[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 91 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5330-H5340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2014

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4457) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed 
in House Report 113-472, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4457

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``America's Small Business Tax 
     Relief Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS FOR 
                   SMALL BUSINESS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Dollar limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``shall not exceed--'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``shall not exceed $500,000.''.
       (2) Reduction in limitation.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     179(b) of such Code is amended by striking ``exceeds--'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``exceeds $2,000,000.''.
       (b) Computer Software.--Clause (ii) of section 179(d)(1)(A) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``, to which section 167 
     applies, and which is placed in service in a taxable year 
     beginning after 2002 and before 2014'' and inserting ``and to 
     which section 167 applies''.
       (c) Election.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``may not be revoked'' and all that follows 
     through ``and before 2014'', and
       (2) by striking ``irrevocable'' in the heading thereof.
       (d) Air Conditioning and Heating Units.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 179(d) of such Code is amended by striking ``and 
     shall not include air conditioning or heating units''.
       (e) Qualified Real Property.--Subsection (f) of section 179 
     of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013'' 
     in paragraph (1), and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
       (f) Inflation Adjustment.--Subsection (b) of section 179 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2014, the dollar amounts in paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(c)(2)(A) for such calendar year, determined by 
     substituting `calendar year 2013' for `calendar year 2012' in 
     clause (ii) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--The amount of any increase under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 
     $10,000.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2013.

     SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Scorecards.--The budgetary 
     effects of this Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO 
     scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
       (b) Senate PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of this 
     Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress).

[[Page H5331]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4457.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The tax burden that small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and their 
workers face is too high. Every dollar Washington takes from small 
businesses is a dollar that they don't have to invest in equipment, to 
start a new production line, to hire a new employee, or to provide more 
in wages and benefits. Businesses aren't growing, and hardworking 
Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer work hours. This is 
unacceptable.
  These days, it seems that Congress can rarely agree on much, so when 
we can find some common ground to help grow the economy and get 
businesses to invest and hire new workers, we should act immediately. 
The legislation we have before us today, America's Small Business Tax 
Relief Act of 2014, would do just that by providing a permanent 
extension of section 179 expensing at a level of $500,000. Section 179 
is a bipartisan provision that has been in place since the 1950s, but 
businesses, farmers, and ranchers cannot reap the full benefits when 
they have no idea if this provision is going to be around the next year 
or what it may look like. This hurts their ability to plan for the 
future and expand their businesses.
  The Farm Bureau recently stated:

       This practice makes it very difficult for farmers and 
     ranchers to plan, and it adds immense confusion and 
     complexity to the Tax Code.

  It is time to make section 179 permanent at an expensing level of 
$500,000 so American farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can invest 
in new equipment, grow their businesses, and plan for the future.
  Sure, House Democrats, many who have sponsored this legislation 
before, are now demanding that we pay for an extension of these 
policies despite voting year after year to extend these job-creating 
policies without their being paid for. Frankly, the millions of 
Americans searching for jobs or for a few extra dollars in their 
paychecks know that pro-growth policies like this pay for themselves in 
the form of new investments, new jobs, and higher wages. I think we can 
all agree this is the right policy, and we should set the rhetoric 
aside so we can have an America that works, with a strong and vibrant 
economy.
  By supporting permanent policies, Washington can promote certainty 
for American businesses and generate additional economic growth. We 
have become too accustomed to poor jobs reports, anemic growth, and 
just accepting things as they are. Small business expensing has been a 
bipartisan policy for decades, and it is time to make it a permanent 
part of the Tax Code. Washington needs to wake up, to start listening 
to the American people, and to act on real policies that strengthen the 
economy and help hardworking taxpayers. Today's legislation will do 
just that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Small business can have full confidence that this provision will be 
extended--period. Indeed, the fact that I have voted for it many times 
in the past, as pointed out, is confidence that it will be continued. 
As to the suggestion that we have made to continue it for 2 years, we 
are already well into the first year, and if we don't act until the end 
of the year and extend it for 2 years, that would be another one not 
even for another full year, but there would be a 2-year extension. So 
small business can be fully confident this will be extended. There is 
no threat to it. There is zero threat to its extension.
  When it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can have 
no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is 
not correct. The Senate has before it a bill to extend it for 2 years. 
At some point, that will pass, and that is the bill that will be taken 
up in the House.
  The chairman did extend permanently this provision--not many others. 
He paid for that. The chairman extolled the fact that he paid for it, 
and now they have gone in reverse and now suggest that we proceed 
unpaid for permanently. The cost of this is far different than a 2-year 
extension, as I have mentioned--far different. We are talking about 
over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars.
  Let me just say that everybody has to be mystified as to why in the 
world the Republicans are doing this when it violates their budget, 
when it violates the chairman's and the Republicans' Ways and Means tax 
proposal, and when, if this is done, it is going to be part of a 
ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion and will have major 
ramifications for so many programs.
  Essentially, what they are doing is, on the one hand, increasing this 
deficit dramatically--through the ceiling. Then they are going to come 
back on the other hand and say, ah, the deficit went through the 
ceiling, so we need to take away, with the other, education programs, 
health programs--all kinds of programs that are necessary--
transportation programs. They are going to say, well, we just don't 
have the money when, essentially, the reason is that they have tried to 
pass a bill that throws money out the window.
  We are going to extend the small business tax cut. We are going to do 
that--Democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens--but 
not in a way that is part of a reckless, irresponsible approach. That 
is a major, major reason we simply have to say: extend it for 2 years. 
Then let's sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these 
provisions as part of a tax reform effort that is serious and is 
bipartisan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on the Ways and Means 
Committee. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. You 
have been a great leader, and we look forward to allowing you to lead 
us the rest of this year on our committee as we continue the debate on 
the extenders and making some permanent.
  H.R. 4457 would permanently extend the small business expensing for 
equipment and property outlined in section 179 of the Tax Code.
  As many of you know, section 179 first came into existence in 1958. I 
wasn't yet born. My parents were not yet married. They got married in 
1958, so they didn't see the debate here in Washington. It may not have 
been quite like the debate today, though, I would say, because, ladies 
and gentlemen, Members of Congress, this is a mystifying debate. This 
shouldn't be this difficult. No wonder Congress has a low approval 
rating.
  Section 179 of our Tax Code is very simple, and as the chairman said, 
it has been very bipartisan over the years. It allows businessowners to 
immediately deduct the cost of the investments of property and computer 
software rather than depreciating such cost over time.
  In fact, on January 1, what had been an extender that allowed for the 
maximum expensing of $500,000 and the deduction phased out of 
investments exceeding $2 million went back to what is current law 
today. That is why this is so important. It is the essence of this 
debate, and it is the essence of what my bill does because it went 
down. The limit went down to $25,000 and up to $200,000 of investments.
  If you talk to Tom and Judy Price, who are from my district, they 
think that what we do here is just crazy and mystifying because they 
have to make real decisions in real time and with real money, not make-
believe, not theory. They have to make decisions that impact real lives 
and real costs and real jobs. This is a jobs bill. That is what this is 
about. If you ask Tom and Judy Price, we have had expensing, and

