten into the conference 
report, but I just did not know.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson), who would like to speak on a tax issue.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me this time. I do rise to support this bill, 
because I strongly support the sales tax deductibility provision of 
FSC-ETI that is supported by Texans and in the interest of all Texans.
  This Congress must stop the Tax Code from penalizing those who live 
in States without local or State income tax. The sales tax 
deductibility provision gives taxpayers in these States an option to 
deduct either their sales tax or income tax from their Federal income 
tax returns. This is a fair and straightforward way to restore equity 
to the Tax Code as it applies to some 55 million taxpayers across this 
country.
  Sales tax deductibility could keep $1 billion in Texans' pockets and 
save families roughly $300 a year. That is money that Texans need to 
provide for their seniors, to plan for our retirements, and to prepare 
for any unexpected emergencies.
  This provision has been supported by a bipartisan, bicameral group in 
Texas, its congressional delegation, and our State legislature, and I 
urge my colleagues to let this 108th Congress be the session to restore 
fairness to America's Tax Code by passing this bill and by passing this 
provision.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), an invaluable member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who also happens to be a 
member of the Texas delegation.
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) we have worked for 3 years on this legislation, 
and I want to thank and congratulate Chairman Thomas for making it a 
reality.
  This bill strikes the right tone in repeal and replacement of the 
FSC-ETI benefit. And while I have disagreed with the premise of 
changing how we tax Americans just to comply with the whims of some 
Frenchmen or Europeans, this bill will make American companies more 
competitive in the global market. Our businesses will be able to export 
more from the United States and will be more competitive in foreign 
lands.
  I am glad this bill will reinstate the sales tax deduction for Texans 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) was ensured to get in here. 
Residents of other States have been able to deduct their State's income 
taxes, but now residents of Texas and six other States can deduct sales 
tax, an important fairness issue for all constituents.
  I want to also thank Chairman Thomas and his staff for working with 
me on a number of other provisions to get these items perfected. Now 
that this bill is behind us, I look forward to working on fundamental 
tax reform next year, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have taken care of sales taxes and tobacco. I do not know whether 
we are taking care of the Treasury, though, because they had sent a 
terrible letter to us indicating that they thought that this bill had 
too much in the way of special interest tax provisions, which benefited 
few taxpayers and increased the complexity of the Tax Code.
  The President indicated he wanted to simplify the Code. We know the 
only major Republican bill we have in the House is the national retail 
sales tax. So maybe, once again, I can say that since the Members of 
the House have not had the opportunity to review this five-pound bill, 
that people can go to

[[Page H8720]]

