Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me also say that the Republican leadership made it clear last night that no substitute in any form would have been made in order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the continuing activation of military Reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's businesses. For too many of these small businesses, the temporary loss of these employees makes it difficult to continue operating successfully, and many are faced with severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. Why not help alleviate some of this burden for these employers who are doing the right thing for their employees and their families? It is ironic that the party that never met a tax cut they did not like and that claims to support small business would deny small businesses a tax credit to help pay their employees who are serving their country in a time of war. I cannot imagine why the Republican leadership denied the full House an opportunity to vote on this amendment. Certainly this is a more important issue than tax relief for Chinese ceiling fan makers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and let this House vote on tax fairness for small businesses whose employees are bravely serving their country in the Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 8 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the need to quickly fix the FSC-ETI export tax issue. Thousands of U.S. exporters are needlessly paying 8 percent tariffs to European countries simply because the Republican- controlled Congress has failed to pass legislation to avoid these penalties. These tariffs will continue to climb 1 percentage point each month as long as the issue remains unresolved. These retaliatory tariffs are especially hard hitting as the United States continues to experience difficult times in the manufacturing sector, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs under the Bush administration. In my congressional district in Massachusetts, jewelry, textiles, and small manufacturers have especially been hit hard by these sanctions. Throughout the WTO process there has been bipartisan consensus that the U.S. should repeal the extraterritorial income exemption, the ETI and comply with the WTO decision. The disagreement has been over what to replace it with. Last year the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and others introduced a bipartisan, revenue- neutral fix to this problem, H.R. 1769. This bill currently has 172 bipartisan cosponsors. When our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), filed a discharge petition in March to bring the bill immediately to the floor, 18 Members signed that petition. The Crane-Rangel bill would take the $50 billion in tax incentives that American companies operating overseas receive under the current ETI and create new incentives for American companies to produce goods in the United States. It lowers the corporate income tax rate for U.S. companies and addresses the growing problem of U.S. companies moving their plants overseas. Simply put, H.R. 1769 is a clean, paid-for bill that remedies the FSC/ETI problem without unduly burdening those companies that have benefited from this exemption in the past, and without unduly burdening our children and grandchildren by adding to our deficit. So why did we not fix the problem months ago by passing the Crane- Rangel bill? Why are we not debating H.R. 1769 this morning? Why is the Republican leadership denying the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the opportunity to offer his alternative on the floor today? Because time after time the leadership of this House has demonstrated that it would rather offer a goody-bag of corporate tax giveaways to special interests than simply and quickly fixing the problem. What is in this grab bag of a bill? The closer you look at it, the uglier it gets. This bill is chock full of sweetheart deals, special fixes, and big giveaways to special interests. It looks like every lobbyist in town will be celebrating tonight. The list of provisions that favor particular companies or industries includes cruise-ship operators, whale hunters, Chinese ceiling fans, foreign gamblers, NASCAR track owners, timber companies, cattle ranchers, bourbon distillers, movies theater owners, small plane manufacturers, bow and arrow sets, fishing tackle boxes, and corporate jet owners. This is no way to do tax policy. The list of narrow special interest giveaways is very familiar because we have seen them all before, when a similar set of giveaways held up passage of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act for 18 months, until finally, finally, they were thrown out and this House decided to do the right thing and support our uniformed men and women and their families. But like the evil poltergeists in the movie, they are back. And this time they have brought along some friends. What else is in this bill? How about paying a private company to make a profit collecting debts owed to the IRS so that all our private tax information will now be given to private bounty hunters. How about tax provisions that give U.S. companies fresh incentives to locate operations anywhere other than in the United States by giving them even more tax shelters for their foreign income? At the very core of this bill are $35 billion in tax incentives for U.S. firms to invest overseas. If you are a small manufacturer or farm cooperative that creates jobs and has production solely in the United States, too bad. You are simply out of luck in this bill. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the frosting on the cake. This bill as it is written will add at least another $34 billion to the deficit. In just 3 short years, the Bush administration and the Republican- controlled Congress have taken our Nation from record surpluses to the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States, in the history of the United States, Mr. Speaker. And now the leadership of this House wants to add at least $34 billion more to these deficits. The legislation passed in the other body at least has the benefit of being revenue-neutral. And the Crane-Rangel bill is fully paid for. Why is it that everyone seems to be able to pay for their corporate tax legislation except for the Republican House leadership? Why are they the only ones that want to pass the burden of debt on to future generations? And let us not forget that when all the phony accounting gimmicks such as slow phase-ins and phase-outs and sunsets provisions are factored in, the amount added to the deficit is more likely to be closer to $45 billion. This bill may mean more jobs, Mr. Speaker, but they will not be U.S. jobs. This bill rewards companies that move off shore, that shelter