[[Page H5332]]

we have had higher limits than $25,000. We don't today. We had them 
before, but they weren't paid for. We have had them for the 10 years 
since I have been here, and they haven't been paid for.
  But do you know what? Here is the reality of life.
  In Delaware County, Ohio, I talked to Tom Price this morning. He has 
a mulching business. He needs to buy a loader. Is Congress going to 
provide certainty? Oh, 2 years is fine. Retroactivity is fine. That is 
the narrative around here, Mr. Speaker. We've done it before. Let's do 
it again this way.

                              {time}  1030

  The Senate won't accept it. Let's surrender our card today. Let's 
surrender my voting card, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhere here. Let me 
give it to the Senate.
  My daughter, going into sixth grade, understands there are two 
Houses. We shouldn't be surrendering this card, Mr. Speaker, to the 
Senate because, oh, the Senate is going to do it their way; have always 
done it that way.
  Ladies and gentlemen, a bill becomes a law this way. The House passes 
a bill. That is what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, add 
permanency.
  Tom and Judy Price, in their mulching business, they would like 
certainty to plan, not oh, we will make it retroactive and we will go 
out a year. Oh, by the way, Mr. Price, we are going to do it in 
November. We are going to make it retroactive to January.
  Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
  You guys couldn't survive running a business in Washington, D.C. You 
couldn't survive.
  That is what this debate is all about. It is about reality.
  My daughter knows that the Senate has the right to do anything they 
want, but we have our right with our card. Guess what?
  There is supposed to be a conference committee. There is supposed to 
be a real debate and oh, my God, compromise between the House and the 
Senate. That is what this is supposed to be about. That is what I tell 
my daughter who is going into sixth grade.
  But no, let's surrender to the Senate right now. Let's just 
surrender. We have surrendered before.
  And oh my goodness, these deficits. These businesses pay taxes. You 
all want to raise taxes on them.
  When we had a debate on this floor, and I was here in 2009, we passed 
a $1 trillion stimulus bill. $1 trillion. Nobody cared about the 
deficit then.
  But Mr. Price and Mrs. Price are trying to buy a loader for $200,000, 
and we are debating over the deficit and temporary Tax Code and 
retroactivity and surrendering to the Senate. That is what this debate 
is about. That is what this has come to.
  And you wonder why, Mr. Speaker, Americans think Washington is 
broken; because we don't understand what real-life Americans who are 
trying to run a business and hire employees and raise their wages, they 
don't understand why we are having these mystical debates because they 
are living in the real world, the real world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, but I am 
constrained to respond to the remarks, the emotional remarks, the 
perplexed remarks of the gentleman who preceded me.
  I have a voting card too. And I don't know whether either Tom or Judy 
Price have been unemployed, or whether their brother or their sister 
have run out of unemployment insurance and have been left twisting in 
the wind. But this voting card could give them extended unemployment 
insurance.
  I don't know whether Tom and Judy Price have employees who are making 
the minimum wage and living in poverty. This card could change that and 
up the minimum wage, but it hasn't been brought to the floor.
  I tell my friend from Ohio, this card could fix what everybody agrees 
is a broken immigration system, but we are not using this card, I tell 
my friend from Ohio, because we are dabbling in the unrealistic.
  This card, this card could pass export-import. He wants to grow jobs. 
Export-import is absolutely critical, and it phases out, and you will 
not bring it to this floor.
  This card, and your card, joined together with 216 other cards, could 
pass all of those pieces of legislation. This card could make sure that 
Tom and Judy Price have an economy that is more resilient.
  And this card--my friend from Ohio is distracted, but I tell my 
friend from Ohio, this card helped pass the Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, without which Tom and Judy Price might not be in business today 
because your tax policies of 2001 and 2003, unpaid for, which were 
supposed to grow this economy, resulted in more loss of jobs than any 
policy since Herbert Hoover.
  This card ought to be used today for fiscal responsibility. This card 
ought to be used to say to your chairman that you praised, David Camp, 
yes, we want to do comprehensive tax reform, not just little item by 
little item by little item, which destroys tax reform, which 
exacerbates our deficit, and will destroy investment in education, 
infrastructure, and growing our economy.
  This card, I urge my colleagues to use responsibly this day.
  All of us here support helping small businesses expand operations so 
they can hire more workers, all of us. Our Tax Code ought to encourage 
small businesses to do so.
  But the Republican majority's approach to tax policy, evidenced by 
the two bills on the floor today, is simply the wrong path.
  Do not use your card, given to you by the American people, trusting 
that you will do the responsible, commonsense thing, don't use this 
card irresponsibly today.
  The bills we are considering today are the latest examples of 
Republican hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy on deficits, as their 
approach would raise deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars.
  There is no free lunch. This pretends there is a free lunch.
  Hypocrisy on tax policy is a representative rejection of the 
comprehensive approach to tax reform Republicans' own Ways and Means 
Chairman, David Camp, that the gentleman from Ohio just praised, put on 
this floor, or at least put on the table, not on the floor.
  And the response of the Speaker of this House was, and I quote, 
``Blah, blah, blah, blah.''
  What a shame. How unserious.
  While I have serious concerns about some of the policy changes that 
Chairman Camp's proposal contains, it made the difficult choices and it 
was paid for. It was responsible.
  Republicans and Democrats all say we want a comprehensive tax reform. 
This undermines tax reform. So if you say you are for comprehensive tax 
reform, don't do little, itty-bitty pieces that are unpaid for, 
exacerbate the deficit, and undermine tax reform.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. These bills today reject that approach and, instead, take 
the easy way out by irresponsibly adding their cost to the deficit, a 
deficit that my friends on the other side of the aisle, with whom I 
join, lament on a daily basis but, somehow, disconnect their policies 
from their lamentations.
  In doing so, these bills will put even more pressure on a 
discretionary budget facing the return of sequester next year, 
undermining our ability to invest in critical priorities like veterans 
care, highways, education, bills to make sure that we grow our economy 
and create jobs.