WaysandMeans.House.gov and find out whatever else Santa Claus has 
brought in bringing us this gift package on the eve of an election.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman that I would be pleased 
to invite him to the bill signing ceremony so that he can see the 
President of the United States sign this bill into law.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures and was the foundation for 
building the overwhelming majority portion of this conference report, 
the tax provisions.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me to 
speak on this bill and also thank the chairman for his work in putting 
together this conference report and in putting together the coalition 
that will pass this bill on the floor of the House tonight and, I 
believe, in the other body tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of comments on this floor tonight 
about how this bill encourages companies to ship jobs overseas, to 
export jobs. First of all, who in his right mind would want to do that? 
Do you really think that any of us in this body wants to ship jobs 
overseas? Just think about it. Of course not. If you want to create 
jobs here in this country, if you want to preserve the jobs that are 
here in this country, if you want to make American companies more 
competitive, if you want to give them a better chance to compete in the 
international marketplace, then you should be voting for this bill 
tonight. That is what this bill is all about.
  That is what we spent so much time investigating, bringing in 
witnesses, listening to testimony and then crafting provisions that 
will help our American companies to create jobs here in the United 
States.
  Do some of the provisions help American companies with their overseas 
operations? Absolutely. That is what we want to do. We want our 
American companies to beat the French and the Germans and the Japanese 
in Europe and in Japan and in Asia. We want American investment there. 
We want American workers there. We want American profits there so they 
can bring those profits back here and invest them in research and 
development and invest them in infrastructure here and in retooling, 
modernizing their plant and equipment. That is what this bill is all 
about.
  Forget all the political rhetoric. Think about the work that has gone 
into this product. Think about what we are all here to do, Democrats 
and Republicans, to make this country a better place to live, give 
people a place to work, a good job. That is what this bill is about. We 
ought to pass it today, and I believe we will, thanks to the work of a 
lot of good people in this body on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You just cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want our 
American firms to be competitive in France and all over Europe and in 
Central and South America. If you give them incentives to be able to do 
this to compete, the jobs that they would have here, these firms in 
order to be successful have to have some workers. And we are not going 
to say that we are going to give passports to every American to find a 
job overseas. It is the multinationals that have to be governed by 
where the profits are, not where the patriotism is.
  So if you want to be competitive overseas, if you want them to be 
able to do the best vaccine in the world for flu, then you encourage 
them to do it overseas. But one day you will look around and you will 
see that all of this competition, we have taken our skilled labor jobs, 
things we used to be proud of, televisions, computers, cars, shoes, 
things that used to say ``Made in the USA.'' Now, if it is not made in 
the USA, I hope you are not going to give a passport or citizenship to 
those foreigners who are making it. I have nothing against the CEOs 
except I want it to be, not an equal playing field, I want to give 
every American manufacturer a fair advantage to have jobs here in the 
good old USA. I am sorry that there are other people that believe that 
these tax incentives are good for the United States when our jobs go 
overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a valuable member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, to perhaps offer another view on the 
position that the gentleman from New York just indicated.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Thomas for yielding me 
this time, and I thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for engaging in this debate 
because I think he put his finger on what this is all about tonight.
  What we are talking about is basically responding to the European 
Union's decision that we cannot continue to provide a subsidy to our 
exporters. That was the lemons. And then making lemonade out of it by 
saying, how are we going to help U.S. firms become more competitive, 
but not by using the FSC/ETI benefit that was found illegal.
  How are we doing that? In two ways. One the gentleman from New York 
just talked about: we are helping manufacturers. This is an area of our 
economy that is under great challenge for two reasons: one, higher 
productivity. We are using fewer workers to produce just as much and 
more so we are losing jobs in manufacturing. Second, international 
competition. In the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we lost 
over 300,000 manufacturing jobs. They are starting to come back. This 
year alone, we have gained over 100,000 manufacturing jobs as the 
economy is starting to pick up. But that is not good enough. We want to 
do more. We want to make sure that we have a strong manufacturing base 
in this country. That is why there is an effective 3 percent reduction 
in the corporate rate for manufacturers, big, medium, small, all 
manufacturers, very similar to the gentleman's legislation he 
introduced about a year ago.
  But, second, we do try to help those global companies. Why? Because, 
as the gentleman from Louisiana said, the global companies are out 
there competing in a marketplace where 95 percent of the consumers are 
outside of the United States. Ninety-five percent of them. Yet we have 
one-third of the world's economy here. If we are not out there 
competing with those French and German and Japanese and other 
companies, we are going to lose jobs right here.
  A great example is in my own district. Procter & Gamble has about 
14,000 jobs in greater Cincinnati. Forty percent of those jobs support 
international sales. That is where their expansion is right now. Those 
are the 95 percent of the consumers they have to access to keep jobs in 
my district. That is what this bill is about. And that is why I think 
it is so important that we pass it tonight on a bipartisan basis.
  I thank the chairman for taking the lemons which were handed to us by 
the World Trade Organization and by the Europeans who brought that 
case; and by mixing them together to create lemonade, it will truly 
help create jobs in this country and help us in terms of our 
international competitiveness. There is no more important issue, I 
believe, over the next few decades for us in terms of job creation than 
being sure we have a strong manufacturing base. That is in the 
legislation, partly because the gentleman from New York raised that 
issue over a year ago. And then, secondly, to be sure that our global 
companies that are out there competing day in and day out to keep U.S. 
jobs right here in America have the ability to access those consumers 
overseas. Without it, the standard of living of our kids and our 
grandkids will not be what we have had. That is why this legislation is 
good. I congratulate the chairman for his good work in getting it done.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Ohio, my friend and someone that has 
now brought us back to why we are here. From time to time people are 
talking about tobacco and sales tax and things like that; but as he 
pointed out, we are here to correct a $4 billion World Trade 
Organization problem that we had. If we had just taken away the

[[Page H8721]]

