Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman well knows that no substitute was offered in committee, no substitute was offered in front of the Committee on Rules. You can say it till you are blue in the face, but the Democrats offered no substitute, neither in committee nor in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), someone who is extremely interested in American jobs.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, only my friends on the other side of the aisle would have a 6-inch tree and call it Christmas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just find it amazing that allowing American manufacturers to have a level playing field with foreign manufacturers is called a tax break. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the United States Tax Code is out of sync with the rest of the world. Among our major trading partners, the United States is alone in the world in not using other forms of taxation other than direct income taxation. Four times the United States defended our ability to create subsidies and, therefore, produce a more level playing field among our trading partners. We had for years refused to reexamine our code more fundamentally and thought that a subsidy mandate would create a more level playing field. Four times, the World Trade Organization said that under the rules of the World Trade Organization, of which we are a founding member, that that would not be permissible. We are here today because the core of the bill is to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation extraterritorial tax structure, and it also affords us an opportunity to examine an out-of-date Tax Code. For those who say all we should be doing is repealing the subsidy, which has been declared against the rules, is to ignore the reason why we put the rules in place in the first place. The reason we did the subsidy was because we were at a disadvantage. It can certainly be argued we should have fundamentally changed our Tax Code back when we did that, but the simple answer is, we did not. What we are trying to do is correct the errors of our ways, primarily by omission, but occasionally by commission, of not allowing U.S.- based, U.S. workers to put products and services out in the world on a level playing field with the rest of the world. That is what this bill does. In addition to that, in examining these areas, we discovered portions of the Tax Code that are just flat out unfair. And this is an opportunity; I believe everybody deserves 1 day every 20 years to have a look at the problems they face in the Tax Code. Why? Because small business in certain industries are faced with a discriminatory U.S. Tax Code that puts U.S. small businesses at a disadvantage to foreign businesses. We are going to hear there is a provision in here about arrows, there is a provision in here about tackle boxes, there is a provision in here about sonar, fish detecting equipment. The reason it is in here is because our code discriminates against American producers. So not only are we rewriting our laws to be good trading partners and assisting those people who no longer get the subsidy because we are rewriting the laws, we are providing one day every 20 years to examine those portions of the code that make absolutely no sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not rise to defend the honor of Miss Piggy, as the gentleman from New York indicated, and I am anxiously finding a flashlight because, apparently, the gentleman from New York exists in perpetual darkness since he believes night extends for more than 2 years. This bill has been around a long, long time. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1986 the reason the basket went from two to nine was for pure revenue to be spent in other areas. And as President Reagan said, it would entice someone to go from a high-tax country to a low-tax country. Shame on us if we are the high-tax country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a champion in trade around the world.