  Democrats are ready to make the hard choices so that we leave America 
a better country, not a poorer country, not a deeper in debt country, 
but a better country for our children and our grandchildren.
  Rather than waste our time on these individual bills, Congress ought 
to debate and amend comprehensive tax reform, allowing us to face up to 
our responsibility to make the tough decisions the American people 
expect from their representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't live in a perfect Congress, none of us do, or in 
a country that always makes the right decisions. So I will vote for an 
MTR which says we are not going to permanently exacerbate our deficit, 
but we will make sure that business does have the opportunity to have 
these tax benefits, as we

[[Page H5333]]

have in a bipartisan basis done in the past.
  So I will vote for the MTR. I will vote to make sure that we extend 
these for 2 years, as the Senate suggests. I don't think that is the 
best policy. It is not the policy I would choose. The policy I would 
choose is comprehensively giving permanent, long-term R&D, paid for so 
that we don't exacerbate the deficit, but we do give confidence so 
businesses can grow.
  So I tell my friend from Ohio, we both have a card. The responsible 
step for us to take is to vote ``no'' on temporary and come with 
fiscally responsible legislation to this floor.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Hoosier State, Indiana (Mr. Young), a great member of the Ways and 
Means Committee and a member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee. He has 
provided great leadership on the subcommittee, and I appreciate his 
work.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act.
  I want to thank my colleague, Pat Tiberi, for his hard work on this 
initiative, which is vital to the small businesses and farmers across 
my district.
  I would be remiss if I didn't respond to the last speaker's comments, 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland who, with a straight face, 
indicated that this card, his card, was a vehicle for fiscal 
responsibility when, consistently he has confused this card with this 
card, a credit card.
  We have continued to rack up debts, over and over again, and we have 
not engaged in growth-oriented public policy, and that is what this 
bill is intended to do.
  This bill increases the amount a small business taxpayer may 
immediately deduct when she buys operating materials for her business.
  The ability of small businesses to immediately deduct the cost of 
qualified investment in the year purchased, rather than having to 
recover the cost through depreciation over several years, has been 
essential to the survival of thousands of firms over the past decade.
  Higher expensing limits will encourage businesses to invest in new 
computers, tractors, and other types of business equipment and grow.
  Such investment will have, of course, important second-order 
effects--economists tell us this--on the economy as these purchases are 
magnified throughout the nation.
  The version of section 179 we are considering today expired at the 
end of 2012, and since then, back home I have heard from a parade of 
constituents, businessowners and workers alike, about the need to 
restore the provision.
  I have heard from Indiana NFIB, Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana 
Manufacturers Association, Indiana Farm Bureau, and countless 
individual businesses and workers, and I am glad we are working in the 
House, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to help unleash the ability of 
our Nation's small businesses to grow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TIBERI. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. These small businesses are the engine of 
American job creation. They create roughly three out of five American 
jobs that have been created over recent years. And one critical means 
of supporting American small businesses and working Americans is 
through business tax incentives like section 179.
  This is a proven success. It has proven itself over the last several 
years. And it is evident that these small businesses are one bright 
spot of job creation, personal opportunity, and upward mobility during 
these troubled times.
  I support this commonsensical bill that is going to help small 
businesses grow and restore a measure of hope and opportunity to rank-
and-file Americans during these troubled times.
  I would like to thank Chairman Tiberi for his important work in 
offering this legislation.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
reconsider their partisan reservations to supporting this measure.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute and yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from Indiana raised his credit card. He apparently is 
going to use his vote as you would use a credit card, to incur an 
additional $73 billion in unpaid for debt.
  Mr. LEVIN. The whip is so correct.
  The gentleman from Indiana is very confused. He is using his voting 
card as a credit card. $73 billion on this bill. Our voting card is not 
a credit card, but the Republicans are turning this into a credit card, 
with calamitous results.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), 
another distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Republicans would dig our 
country into another trillion dollars of debt, borrowing from the 
Chinese, the Saudis, whoever will lend it to us.
  They have already approved borrowing $614 billion for business tax 
breaks, and they have told us that there are more on the way, more tax 
privileges, more tax exceptions, more tax advantages.
  This bill today is just another chapter in their ledger of accounts 
payable for the American taxpayers. Such fiscal irresponsibility 
doesn't represent a plan for genuine tax relief for small businesses or 
for anyone else.
  I will say that I agree with them, that small businesses have every 
reason to complain, as do individual taxpayers, because the Tax Code 
that they have done so much to write is riddled with special treatment 
for those who pay more to their lobbyists here in Washington than they 
do to the U.S. Treasury.
  It has been a wise investment for them, but a pretty sorry outcome 
for small business and individual taxpayers. We have some multinational 
companies who have set up hundreds of offshore subsidiaries to shift 
their profits out of America and into a place where they don't pay a 
dime.
  I can tell you that the cleaning crew at the headquarters of General 
Electric pays a higher tax rate than General Electric does. That is not 
fair. They pay a higher tax rate than Joe's Bakery or Patty's Taco 
House down in San Antonio.
  That is not fair. It ought to be corrected; but instead, they have 
added almost another $100 billion in tax loopholes that they have 
proposed and have approved in committee to help those folks continue 
dodging their taxes.
  At the same time, the proponents of today's bills tell us that 
America simply cannot afford more to educate its children. Only the day 
before yesterday, the Senate refused to address the problem of soaring 
student debt, now bigger than credit card debt, exceeded only by the 
giant debt they want to incur for more tax breaks.
  They tell us: we can't afford to do the research necessary to cure 
Alzheimer's or to find new solutions to cancer and AIDS and other 
dreaded diseases.
  This is not about borrowing to raise small business up. This is just 
an excuse to reduce the government investment that we need to grow our 
economy.
  Apparently, to the Republicans, deficits only matter when asking 
seniors and students and others to sacrifice, but not when it comes to 
adding one tax break after another.
  Now, how did we get to the situation that we are in today? Well, 
there has been a convenient amnesia about the history of tax reform in 
this Congress. Last January, the gentleman from Ohio--the Speaker--and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) came to this floor and they 
said: America, have we got a deal for you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We have got a great deal for you. This big old fat Tax 
Code that is bigger than the Bible many times over, that we helped 
expand to resolve the needs of our special interest supporters, we are 
going to put it on a diet. We are going to thin it down.
  We are going to give you a simple Tax Code that is easy to comply 
with. In addition to that, we are going to lower your rate; and you 
know what, we are going to do all that, and we are not going to add a 
penny to the national debt, and we will keep the rates relatively the 
same for everybody.