subsidy, guess what? We would have reduced the deficit by $70 billion. 
But we took a big different course, and so we are taking care of 
tobacco, and we are also taking care of a problem that some people have 
in their States where they do not have income taxes so they want to get 
equity. I have to learn how to do all of these things in case the 
original purpose of the bill does not have enough supporters and we 
want to make it bipartisan. We have to find Democrats who have real 
problems back home in other areas.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) who really first brought this problem to my 
attention, and I wanted to make certain that it got in this bill before 
the Committee on Agriculture took care of it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for 
yielding me this time, and I want to express my profound gratitude on 
behalf of our citizens because it was the gentleman from New York who 
first put sales tax deductibility in the Democratic package, and for 
that our citizens will be eternally grateful. I personally am honored 
and appreciate his support.
  I want to acknowledge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his 
leadership and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and also the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin). This has truly been a bipartisan 
effort. On our side of the aisle, Bob Clement, a former Member of 
Congress, also the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), have been 
leaders on this. And in the other body, Senators Patty Murray and Maria 
Cantwell who coauthored the bill along with Kay Bailey Hutchison.
  In essence, the issue here is about tax fairness. If people in States 
with income taxes can deduct their State taxes from their Federal 
return, why not allow people in States with sales taxes? I thank the 
chairman for including this, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay). This will save Washington State taxpayers $500 million a year; 
for an average family that itemizes, $300 to $500 every single year.
  It is all about fairness. It will bring valuable dollars to help pay 
for education, food, health care and other basics. And most importantly 
of all, I think it will go to the people who most need it. I want to 
thank again all those who participated in this and look forward to 
working in the future to make this a permanent extension and permanent 
restoration of sales tax deductibility.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from New 
York for maintaining his competitive edge, notwithstanding the fact 
that by my count now more than a majority of the people who have taken 
the well on his side of the aisle are supporting the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the real Member from Washington 
who actually made sure that the sales tax provision was in the bill.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, we are finally bringing to a close a dispute 
that has lasted not years, but decades. By repealing FSC/ETI, we will 
bring U.S. law into conformity with the rulings of the WTO and remove 
sanctions that are now hurting United States workers and companies. We 
have got to remove these sanctions, and we must do so without delay.
  We are doing a lot more in this legislation. The conference report 
provides a credit for domestic production activities, including 
software, which is enormously important to the high-tech industry in 
our State of Washington. It is a critical component that I worked hard 
on in the Committee on Ways and Means as our committee developed this 
proposal.
  In this bill, we also help millions of our constituents in 
Washington, Texas, Tennessee, and other States by restoring the 
deductibility of State sales taxes. But we would not be here without 
the tireless efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). I commend their leadership 
on this issue.
  The legislation also includes relief for reforestation costs to help 
keep U.S. workers competitive with global and foreign industry. This is 
a critical reform for the thousands of people that I represent who work 
in the timber industry.
  There is a long list of important reforms in this conference report, 
Mr. Speaker. It provides transition relief for current users of FSC. It 
clarifies the safe harbor provision for timber REITs. It will make 
U.S.-based mutual funds more competitive by suspending the withholding 
tax for foreign-based investors. And it goes a long way toward updating 
U.S. tax law and how we treat United States-based companies that 
operate overseas.
  If we hope to continue to attract capital and keep our companies and 
workers competitive, we must adopt these reforms. The product before us 
today is the result of years of negotiations between members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, among members of both parties, between the 
House and the Senate, between the White House and the Congress.
  Nothing this complex and far-reaching is going to please everybody, 
but it is far too important a bill with too many critical reforms for 
this Chamber to reject.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this excellent 
bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to say that she is indeed a real Member from Washington. 
We will miss her. I want to thank her for her support for the real FSC 
bill that she supported Crane-Rangel. We will miss her. We thank her 
for the great contribution she made to our committee and to this 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for his leadership. I stand for the citizens of Texas who 
will get sales tax relief finally with the ability to file sales tax 
deductions on their Federal income tax. I support this provision.
  I rise tonight in support of the Conference Report for this important 
legislation. While this is a difficult decision I will support the 
legislation because we must stand with those who own small businesses 
and working families who must squeeze as much as they can out of their 
income to have a decent standard of living. Coming from the great state 
of Texas I know that our American workers are in need of assistance and 
while flawed I believe this legislation gives that assistance to them.