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

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues and those paying attention to what is going on to appreciate what has occurred on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman who is managing the bill for the rule for the minority took some time to discuss the Crane-Rangel bill. Had that been offered, that would have been a substitute. That would have been, under the rules, appropriate; but they did not offer the Crane-Rangel substitute, notwithstanding the fact that what was offered was an amendment; but I want my colleagues to understand this. In the Committee on Ways and Means on Monday, the gentleman from New York had every opportunity to offer the Crane-Rangel substitute. It was his choice. He did not offer a substitute. He offered an amendment. Last night, with the option of offering a substitute, he did not offer a substitute. He offered an amendment. Under the rules, it has to be a substitute. Now why is the Crane-Rangel substitute not before us? Because it did not offer a tax cut to small business, because it did not include the appropriate and necessary elimination of the tobacco subsidy program; because it did not include the assistance to small business, called section 179, expensing; and it did not include the provisions for small S corporations to continue to reform. Those are in the underlying bill, and what the gentleman from New York and his staff did was simply cut and paste various provisions of the underlying bill, and they wanted that to be accepted. A letter was submitted by the gentleman from New York in which it says in part, ``I request that I be allowed to add to the amendment.'' Additionally, he says, ``the additional language . . . would include.'' At one time we were able to submit material like that without having legislative language and it would be accepted. When we became the majority, there was a thrust by the now-minority to require everything to be in legislative language. That is the rules, and the gentleman wanted not to follow the rules. He wanted the rules bent for him, the very same rules they insisted that we follow. I want to offer my colleagues three quotes: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; all politics is local; and patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. My colleagues heard the gentleman from Washington. I have here the 1985 markup document from the then-Democratically controlled Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The position in the House was to remove from the Tax Code the sales tax exemption, the income tax exemption, and the property tax exemption. Fairness. What happened in the final law was that if you were a renter in a State that raised its revenue by sales tax, you got no relief; but if you paid income tax in a State that used income tax and you were a homeowner, you got relief. That is not equitable. That is not fair. Twenty years ago that occurred. I say it is fairly reasonable to give people 1 day out of 20 years. This is their day. A provision in this bill will be ridiculed about eliminating the excise tax on arrows for goodness sakes. We are going to hear a lot of crocodile tears hitting the floor about us not helping small business. The technology that is currently controlling the arrows market was invented in the United States; but if you have a foreign arrow coming in, it is on the shelf cheaper than the arrow made in the United States. Why in the world would we let, longer than absolutely necessary, discrimination against an American product? That is in this bill. It is time to eliminate it. They should get a day. Tackle boxes. If it is pink and it is called a cosmetic box, it does not carry a tax. If it is olivedrab and called a fishing tackle box, it is exactly the same, except for the color, it carries a tax. Whether it is pink or olivedrab or red or black, the color of something should not determine how it is treated. It should be fairly treated if it is the same box. We have sonar fishing equipment in here. Guess what? If you do not use the latest technology LED screening, you do not get relief from the 3 percent excise tax. Why in the world would we stop technology? Why? Because the law is written that way. They deserve a day. When my colleagues argue that it is eliminating American democracy to not let somebody not follow the rules, that is not American democracy; that is un-American.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 681, I call up the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high- technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4103, the AGOA Acceleration Act, was ordered favorably reported by the Committee on Ways and Means and was amended by a voice vote on May 5. Once again this bill provides the means for African countries to develop a more prosperous economic environment, a well-grounded rule of law, and efficient and acceptable government practices. I am very pleased that, as in the past, this bill has garnered broad support. Especially I would like to reference the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who has been one of the Committee on Ways and Means' leading advocates for additional assistance and trade to Africa. I am also pleased to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) of the Committee on International Relations and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of that committee for the courtesies they extended to us in getting this bill to the floor. The Committee on International Relations indicated there were two provisions in this bill that were under the jurisdiction of the committee. In working with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), I am pleased to indicate that in expediting consideration of the bill, the chairman graciously agreed to forego consideration by that committee, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of that committee, and to exchange letters. And I would include the letters in the Record. Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for this bill. A provision allowing the poorest African countries to use third-country fabric and apparel production will expire at the end of September if we do nothing. My plea, I guess, is to a certain extent hopefully heard on the other side of the Capitol by the other body. This bill would extend the provision subject to a cap for 3 years and phase it out in the final year, a pragmatic approach that balances the needs of the African countries while assuring the U.S. industry is not threatened and can even be helped through the development of partnerships, especially in the area of raw materials. Our bill does not merely extend these benefits. It accelerates Africa's utilization of the original AGOA benefits by expanding African capacity and infrastructure to attract investment in regional fabric production so that Africa can hope to compete in a post-quota world. One of the best ways the Africans can make themselves competitive is to work with us to achieve trade liberalization in the World Trade Organization. Such liberalization will benefit Africa enormously by reducing the duties it must pay and by facilitating trade. In addition, as long as they are comprehensive, I support ongoing free trade negotiations with the Southern African Customs Union, which will help to deepen and make permanent existing AGOA benefits for Africans in Africa. At the same time, we expect meaningful access to the markets of these African countries for U.S. goods and services in an open trading arrangement. I believe helping Africa through trade will contribute to more fundamental improvements in governance and of course the overall quality of life in Africa. Critical benefits for our African partners will expire soon if Congress does not take immediate action. Mr. Speaker, this was delayed a week because of the circumstances surrounding last week. We need to move forward with this legislation. My fervent hope is that with the House acting today in the manner in which I believe we will act, that is, overwhelming bipartisan support, that we can focus the attention of the other body that this is a measure that needs to move expeditiously through both bodies so that we can provide this kind of accelerated help to Sub-Saharan Africa, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4103. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 19, 2004. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hyde: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4103, the ``AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004.'' As you have noted, the Committee on Ways and Means ordered favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4103, the ``AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004,'' on Wednesday, May 5, 2004. I appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this legislation although it contains two provisions within your Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your decision to forego further action on the bill is based on the understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on International Relations with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives or the appointment of conferees on this or similar legislation. Our committees have long collaborated on this important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing that cooperation. Your leadership on African issues is critical to the success of this bill and the AGOA program. I appreciate your helping us to move this legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. We look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

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

Mr. THOMAS

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague for the kind words. I too want to make sure that the record reflects that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) once again shows that his concern is in the forefront for peoples all over the world and simply for their ability, their right to express themselves. I strongly urge passage of H.J. Res. 97.

Mr. THOMAS

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