[[Page H5334]]

  They reserved H.R. 1. They said: it is so important, we are going to 
make it the number one priority here. Where are we on that bill, I 
would ask the gentleman today; and I can tell you it is still reserved 
for the Speaker.
  They have never brought it out, put it on this table, and given the 
American people a chance to vote on it because what happened was they 
went through a long process, they produced their draft bill, and the 
lobby went wild against it. They could not stand up to the very people 
that helped them write the complex, unfair Tax Code that we have today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. They couldn't stand up to those special interests, so 
that bill, 18 months later--not the result of anything the Democrats 
did, not the result of anything the President did--they couldn't agree 
among themselves about how to respond to all those special interest 
pressures.
  So they are back today, going one little bill at a time to add a few 
hundred billion here, a few hundred billion dollars there, and not 
provide the comprehensive tax reform they told us, themselves, they 
would be providing, and that is why we find ourselves in the 
predicament we are in today.
  I agree with the gentleman, people in Ohio, across America, in Texas, 
and elsewhere, that they have reason to question this Congress, because 
a promise is just like that.
  Promises to bring reform, to work together in a bipartisan fashion 
left on the cutting room floor because special interests, the people 
that don't pay their fair share of taxes today, they want to keep it 
that way. They want to continue to disadvantage small business and 
individual taxpayers.
  Today, we need to say ``no'' to this measure and ``no'' to their 
other temporary measures and demand real reform.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just for the record, the gentleman from Texas has voted for the 
policy of either increasing or extending section 179, without offsets, 
six times on a temporary basis for a total of 8 years.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIBERI. The gentleman from Michigan has time to yield to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  The motion to recommit that the minority keeps talking about today 
will add billions to the deficit as well, and as I explained earlier, 
the problem with the narrative of We have done it this way, we are 
going to do it again, and the problem with surrender, as was talked 
about by the gentleman from Massachusetts, who I have a great deal of 
respect for, is the fact that we are missing the point of what is 
happening in the real America.
  Real Americans see that we, on this floor, get a stimulus bill by the 
other side, in 2009--and I was here--jammed down our throats that added 
$1 trillion to the deficit.
  Today, the minority is concerned about the deficit, and I assume they 
want those same small business owners who are trying so hard to create 
jobs with additional regulations--like Tom and Judy Price face--and 
they want them to pay more taxes, that is the bottom line; but when 
they have increased the debt before--whether it is for temporary tax 
policy or additional spending--there was no concern about the deficit 
and the debt.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary Lew, in a speech 
at the Economic Club in New York, said, ``The U.S. could face a 
permanent downturn in economic growth without increased business 
investment.''
  How timely--because if you go to my district and talk to Tom Price or 
talk to Gary Skinner, who owns a farm--and I had the privilege of being 
in his combine, that combine costs $250,000--guess what: it is about 
this provision today.
  The reality with our unpermanent extender policy, with respect to the 
investments that Mr. Lew talked about yesterday, is that real job 
creators who are trying to grow their businesses, hire more people--so 
people like my dad, when I was in high school--wouldn't have to get 
unemployment, like he did or my dad--who was an immigrant, so I 
understand a little bit about immigration--despite the fact that the 
gentleman from Maryland might not think so--and mom, another 
immigrant--could get jobs. That is what this is all about.
  All you have to do is go talk to these job creators who are looking 
at us with a whole lot of perplexed looks as to: Why can't we change 
the narrative? Why can't the House have a position to negotiate with 
the Senate? Why does it have to always be, well, this is the way we 
have done it retroactively for 2 years, this is the way we will do it 
again?
  That gives no certainty to these job creators, to these farmers. That 
is what this debate is all about, ladies and gentlemen.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished 
member of our committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Ohio talk about his concern 
for small businesses and the economy. I am reflecting on the thousands 
of businesses that were represented here on Capitol Hill this week, 
calling on Congress to get its act together, dealing with 
transportation funding.
  We are facing a crisis in transportation in this country. The 
majority, because they couldn't put together a transportation bill last 
year, drove the highway trust fund down to zero. They milked every 
single dime to be able to get a 27-month extension.
  What has happened? Well, actually, what has happened is that it is 
not even going to last until October 1. All across the country, States 
are cutting back on funding contracts now because the Department of 
Transportation is going to run out of money late this summer.
  These people were rallying on Capitol Hill, large business, small 
business, environment, unions, from all across America, saying: 
Congress, get your act together.
  I will note, with some small amount of irony, that my friends on the 
Ways and Means Committee have approved over $600 billion of tax breaks 
added to the deficit that would have fully funded not one 6-year 
transportation bill, but two robust transportation bills.
  Did you listen to those small businesses? Did you listen to the 
contractors? Did you listen to the equipment rental people, the 
asphalt, the gravel, the concrete? To those people, we have turned a 
deaf ear.
  The Ways and Means Committee, in 42 months, has not had a single 
hearing on transportation finance. We had one misguided work session on 
a bill that had never had the benefit of a hearing that collapsed. They 
passed it out of committee, but they couldn't even bring it to the 
floor, so we got this 27-month extension.
  We are facing, this summer, losing 700,000 construction jobs because 
Congress refuses to act. My friends on Ways and Means won't even have a 
hearing on transportation, will approve $600 billion worth of tax cuts; 
but we are not dealing with a crisis for your State, for my State, red 
States, blue States, union and nonunion, big business, small business, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the building trades. Let's get a 
grip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If you care about small business, if you care about 
the health and welfare of your community, if you care about the future 
of the economy, read the Standard & Poor's report that pointed out that 
the investments we make will pay for themselves many times over.
  It is not just saving those 700,000 jobs. It is an opportunity to 
grow the economy in the future in something that doesn't have to be 
conservative, liberal, red State, blue State. It is an opportunity to 
bring America together to rebuild and renew our economy.
  That is what we should be focusing on, rather than this sideshow 
today that is going to make long-term tax reform harder, add to the 
deficit, and not deal with the fundamental problems that our 
constituents were asking us to deal with this week.