  I am heartened by the small business provisions in this legislation 
that will help growth in this vital sector of our society. The bill 
reduces the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 32% for domestic 
manufacturers and small corporations. These provisions will help small 
businesses with important reforms and investment incentives that can 
hopefully kick start a lagging economy.
  The extension of section 179 expensing and the simplification of 
numerous small business rules will provide more growth opportunities 
for America's small business owners. I am also content that this 
Conference Report also includes an extension of the research and 
development credit, which in my mind is vital to stimulating 
advancements in technology and economic growth.
  The provisions of this large legislation that I am most supportive 
are those that deal with Sales Tax Deductibility. This Conference 
Report finally restores sales tax deductibility to the federal income 
tax code that has cost people in the state of Texas billions of lost 
dollars over the years. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the 
Sales Tax Equity Act which would restore sales tax deductibility to the 
federal income tax code and would ensure greater financial equality for 
all American taxpayers. Today, that legislation will become a 
centerpiece of this Conference Report. The language in this bill 
restores the deductibility of state and local sales tax from federal 
taxes that were eliminated in 1986. Taxpayers are currently permitted 
to deduct their state and local personal income taxes, leaving seven 
states, including Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Wyoming, Washington, South 
Dakota, Alaska, and Nevada, which rely on sales tax, out in the cold. 
Preliminary estimates from the Texas State Comptrollers office have 
indicated that restoring the deductibility of state and local sales tax 
could keep $1 billion in Texas pockets and create nearly 16,000 jobs 
annually. Additionally, the Comptroller projects $590 million in new 
investments and $874 million increase in gross state product. Those 
kind of growth estimates are too important to Texas workers for me to 
ignore. Again, while I have many reservations about this Conference 
Report as a whole, the sales tax deductibility language in this 
legislation will restore fairness for Texas taxpayers, as well as 
taxpayers in

[[Page H8722]]

several states that have been penalized because of this tax code 
inequity.
  While I will support this legislation I do want to voice my 
displeasure with many of the provisions in this Conference Report. 
Specifically, I am disappointed that the Republicans in this body did 
not accept the Rangel motion to instruct that would have protected many 
American jobs. The provisions in the Rangel motion to instruct would 
have helped deal with the issue of businesses that are incorporating 
overseas and taking American jobs with them. There are provisions in 
this Conference Report that help reward those companies who keep 
production and jobs in the United States as opposed to rewarding 
companies that move overseas despite the fact that they receive all 
their benefits in the United States. It is truly unfortunate that this 
necessary motion to instruct was struck down, its defeat can only hurt 
the American workers that this legislation is meant to protect.
  My concern with this legislation also extends to the fact that its 
implementation will greatly raise our national debt. While the 
Republican leadership has assured Members of this body that this 
Conference Report is revenue neutral, I am not likely to buy that 
claim. The leadership of this Congress has consistently passed fiscally 
irresponsible legislation that has bloated our ever-growing national 
debt, for FY 2004 alone we have a record deficit of $422 billion. These 
crushing debts will only hurt the average American worker and 
subsequently their families who they work so hard to support. The debts 
we create today will be a heavy burden for American workers of today 
and of tomorrow.
  While I will vote to support this Conference Report, I am 
disheartened that important Democratic provisions that could have 
further helped the American worker were left out. I will support this 
legislation because I now how hard the residents of Texas work and they 
need all the support they can get. These Texas workers and the 
thousands of small businesses who dot my district make up the core of 
our society and I will not turn a blind eye to their needs. I only wish 
that this Conference Report were truly bipartisan, clearly too many 
Conference Reports this session have been one sided and therefore have 
been missing key provisions that could have strengthened the 
legislation. Our mission as a body is to come to a consensus on 
legislation that will benefit the American people; sadly we have fallen 
short of this noble goal.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), an outstanding Member of our party and of the 
House.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report. In the 1986 tax reform, President Reagan with the Congress 
flattened rates, simplified rules, and cut out loopholes. In the last 4 
years, you have had 326 changes and added 10,000 more pages. It is a 
very funny way to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan.
  Two weeks ago, we passed a $13 billion corporate giveaway on the very 
day that the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that 
82 of the most profitable companies paid no Federal income taxes in at 
least one of the last 3 years. Today we are passing an additional $42 
billion in giveaways on the heels of Saturday's New York Times which 
reported a rise of 45 percent of those who earn more than $200,000 but 
paid no income taxes.
  But I think this is a fitting way to end this Congress, because as I 
remember when the Speaker's gavel goes down, it is supposed to open the 
people's House, not close the auction house. That is what has happened 
on a Congress that has had, in fact, a prescription drug bill that has 
been a giveaway to the special interests, an energy bill that has been 
a giveaway to the special interests, and now a tax bill that has been 
given away to the special interests.