income from production abroad, and that outsource even more jobs now and forevermore. Now, I seem to remember the Republicans saying over and over that our Tax Code is simply too complex, too confusing and too costly; but this bill, instead of simplifying and tightening the Tax Code and closing loopholes, creates over 400 pages of new and expensive special interest exceptions. This bill makes our Tax Code more complex, not less; more unfair, not less. It does too little for those businesses that prefer to produce and hire in the United States. It hurts farmers, stiffs small businesses, and benefits large multinational companies first and foremost. It increases the deficit and tacks on major unrelated initiatives. Instead of simply fixing the $5 billion FSC/ETI problem, it creates a $150 billion special interest giveaway. Mr. Speaker, this Special Interests Christmas Tree Giveaway Act is quite simply a scandal. Now, in light of such largesse for special interests and large corporations, I was surprised when this morning the Republican majority in the Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and me. Our amendment would provide tax relief to every company and business that makes up the difference in income to an employee activated into the National Guard or Reserves and would have provided support to those same companies to train temporary employees to fill the jobs left vacant by active-duty employees. At a time of national emergency, when members of the Reserves and National Guard are serving extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican majority in the Committee on Rules decided that this modest tax relief proposal was not important or relevant enough to be considered during the debate on this bill. This bill before us helps Halliburton and Bechtel, two corporations that are ripping off the American taxpayer through fraud and abuse of their defense contracts in Iraq; but the Republican leadership will not help the hundreds of small businesses suffering from long-term vacancies or the families whose loved ones have been activated for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate on this rule, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I will offer our amendment to H.R. 4250 to help the Reservists and small business. We have the chance to do the right thing today. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act. Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry Potter.'' So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot lines. Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the House has voted on at least twice this year. (1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10). (2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5, vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4280, vote No. 166). (3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281, vote No. 174). (4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444). (5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003 (H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The process here is awful, and it really is indefensible. I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad policy. I think almost everybody knows it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. How cynical on an issue so important. We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy sources. This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going through the same old routine. Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph. They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,'' contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding.'' Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in the Record. Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of. December 1, 2003. Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies. Between initial passage on the floor of the House of Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46 billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a 50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our organizations will strongly consider including votes on this bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards. H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects, and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has ``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We echo that sentiment. There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding. Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500 130 or aileen@taxpayer.net with questions or comments. Sincerely, Jill Lancelot, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action. Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste. John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union. Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform. Richard Lessner, Ph.D, Executive Director, American Conservative Union. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my colleague, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in marking with sadness the passing of President Ronald Reagan. I send my deepest condolences to Mrs. Reagan and the entire Reagan family and to those friends who knew the President best. Ronald Reagan was a man of principle, deep patriotism and great humor. He loved his country, and he loved the American people. His was, in many ways, the quintessential American life: moving from a small town to chase the American dream in California, achieving success through hard work and determination, and finally giving back through public service. One of the things I most admired about President Reagan was his ability to disagree without being disagreeable. During the 1980s, I was a staff member for the late Congressman Joe Moakley from Massachusetts. We had a front row seat to the great political battles between the Reagan White House and the House of Representatives under Speaker Tip O'Neill. While President Reagan and Tip O'Neill had sharp political differences, they never had sharp words. Their arguments were never nasty. They were never personal. At the end of the day, their battles shifted from policy to who could tell the most outlandish story or the funniest Irish joke. It is an example that I believe all of us should try to do a better job of following. Madam Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to say just how much respect and admiration I have for Nancy Reagan. These last several years have been extremely difficult for her as President Reagan battled Alzheimer's disease. Mrs. Reagan has faced this tremendous adversity with strength, dignity and class, and she serves as an inspiration to us all. Again, my wife Lisa and I send our sympathy and our prayers to the Reagan family during this sad time, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.