[[Page H5335]]

  There were thousands of them here rallying before the Congress. We 
turned a deaf ear. Is this really the best we could come up with?
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a letter addressed 
to me and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Representative Ron Kind, dated 
June 9, from many employers. In fact, it represents millions of job 
creators throughout America and their support for making permanent this 
provision of section 179 of our Tax Code.

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                                    June 10, 2014.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in 
     the United States representing manufacturers in every 
     industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support 
     H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, 
     introduced by Reps. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) and Ron Kind (D-WI). 
     This bipartisan legislation restores and makes permanent the 
     enhanced Section 179 expensing provisions that expired at the 
     end of 2013.
       Enhanced Section 179 expensing allows small and medium-
     sized manufacturers to immediately write off up to $500,000 
     of investments in new property and equipment in the year 
     purchased, rather than depreciating the cost of the 
     investment overtime. Making this provision a permanent part 
     of the tax code will provide these job creators with the 
     certainty needed for effective business planning. In reducing 
     the after-tax cost of investments, the legislation will help 
     spur much-needed investments in new property and sales of 
     capital equipment. Since 2003, Congress has steadily 
     increased the amount of investment that small businesses can 
     expense, from $25,000 to $500,000.
       Capital investment is key to economic growth, job creation 
     and competitiveness. Thus, NAM members strongly support H.R. 
     4457 and urge Congress to pass this important legislation.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on H.R. 4457 may be considered for designation as Key 
     Manufacturing Votes in the 113th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
                                  ____