                              {time}  2115

  They had a $5 billion problem that they have resolved with $150 
billion. No wonder the American people are cynical about what goes on 
here.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  And I want to thank the chairman for his masterful work in bringing 
this bill to the floor and getting it done. This bill is designed to 
make our companies more competitive overseas and keep jobs here at 
home. There are many examples throughout this where we fix a lot of 
problems in our international tax laws.
  One example that has been unfairly ridiculed here tonight is bows and 
arrows. Here is what we do here: current law, we tax domestic 
manufacturers from making arrows and we do not tax foreign 
manufacturers. So what happens? We lay people off in America. The 
companies go overseas, and they bring their products in tax-free. Is 
that good for America? Is that good for jobs?
  That is a problem that is being fixed in this bill, as are so many 
other problems.
  The point of this legislation is we are finally getting rid of these 
tariffs that are hitting a lot of our domestic manufacturers, a lot of 
our domestic industries, and costing jobs; and we are making American 
jobs more competitive in the international marketplace. That is a good 
thing, especially in this tough time of global competition.
  I thank the chairman for doing this. And what we are doing is fixing 
up these ugly laws and making our businesses more competitive in the 
international marketplace and saving American jobs.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and 
chairman of the whole conference for having a major tax bill come to 
the floor, not in the middle of the night, but at least nine or ten 
o'clock, which is a courtesy. I only wish that he had given the Members 
of the House an opportunity to at least see the bill, but that is 
asking for too much. But, again, I want to thank him that he did get it 
on the Web site, and it is going to encourage a lot of Members on both 
sides to get more computer wise. We may not ever know what is in these 
tax bills; but we are learning, in the few minutes that we do have, 
what they do have in this tax bill.
  So remember, for people who do not know what they are getting and who 
is getting the benefits or whether it is tax related or not, if someone 
wants to say ``thank you'' or they are sorry that they missed me, go to 
waysandmeans.house.gov.
  I hope the other committees learn how to do this because I have spent 
34 years here, and this seems to be a waste for us to ask what is in 
bills anymore since we have to go to the Web site. Or maybe we can find 
out how Members of the House really do not have to come down here. Just 
go to the Web site, ask what have they done, and if they are not a 
conferee, they can go to waysandmeans.house.gov.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle. I want 
to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle. This has been a very 
arduous and long journey. I think it is one of the more remarkable 
debates when half of the Members on the other side of the aisle taking 
the well say they are going to support the conference report. 
Apparently it was not that difficult for them to find out what was in 
this conference report.
  It is kind of interesting that after all of the difficulties we have 
been through, the last comment was about process. Not about content, 
not about righting the wrongs that for so long should have been 
righted. I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, I 
enjoyed working with them; I look forward to working with them again. 
Jurisdiction is not as important as righting wrongs, and we will do 
that.
  And I want to tell the gentleman from New York that in the largest 
State in the Union, it is only 6:15.
  I ask Members to support this conference report. Let us get this work 
behind us.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 illustrates what is wrong with 
how we're operating in the House. In seeking a legislative solution to 
a relatively minor requirement to correct a problem that made our Tax 
Code for manufacturers conflict with our international trade 
obligations, the Republican leadership pushed aside a no-cost, 
bipartisan solution for a special-interest loaded bill that is much 
more expensive and complex.
  The argument that H.R. 4520 is revenue-neutral is fiction. The actual 
cost that taxpayers will pay are hidden by delaying the starting date 
of some provisions and scheduling others to unrealistically end. It is 
certainly the intention of the sponsors of this bill to fully extend 
these tax cuts, which will add billions more dollars to years of 
projected deficits.

[[Page H8723]]

  To compensate for its deficiencies, this bill was laden with targeted 
tax provisions that will secure the votes of those who represent 
various interests ranging from tobacco farmers to race track owners to 
manufacturers of bows and arrows. This has resulted in a bill with 700 
pages of additional Tax-Code complexity, making it more difficult to 
enforce and creating a compliance nightmare for taxpayers.
  This is not the way to craft tax policy. It erodes the confidence of 
the public, adding to their distrust of the political system and their 
belief that they are not being fairly treated.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Thomas and 
the House Ways and Means Committee for bringing the American Jobs 
Creation Act to the floor. I thank him for his leadership in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and for his service to our Nation.
  There are many excellent provisions in the bill that will assist 
expanding businesses, creating jobs and providing tax relief and 
incentives. One section of this bill provides tax credits as important 
incentives for investing in our class 2 and 3 railroad infrastructure. 
Today, short line and regional railroads--such as the Florida East 
Coast Railroad and the Florida Central Railroad--move freight loads 
that otherwise would help to clog our region's highways. More than 
10,000 American businesses--employing over 1 million Americans--depend 
on class 2 and 3 rail services. Across the country our roadbeds, 
bridges and related track structures must be upgraded to ensure that we 
can continue to move both people and freight, safely and cost-
effectively.
  However, it is also important that we increase grade crossing 
protections and improve signalization as part of this effort to invest 
in our Nation's railroad infrastructure. The tax credits in H.R. 4520 
will provide an important tool for increasing capacity on our railways 
and will help to increase jobs, lower transportation costs, consume 
less fuel, produce less pollution, and reduce highway congestion and 
accidents.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 defines qualified expenditures for maintaining 
railroad track to include roadbed, bridges and related track 
structures. It is my understanding that this definition includes 
signalization and grade crossing devices and protections. These tax 
incentives will help short line railroads improve our nation's rail 
infrastructure not only in my congressional district in Florida, but to 
all parts of our nation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference report.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a 
provision included in the conference report that will clarify an 
ambiguity in the tax law.
  While Congress enacts the tax law, the Internal Revenue Service is 
called upon to provide technical details, filling in gaps and 
ambiguities so that taxpayers have clear guidelines for compliance. One 
such case where taxpayers have had to rely on the Service to ``fill in 
the gaps,'' involves the depreciation treatment of motorsports 
facilities. Track owners have relied for years, in good faith, on 
revenue procedures promulgated by the Service to determine that these 
facilities have a 7-year depreciable life. The Service did not question 
the track owners' interpretation for two decades, in countless audits 
and reviews of tax returns. However, within the last two years, the 
Service has questioned the 7-year classification.
  To address this issue, the conferees have included a provision in 
H.R. 4520 that clarifies that motorsports facilities should be 
considered 7-year property for depreciation purposes. While the 
provision is prospective, it also includes language stating that 
``nothing in the amendments to this section shall be construed to 
affect the treatment of property placed in service on or before the 
date of enactment of this act.'' In light of this ``no inference'' 
provision, and the policy direction regarding the 7-year classification 
going forward, I hope that the Service will take an opportunity to 
pause to reexamine whether it should penalize years of good faith 
reliance on its own regulations. Taxpayers deserve clarity and 
certainty in complying with the tax code and its regulations. Good 
faith reliance that is implicitly approved by the Service should not be 
punished.
  While the provision provides certainty for new investments, it 
expires on January 1, 2008. I am familiar with the decisions that went 
into drafting this provision, and Congress agrees such a change should 
be permanent, but because of revenue constraints we were unable to make 
the provision permanent in this bill. I urge Congress to revisit this 
issue as soon as possible to extend the provision, or, ideally, make it 
permanent. Doing so would provide additional needed clarity for 
taxpayers.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
conference report. This legislation is stuffed with special interest 
giveaways. It contains billions in undeserved corporate tax breaks. 
Even foreign gamblers who make money at dog tracks get a special tax 
break.
  I would like to talk about one of the most egregious provisions in 
this bill--a $10 billion handout to tobacco growers.
  This giveaway enriches hundreds of tobacco quota holders who are 
already millionaires. Less than 10 percent of those who benefit will 
take home 67 percent of the money. More than $3 billion will go to 
people who do not even grow tobacco. Not a dime goes to help rural 
communities transition away from a tobacco-based economy.
  The biggest winner is the tobacco industry itself. When tobacco 
quotas are eliminated, U.S. production of tobacco leaf will skyrocket, 
and the prices will plummet. A USDA economist has estimated has 
estimated that lower leaf prices will generate more than a billion 
dollars in profits for the tobacco industry each year. This windfall 
will far outstrip what the companies will pay to quota holders and 
growers.
  What will tobacco companies do with the extra cash? Some will lower 
prices, attracting more children. Others will expand their advertising 
and marketing to youth. And without legislation granting authority to 
the FDA to oversee the tobacco industry, there will be virtually 
nothing to stop them.
  Congress had a historic opportunity to add legislation giving FDA 
jurisdiction over tobacco to this bill. The FDA provision would have 
outlawed candy-flavored cigarettes, cigarettes that look like crayons, 
and other products explicitly designed to appeal to children. It would 
have provided for strong government oversight of our most deadly 
consumer product.
  But this historic opportunity was squandered. The House leadership 
chose profits for the tobacco industry over protecting our children 
from addiction, suffering, and death.
  This choice is shameful, and it symbolizes the misplaced priorities 
of this House.
  I urge my colleagues to deny a victory for tobacco companies and 
stand up for children and families across the country. I urge you to 
reject this bill and fight for strong government oversight over tobacco 
products
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax bill, which 
is full of giveaways and loopholes for the special interest. I wanted 
to support this bill, I support an across-the-board corporate rate 
reduction for income from U.S. manufacturing activities so that more 
manufacturing jobs are created here in the United States.
  Unfortunately, this bill is not about job creation or long-term 
investment in research. This bill is a laundry list of expensive tax 
breaks.
  Many of my constituents enjoy NASCAR but I do not believe that they 
want a $101 million tax break for NASCAR, when they are trying to 
figure out ow to pay for college.
  While, some of my constituents have some Chinese ceiling fans, I am 
sure they would not want a $44 Million tax break for importers of 
Chinese ceiling fans, when they are trying to pay the mortgage on there 
homes.
  Many of my constituents enjoy target shooting with bow and arrows but 
do the makers of bow and arrows really need the tax break that this 
bill provides? And even if they do should they get their tax break 
before we pass a tax credit for families who are trying to pay for 
health insurance?
  This bill is a textbook example of legislative give away. What 
started as a modest effort in Congress to replace a $5 billion-a-year 
export subsidy that the WTO ruled was illegal has turned into a $145 
billion, 633-page corporate tax giveaway.
  As if all this were not bad enough the conference report uses a large 
number of gimmicks, such as long phase-ins, sunsets, and changes in 
scoring rules, fudge its true cost.
  We know that this bill will drive us even deeper into debt. And a 
larger deficit is something we cannot afford. Massive deficits create 
high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public 
investments for future generations. Moreover, the resulting high 
interest rates make it harder for Americans to purchase homes, make 
college tuition payments or start business ventures.
  Voting for this bill would not only be a mistake, it would be grossly 
negligent. Using scare resources to pay for corporate special 
interests, tax breaks when we have an enormous budget deficit and unmet 
needs like homeland security is an abdication of a responsibility to 
our constituents.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4520, the 
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The title of the conference bill is 
a misnomer. If enacted it will add to the loss of nearly 2.7 million 
manufacturing jobs. This conference bill will also increase tax 
incentives for large corporations to move manufacturing jobs overseas. 
It will increase the Federal deficit, endanger Social Security and 
Medicare which are directly impacted by burgeoning deficits, and limit 
the ability of states to fund public education in a high deficit 
environment.
  This conference report contains enhanced benefits for offshore 
operations of U.S. multinational corporations that were not in the 
Senate or House bills. This conference report is significantly flawed 
because some of the taxes