                                                     June 9, 2014.
     Hon. Pat Tiberi,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ron Kind,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Tiberi and Kind: The undersigned 
     organizations, representing millions of businesses from every 
     state and from every industry sector, are writing in strong 
     support of H.R. 4457, the America's Small Business Tar Relief 
     Act of 2014. This vital legislation would restore the small 
     business expensing--sometimes called Section 179 expensing--
     level to $500,000, including limited improvements to real 
     property and permanently index the level to inflation.
       Small business expensing allows business owners to 
     immediately deduct the cost of a qualified investment in the 
     year that it is purchased, rather than being forced to 
     depreciate the cost of the investment over time. Since 2003, 
     Congress has steadily increased the amount of investment that 
     small businesses can expense from $25,000 to $500,000. 
     Support for this expansion has been long-standing, bipartisan 
     and widespread. Legislation expanding and/or extending small 
     business expensing has been enacted eight times, across two 
     Presidential Administrations and six Congresses, under both 
     Democratic and Republican leadership. These higher expensing 
     limits were temporary, however, and beginning in 2014 they 
     reverted to $25,000 and will remain there unless Congress 
     acts.
       While expensing provides important relief to small business 
     owners, it is not a ``tax cut'' or a ``tax loophole.'' Small 
     business expensing simply gives companies the ability to 
     recover the cost of investing in their own businesses more 
     quickly than if they use depreciation. Expensing does not 
     lead to a loss of revenue to the government over the lifetime 
     of an investment--it is not a matter of if revenue is 
     collected, but when. Additionally, small business expensing 
     is available to all small businesses that purchase less than 
     a specified amount of equipment each year.
       Small business expensing gives business owners the ability 
     to maximize investment in their companies during years when 
     they have positive cash flow. This provides an incentive for 
     small business owners to reinvest in their businesses, which 
     fuels expansion, growth and jobs. This is particularly 
     important for small businesses because they are more 
     sensitive than larger firms to problems related to cash flow 
     and are more reliant on earnings to finance new investment.
       Additionally, small business expensing simplifies record-
     keeping and paperwork. Under standard depreciation, small 
     business owners must keep records of, and file tax paperwork 
     associated with, eligible investments for up to 39 years. 
     According to a 2007 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) study, 
     each small business devotes, on average, about 240 hours 
     complying with the tax code, and spends over $2,000 in tax 
     compliance costs each year. An overwhelming share of the time 
     burden is due to record-keeping. Furthermore, high tax 
     compliance costs consistently rank as a top concern of small 
     business owners, and act as a drag on investment, growth and 
     innovation. Small business expensing, as the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation (JCT) notes, reduces the compliance burden for 
     many taxpayers, freeing up time and resources to better 
     devote to their businesses.
       The roller-coaster, ad-hoc changes in the level of small 
     business expensing, which have often been enacted 
     retroactively in recent years, has greatly contributed to 
     uncertainty and prevented long-term planning. Making the 
     higher small business expensing limits permanent and 
     predictable would greatly reduce uncertainty and reduce the 
     incidence of tax policy driving business decisions.
       Passage of legislation permanently maintaining small 
     business expensing at $500,000 will increase investment and 
     jobs, reduce complexity and paperwork and alleviate 
     uncertainty. These are critical issues for small businesses, 
     which continue to experience a challenging business climate 
     in the face of a stagnant economic recovery. We thank you for 
     introducing H.R. 4457, the America's Small Business Tar 
     Relief Act of 2014 and urge all Members of Congress to 
     support this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
       Academy of General Dentistry, Advanced Medical Technology 
     Association's Emerging Growth Company Council, Aeronautical 
     Repair Station Association, Agricultural Retailers 
     Association, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, 
     American Apparel & Footwear Association, American Association 
     of Small Property Owners, American Composites Manufacturers 
     Association, American Council of Engineering Companies, 
     American Dental Association, American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Foundry Society, American Loggers Council, 
     American Moving & Storage Association, American Rental 
     Association, American Road & Transportation Builders 
     Association, American Society of Travel Agents, American 
     Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Supply Association, 
     American Truck Dealers, Americans for Tax Reform, AMT--The 
     Association For Manufacturing Technology, Arizona Small 
     Business Association.
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Builders 
     and Contractors--Greater Tennessee Chapter, Associated 
     Builders and Contractors Florida East Coast Chapter, 
     Associated Builders and Contractors, Rocky Mountain Chapter, 
     Associated Equipment Distributors, Associated General 
     Contractors, Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc., Association of 
     Equipment Manufacturers, Association of Pool & Spa 
     Professionals, Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industry.
       Auto Care Association, Aviation Suppliers Association, 
     California Farm Bureau Federation, Carolinas Food Industry 
     Council, CCIM Institute, Chamber of Commerce Southern, New 
     Jersey, Clean Water Construction Coalition, Colorado Wyoming 
     Petroleum Marketers Association, Construction Industry Round 
     Table, Cotton Warehouse Association of America, Delaware 
     Retail Council.
       Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, Foodservice Equipment 
     Distributors Association, Great Lakes Timber Professionals 
     Association, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Heating, 
     Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International 
     (HARDI), Independent Electrical Contractors, Indiana Chamber 
     of Commerce, Indiana Manufacturers Association, Industrial 
     Supply Association, Inland Pacific Chapter Associated 
     Builders & Contractors, Institute of Real Estate Management.
       International Association of Plastics Distribution (IAPD), 
     International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association, 
     International Council of Shopping Centers, International 
     Dairy Foods Association, International Franchise Association, 
     International Warehouse Logistics Association, Irrigation 
     Association, ISSA--The Worldwide Cleaning Industry 
     Association, Louisiana Logging Council, Metals Service Center 
     Institute, Michigan Association of Timbermen, Michigan 
     Grocers Association.
       Missouri Forest Products Association, Modification and 
     Replacement Parts Association, Montana Equipment Dealers 
     Association, Montana Restaurant Association, Montana Retail 
     Association, Montana Tire Dealers Association, National 
     Apartment Association, National Association of Chemical 
     Distributers, National Association of Convenience Stores, 
     National Association of Electrical Distributors, National 
     Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of REALTORS deg., National Association 
     of Shell Marketers, National Association of Wheat Growers, 
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National 
     Automobile Dealers Association, National Beer Wholesalers 
     Association (NBWA), National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
     National Confectioners Association, National Corn Growers 
     Association, National Cotton Council.
       National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Electrical 
     Manufacturers Representatives Association, National Fastener 
     Distributors Association, National Federation of Independent 
     Business, National Funeral Directors Association, National 
     Golf Course Owners Association, National Grocers Association, 
     National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, 
     National Marine Distributors Association, National 
     Multifamily Housing Council.
       National Pork Producers Council, National Potato Council, 
     National Propane Gas Association, National Restaurant 
     Association,

[[Page H5336]]

     National Retail Federation, National Roofing Contractors 
     Association, National Small Business Association, National 
     Sorghum Producers, National Stone, Sand and Gravel 
     Association, National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA), 
     NATSO, Representing America's Truckstops and Travel Plazas, 
     New Jersey Business & Industry Association.
       Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, North Carolina Retail 
     Merchants Association, North Country Chamber of Commerce, 
     North-American Association of Uniform Manufacturers & 
     Distributors, Northern Arizona Loggers Association, NPES The 
     Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and 
     Converting Technologies, NTEA--The Association for the Work 
     Truck Industry, Ohio Grocers Association, Outdoor Power 
     Equipment and Engine Service Association, Pacific-West 
     Fastener Association, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 
     Industry.
       Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Stores of Iowa, Petroleum 
     Marketers and Convenience Store Association of Kansas, 
     Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Plumbing-Heating-
     Cooling Contractors' National Association, Printing 
     Industries of America, Professional Logging Contractors of 
     Maine, S Corporation Association, SC Timber Producers 
     Association, Selected Independent Funeral Homes, Small 
     Business & Entrepreneurship Council.
       Small Business Legislative Counsel, Society of American 
     Florists, South Carolina Retail Association, SouthWestern 
     Association, Specialty Equipment Market Association, SP1: The 
     Plastics Industry Trade Association, Tennessee Hospitality & 
     Tourism Association, Textile Care Allied Trades Association.
       The Outdoor Power Equipment and Engine Service Association 
     (OPEESA), Tire Industry Association, Truck Renting and 
     Leasing Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United Egg 
     Producers, United Producers, Inc., USA Rice Federation.
       Utility & Transportation Contractors Association of New 
     Jersey, Western Growers Association, Western United Dairymen, 
     Wichita Independent Business Association, Wisconsin Grocers 
     Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin 
     Restaurant Association, Woodworking Machinery Industry 
     Association.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter that I 
received from the National Association of Manufacturers. Having 
certainty over the tax treatment of critical investments will make 
planning for future investments significantly easier.

       Capital investment is key to economic growth, job creation, 
     and competitiveness.