[[Page H8724]]

paid by companies operating in high tax countries will be paid by our 
government in the form of tax credits. The Republican majority is 
rigging the tax system to advantage corporate interests overseas and 
further eroding the federal government's ability to invest in America's 
families. Corporate farms will directly benefit from the manufacturing 
provisions in this bill, not the family farmers who desperately need 
help.
  Finally, my opposition to this bill is based on the fact that the 
conference report offers a complex solution to a simple problem. 
Instead of pulling the tax code up by its roots, the conference bill 
adds hundreds of complex rules and loopholes. This conference bill 
contains $140 billion in gross tax breaks for companies. It is a flawed 
bill that will cause additional out-sourcing of U.S. jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has dropped the provision that was in the 
Rangel substitute and the Senate-passed bill that rewards companies for 
keeping jobs in America. This conference report makes a bad situation 
worse, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this 
measure.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4520, the Job 
Creation Act. This bill is guaranteed to do one thing--send American 
jobs overseas.
  It is unconscionable that Congress would give a tax cut to companies 
that send American jobs overseas.
  Corporations have outscourced three million jobs overseas, and have 
been rewarded with a tax break for doing so.
  We should be passing legislation that creates high-quality jobs here 
in America.
  Why continue to expand tax policies that threaten the American 
worker?
  Under President Bush, America has lost 1.7 million private sector 
jobs. This calculates into a ``jobs deficit'' of nearly 8 million jobs 
in the last 42 months.
  Manufacturing has been especially hard hit, with 2.8 million jobs 
lost, amounting to one out of six manufacturing jobs.
  President Bush says things are getting better, but most of those jobs 
created in recent months are temporary jobs, seasonal jobs, and even 
part-time jobs, most of which do not normally have health and 
retirement benefits.
  These statistics are fact, not rhetoric.
  The response from the White House to these statistics is equally 
upsetting. Gregory Mankiw, President Bush' top economic adviser, wants 
to reclassify fast-food workers as manufacturing employees.
  Trade is important, but we need trade and tax policies that promote a 
balance of both economic development and employment. A quarter of the 
economy of California is based on trade, but a quarter of Californians 
are now eligible for food stamps.
  It's about balancing economic and human needs in our country.
  The GAO, Boston Consulting Group, Economic Policy Institute and many 
other groups have come to the same conclusion--promoting the 
outsourcing of jobs is bad for America.
  While the White House celebrates recently quarterly GDP growth, the 
fact is that most of it has been fueled by consumer debt and 
liquidation of home equity. That is hardly a solid foundation for 
growth.
  The time for sophomoric economic policies has passed. Outsourcing may 
produce lower consumer costs, but what good is that if Americans don't 
even have jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill simply on the outsourcing 
component.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, the retaliatory tariffs that the European 
Union has issued over our delay in complying with World Trade 
Organizations are hurting manufacturers all over this country, and it 
is past time to address this issue. Legislators on both sides of the 
aisle and in both the House and Senate agree on this basic premise, and 
it is a shame that a bill to solve this problem has been burdened with 
unnecessary tax incentives to corporations. I, along with many other 
members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have been pushing for 
congressional action to fix the international trade dispute over the 
extraterritorial income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) 
programs. We have a bipartisan, fully paid-for remedy that would reform 
these tax provisions, put the United States tax code in compliance with 
the World Trade Organization (WTO), and reduce the tax burden on 
American manufacturers and farmers. Unfortunately, the Majority 
leadership ignored this bipartisan approach in favor of a budget-
busting, controversial bill that does little for small manufacturers in 
Wisconsin and includes multiple provisions completely unrelated to the 
trade problem we need to fix immediately.
  Because of the House majority's previous inaction on reforming the 
FSC-ETI trade dispute, the European Union (EU) continues to ratchet up 
tariffs on nearly 100 categories of U.S.-produced exports. This costs 
American businesses and workers by making our products less competitive 
in the major European market. Unless we reform the FSC-ETI tax 
provisions, EU tariffs on American products will continue to climb, 
potentially costing American exporters over $4 billion.
  With over two million American manufacturing jobs lost since 2001, it 
is critical that we act to reverse this trend by eliminating incentives 
for American jobs to be sent overseas and working to end trade barriers 
that hurt American exports. Anticipating the EU tariffs, Congressmen 
Crane, Rangel, Manzullo and Levin introduced bipartisan legislation 
last year to address the FSC-ETI trade dispute. H.R. 1769, the Jobs 
Protection Act, would have eliminated the American tax breaks found in 
violation of WTO rules, and reinvested the savings back into American 
manufacturers by reducing their tax rates. I, along with 175 other 
members of Congress, cosponsored this legislation and have pushed for 
the House to consider this legislation.
  Despite this bipartisan compromise, the conference agreement brought 
to the Floor today a fiscally irresponsible bill that is filled with 
special interest breaks and will increase already record budget 
deficits. H.R. 4520 provides over $42 billion in tax incentives for 
large multinational corporations while providing little to no tax 
relief to small and medium-sized manufacturers, farmers, and 
unincorporated businesses. The Republican chairman of the House Small 
Business Committee has expressed his opposition to this legislation 
because it fails to include smaller non-Chapter S corporations in its 
manufacturing benefit.
  Furthermore, the House shamefully misses an opportunity to 
meaningfully reform the regulation of tobacco in this country. While I 
support the buyout for tobacco farmers, which will help hardworking 
farmers in Wisconsin, I am disappointed that the bill does not include 
a Senate provision giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to 
regulate tobacco. This hard-won provision was supported by major 
tobacco manufacturers as well as health advocacy groups, and the 
conference committee, by eliminating it, has allowed an historic 
opportunity to improve the health of this country pass by.
  Mr. Speaker, with 2.7 million American manufacturing jobs lost over 
the past years, including over 80,000 in my home state of Wisconsin, we 
should not be playing partisan games on the House floor. We should be 
considering legislation that will end European tariffs on American 
exports, helps domestic farmers and manufacturers be more competitive, 
closes abused corporate tax loopholes, and does not burden our children 
with huge amounts of debt that they will have to pay off in the future. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4520 in its current form so that 
Congress can move forward on responsible ETI-FSC legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, there is much to dislike about 
the process that has brought this conference report before the House, 
and there certainly are things to dislike in the conference report 
itself.
  This is not the best way to do business, and this conference report 
certainly is not an ideal legislative produce. On the contrary, it is 
filled with flaws and with provisions that are unnecessary at best.
  However, with all its flaws, I will vote for the conference report.
  I will vote for it because we need to make the changes in tax laws 
needed to end the escalating retaliatory tariffs that are being imposed 
because our current laws are not in compliance with our international 
agreements. This is a matter of great urgency and this conference 
report responds to it.
  I will vote for it because it includes provisions to encourage 
American corporations doing business abroad to repatriate their 
overseas earnings for investment here at home. This has great potential 
to stimulate investment in new plant and equipment as well as in the 
research and development that support innovation, job creation, and 
prosperity.
  I will vote for it because I think the provisions related to foreign 
tax credits will increase the competitiveness of America's information-
technology companies in global markets.
  I will vote for it because it includes provisions to ensure that 
employee stock-purchase plans and incentive stock options are not 
subject to payroll taxes--provisions that are very important to 
thousands of Coloradans and the companies that employ them.
  And I will vote for it because it includes provisions that will help 
us lessen our dependence on fossil fuels--something that is very 
important because clean power production provides greater reliability 
for our electricity system, promotes cleaner air and water, and 
benefits our economy and our national security.
  The conference report will extend and expand the renewable energy 
production tax credit (PTC) to apply to other renewable energy 
technologies, including solar energy, geothermal energy, open-loop 
biomass, and small irrigation power. An extended PTC will provide more 
market certainty, and expanding the

[[Page H8725]]