  Consequently, enactment of this policy would amount to a major step 
towards a Tax Code that will promote investment.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, again, this is all about jobs. Whether it is on a family 
farm, whether it is in a mulch business, whether it is a small 
manufacturer, this is about increasing jobs. Even Mr. Lew said we have 
a significant problem that we are facing about capital investments. 
This is, over the last 50 years, a tried-and-true provision that we 
know creates jobs. And to provide certainty is so critical. If we talk 
to those job creators--I have talked to them, Mr. Speaker. This is so 
important to give them certainty over time, not retroactivity like the 
narrative that we fall into.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished gentleman of our committee.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  For the record, Mr. Speaker, I was proud earlier this year to 
introduce the America's Small Business Tax Relief Act with my good 
friend and colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi, the 
small business expensing provision that is before us.
  I get the feeling that during today's debate we are talking past each 
other because I fully support the policy goals behind the small 
business expensing bill. It is important that we find a way to get this 
done. It is important that we establish permanency in the Tax Code, 
just as I was supportive of introducing legislation on the S 
Corporation Modernization bill earlier this year with my friend, Dave 
Reichert, on the committee. Many of those provisions were addressed 
earlier this morning.
  But the difference in today's debate, and really the difference in 
our party's approach to this policy change, comes down to one simple 
idea: whether we are going to have the fiscal discipline to pay for 
these permanent changes in the Tax Code or whether we are going to 
continue to wrack up the debt and leave a legacy of debt for these 
children, our children and grandchildren, throughout the country.
  That is the only difference that we have in today's debate, not about 
the policy behind it and the permanent nature and the importance to 
small businesses and family farmers, but whether we are going to 
exercise the fiscal discipline to do this the right way rather than 
continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and leaving this for future 
generations to contend with. That is why I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' and continue focusing on comprehensive tax reform.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I give the chairman of our committee, 
Dave Camp, credit for introducing a draft discussion proposal on 
comprehensive reform because we have been guided in the last few years 
under a simple rule of proposition that if we are going to reduce tax 
rates, if we are going to broaden the base, and if we are going to 
simplify the Code and make it more competitive, then we have to find 
offsets in it so we are not blowing holes in the deficit in the future. 
And Chairman Camp stayed true to that discipline.
  What is ironic is that now, just a few short weeks after the 
introduction of that, we are right back into these old bad habits of 
introducing tax cuts with no pay-fors--with no offsets--just to 
increase the debt for future generations. And what is especially ironic 
today is this comes just a few short weeks after they passed their own 
Republican budget resolution that has specifically stated in it that if 
we are going to do permanent change to the Tax Code, they have to be 
offset. They have to be paid for.
  So which is it? A few weeks ago when you were singing the praises of 
fiscal discipline supporting that budget resolution and talking about 
how you are going to make the tough choices? Or today, with permanently 
changing with no offsets? And there is a difference, I tell my friend 
from Ohio, between some of the short-term extensions that are meant to 
keep the pressure on permanent changes versus what is being attempted 
today.
  Because he knows, as I do, and as everyone else knows, that the 
number of times that this Congress has taken a vote for a permanent 
change in the Tax Code with no pay-for and no offset has been zero. It 
has been zero.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. KIND. But what we also know around here is what does work. And 
what does work is pay-as-you-go budgetary rules. That was something 
that was in place during the 1990s with the support of President George 
H. W. Bush at the time and President Clinton at the time. And because 
of a strong, growing, robust economy that created 24 million jobs 
during that time, and along with pay-as-you-go budgeting discipline, we 
ended up with 4 years of budget surpluses that we were paying down the 
national debt rather than adding to it. And that soon was replaced by 
the next administration and a Republican Congress that supported two 
wars with no pay-fors, supported two large tax cuts with no pay-fors, 
and supported the largest increase in Medicare spending--the part D 
prescription drug bill--without a nickel of it being paid for and 
supported the largest increase in discretionary spending since the 
Great Society without paying for any of it.
  So when President Obama took office, he inherited--he inherited--a 
$1.5 trillion budget deficit. And if the people are wondering how we 
dig a hole like that, they need only look at bills that are on the 
floor today. We are talking about permanent changes to the Tax Code 
with no pay-fors.
  We can do better. I know it is hard work to do comprehensive tax 
reform. It means our having to stand up and saying no to a lot of 
powerful special interests in this town, but it is exactly what we have 
to have the courage to do to do it the right way so we are not leaving 
this legacy of debt to these children and to future generations to 
wrestle with.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is the gentleman ready to close?
  Mr. TIBERI. I have no further speakers, sir, and I am prepared to 
close.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The fact of the matter is that this provision is going to be 
extended. And

[[Page H5337]]