PTC to include solar, open-loop biomass, geothermal, and small 
irrigation power will ensure that all renewable energy sources can 
benefit.
  Solar, wind, hydropower, biomass and geothermal energy are each 
potentially enormous energy resources. Every state has renewable energy 
potential. However, renewable resources are not spread uniformly across 
the country. Current tax law creates regional and technological 
inequities by failing to provide uniform benefits for all renewable 
energy resources. For example, the production tax credit enacted in 
1992 has spurred significant new investment, but it only applies to 
power plants using wind power and closed-loop biomass. Allowing equal 
access to all the renewable energy sources will not only spur renewable 
energy investment, but it will also ensure that all renewable energy 
sources are allowed to compete fairly.
  Also, importantly, I will vote for this conference report because as 
it stands it will not increase the deficit--meaning that as it stands 
it will not increase the national debt that will have to be repaid, 
with interest, in the future.
  In making that statement, I refer to the conference report ``as it 
stands'' because I fully recognize that the present budgetary effect of 
the conference report reflects the fact that some of its provisions 
will come into effect in stages, or are temporary, or both.
  I recognize--as we all recognize, Mr. Speaker--that in the future 
there will be proposals to extend some or all of the temporary 
provisions or to speed up the implementation of those that are 
scheduled to take effect in stages. And I recognize--as we all must--
that adoption of those proposals will have budgetary consequences that 
should not be ignored.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice here and now that while I am 
voting for this conference report as it stands, I am making no 
commitment to supporting any of those proposals. If I still have the 
honor of serving in this House when any such proposal is considered, I 
will consider it carefully but I will not support it unless I am 
convinced that it merits approval.
  And, further, I want to give notice here and now that my vote for 
this conference report should not be read as meaning that I fully 
support each and every one of its provisions. That is certainly not the 
case, and in fact I hope that I will have the opportunity to support 
efforts to remove or repair many of those provisions in the future.
  I could cite many examples, but let me mention just one--the fact 
that the conference report does not included all the provisions of the 
Senate bill related to tobacco and tobacco products. Omission of key 
parts of those provisions means we are missing an opportunity to take 
an important step toward better health for many Americans, especially 
children. This is a very bitter disappointment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in the days ahead there will be a great 
deal of public discussion of this conference report in Colorado and 
across the country. There will be many who will hail it as marking the 
dawning of a great new day. Many others will bewail parts that they 
think are examples of bad legislation.
  I think the second group will have much ammunition. But I also am 
sure that the rhetoric on both sides will be excessive. My evaluation 
is that the bill is too flawed to be a model, but that its merits do 
outweigh its flaws, although not by very much.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleagues on 
the conference committee for H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act, 
have, by passing this legislation, taken an important step to preserve 
jobs in rural Kansas and across the country. In specific, I applaud 
Chairman Thomas for his inclusion of the Railroad Track Maintenance 
Credit.
  This provision will help to preserve freight railroad infrastructure 
operated by short line and regional railroads. Over 12,000 
manufacturing, mining, chemical and agricultural employers, who employ 
over one million workers in 49 states depend on short line railroads 
for their success. In many rural areas, such as the First District of 
Kansas, short lines are crucial in transporting agriculture goods and 
products to market. Across our country, there are over 500 short line 
railroads, operating nearly 50,000 miles of track, or nearly one third 
of the national freight rail network in the U.S.
  The repercussions of certain federal regulations combined with the 
increasing gross weight of railroad cars have created a serious threat 
to the continued viability of this rail infrastructure. The Railroad 
Track Maintenance Credit will encourage investment to protect this 
important transportation link for American businesses and agriculture.
  This provision originated with the introduction of H.R. 876. My 
colleagues also recognized the importance of short lines to their local 
economies, and as a result, 267 Members of the House co-sponsored this 
legislation.
  I appreciate the conferees including a version of H.R. 876 with the 
railroad infrastructure provisions in H.R. 4520. These provisions will 
go a long way in preserving short line railroad track and keeping our 
local communities attached to the national rail network.
  As drafted in H.R. 4520, the 50 percent tax credit available to each 
short line is subject to a maximum limitation. This limit is the 
product of $3,500 and the number of miles operated by the railroad. 
Credits up to this limit may be earned regardless of the length of 
track that is improved by the expenditures. For example, if a 100-mile 
railroad invests $800,000 in improving a 1,000 foot bridge span, the 
amount of qualified expenditures would be $800,000. The credit earned 
on such investment would be $400,000, or fifty percent of $800,000. The 
last $50,000 would be excluded as exceeding the limitation of $350,000, 
determined by multiplying 100 miles by $3,500. Therefore, the railroad 
would earn a credit of $350,000.
  I believe that such a limitation will allow short line railroads to 
upgrade segments of track, roadbed and bridges that are in the most 
dire need of upgrades. At the same time, this credit will cap the 
potential exposure of tax revenues at a known amount: the length of a 
short line in miles times $3,500.
  The conference committee version also includes an important provision 
that is a variation on the original subsection (g) proposed in H.R. 
876. This provision will encourage those who depend most on short line 
railroads to invest directly in maintaining this critical 
infrastructure. Railroad customers or suppliers of railroad-related 
property or services may earn credits under this provision for railroad 
track maintenance expenditures they make in short line railroads.
  I believe this provision is also critical for those two-dozen 
municipal or state owned railroads that are tax exempt. While those 
railroads cannot benefit directly from the tax credit because they are 
tax exempt, their customers and suppliers can still help preserve this 
infrastructure by investing directly.
  In conclusion I want to again thank all of my colleagues who have 
supported our short line railroads over the past two years. I also want 
to thank Chairman Thomas and the conferees for including this provision 
to help rural America stay connected to the national transportation 
network.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 141, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 509]

                               YEAS--280

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon

[[Page H8726]]


     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--141

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Boehlert
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Lipinski
     Majette
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Towns


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2145

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. 
McCARTHY of Missouri and Mr. ROHRABACHER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 509, I was in my 
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________