you can vote for Mr. Neal's motion to recommit. I guess it is against 
your creed to vote for it, so you can vote ``no.'' But you will vote 
later. And it may be a few months from now, it may not be until after 
the election. I think it would be better to do it now, if not now then 
in the next month.
  So don't scare, Mr. Tiberi, the small business people in your 
district. Tell them what the reality is. We are going to extend this. 
But we are not going to make it permanent unpaid for. It hasn't been 
done before for good reason, including the need to review it now and 
then, and also to take into account the cost. I think what the 
Republicans are doing, to kind of use an old slogan, an old way of 
saying it, you are giving hypocrisy a bad name.
  This is contrary to your budget that you voted for. It is contrary to 
the Republican Ways and Means tax provisions put together under the 
leadership of Mr. Dave Camp. What is going to happen is, when you add 
all this together, you have an astronomical addition to the debt--$614 
billion, climbing, if you follow this path, to $1 trillion.
  So, I think there is no choice here to avoid hypocrisy, or if you 
want to continue the hypocrisy on your side, vote for this. We are not 
going to do that. This is a bad idea to proceed this way. We support 
continuation of this provision, in a responsible, not an irresponsible 
way, and in a way that isn't reckless.
  So I strongly urge all the Democrats to look at the full picture 
here, the hypocrisy on their side and the ramifications, if we continue 
on this path, for the programs that we believe in, the programs that 
have helped to make the middle class of America and the programs that 
need to be continued and not snuffed out because the Republicans, on 
the one hand, essentially skyrocketed the debt, and then they come back 
to us and say, we are sorry that we are so in debt that we have to keep 
cutting the programs that middle America counts on for their 
livelihood, for their jobs, for their education, and their health.
  So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I look forward to the motion to 
recommit by Mr. Neal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will tell the gentleman from Michigan my constituents don't have to 
be scared. They watch us. I don't have to tell them anything. And I am 
certainly not going to tell Mr. Skinner or Mr. Price, trust us, we will 
retroactively, we will, ladies and gentlemen, we will retroactively--
because we are going to surrender today--we are going to retroactively 
pass a policy in November or December to allow you to expense something 
that you bought in June, because today Mr. Price needs to buy a loader 
for his mulch business.
  And he scratches his head; retroactively? Retroactively? You guys 
don't know what operating businesses are all about if you are talking 
about retroactively, because that has been the narrative here. The 
other narrative is that the Senate is not going to do it. Well, with 
all due respect, after the R&D tax credit debate on this floor when the 
same argument was used, Senator Barbara Boxer--not someone who I agree 
with a lot on things--said that maybe we should look at making that 
permanent. Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, a member of the Democrat 
leadership, opened up the possibility of maybe we should make some of 
these permanent. Tom and Judy Price would be proud of Mr. Durbin. I 
don't know if Mr. Durbin has run a business or not, but Mr. Price does 
with his wife.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this should be about common sense. Nobody is 
pure here. We have all added to the deficit. I would argue that the 
deficit was much higher when the other side was in control. Those are 
numbers. Less today, less last year, a lot more than 2009, I think we 
would all agree, the deficit, yearly deficit, the debt is certainly 
higher. The MTR will create debt. According to the Joint Tax, my bill 
will as well.
  But this is about job creators, about allowing them to invest, invest 
to grow their businesses, to hire more employees, the American Dream 
that my mom and dad came here to believe and live in, ladies and 
gentlemen. In a House that my daughter--my daughter in sixth grade 
understands that we have a right as a House to pass a bill and have a 
position that might be different than the Senate's. God forgive us for 
having a different position than the Senate. But just because the 
Senate wants to do 2 years doesn't mean we have to do 2 years.
  I don't understand that narrative. Even some of my colleagues say, 
well, why are we doing this because the Senate doesn't agree? Give me a 
break, ladies and gentlemen. Let's have a conference committee for 
once. Wouldn't that be great? That would be grand. And we can fight it 
out in conference committee just like the Founders told us we should.
  Ladies and gentlemen, with respect to tax policy, there has been no 
Member of the House, the Senate, and the administration that has 
provided leadership to get to comprehensive tax reform like David Camp. 
He has been bipartisan, he has been open, and he has provided 
incredible leadership. But as all of us know in looking at history, one 
House can't provide leadership. You need an executive at the White 
House who is going to provide leadership. And, quite frankly, we have 
had none.
  I credit Ron Wyden, the chairman of the Senate, he has got a bill at 
least. He has got a draft. I might not agree with his draft, but he has 
a right to have a draft, and the Senate has a right to have a position. 
And do you know what? Maybe one day we will get there soon, Mr. Neal. I 
know you are for that. I am for that. But we should have a House 
position. We should not surrender to the Senate.
  But to get comprehensive tax reform done, ladies and gentlemen, we 
have to have leadership in the White House. We can't do it alone.
  I thank Mr. Camp for his service. He has moved the ball on 
comprehensive tax reform greater than anybody has here since I have 
been here. But today is not about comprehensive tax reform, 
unfortunately. It is about providing certainty to small 
businessowners--our job creators in America. This is what they want. 
This is what they need. This is what has been proven to be successful 
to allow them to expand their businesses. And today, if Tom Price buys 
a loader for $200,000, he has to expense it over 7 years. His cash flow 
is killed, and I am not going to go tell him, ``don't worry. Trust me. 
We will do it in December retroactively.'' I will not do that.

                              {time}  1115

  We need to have a position. We need to do it today. We need to do it 
right. This is about policy. This shouldn't be about politics. This 
should be about the House's position.
  I urge each and every one of my colleagues to put the politics aside, 
quite frankly, and support this bill, have the House have a position, 
and let's challenge the Senate, and let's do it before November, before 
December. Let's do it now.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 4457, America's 
Small Business Tax Relief Act Of 2014.
  H.R. 4457 permanently sets the IRC Section 179 small business 
expensing maximum limit at $500,000. In order to remain profitable and 
be competitive, small business like limousine owners as represented by 
the National Limousine Association, farmers and ranchers, and others 
must continually upgrade and replace equipment, buildings, and storage 
facilities.
  A This is a very important provision due to its immediacy for small 
business owners.
  With provisions like Section 179, businesses are able to reduce 
maintenance costs, take advantage of labor-saving advances, become more 
energy-efficient and adopt technology that is environmentally friendly.
  Section 179 allows a taxpayer to deduct the cost of new or used 
business property rather than depreciating the cost over a longer 
period of time. The immediate expensing provided by Section 179 allows 
these businesses increased cash flow for purchases that might otherwise 
be delayed or that would require them to incur debt expense.
  The bill would make permanent rules that allow small businesses to 
expense capital investments in new equipment and property, making 
permanent provisions that provide that the maximum amount that a 
taxpayer may expense is $500,000.
  Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, this bill is estimated to cost $73.1 
billion over 10 years and it is not paid for, which means that the 
deficit will necessarily go up as a result.
  The Congressional Research Service has reviewed quantitative analyses 
of the tax

[[Page H5338]]

break and found that, ``. . . accelerated depreciation in general is a 
relatively ineffective tool for stimulating the economy.''
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the point that supporters of the bill 
argue: that it is necessary to ensure that small businesses can 
continue to make new investments in property and equipment even as 
costs rise, affecting more than 10 percent of small-business tax 
returns.
  They say it lowers the cost of capital for tangible property used in 
business, eliminates depreciation record-keeping requirements with 
respect to expensed property and removes a disincentive to buying more 
efficient cooling and heating equipment.
  Democrats generally support increased expensing under Section 179 but 
we cannot sit idly by while the party which has made deficit reduction 
their rallying cry--refuses to offset the cost of the bill.
  It must be noted that permanently extending six tax provisions that 
GOP leaders want to act on would add $310 billion to the deficit.
  With the bills on the floor today, Republicans are continuing their 
gross double standard of adding billions to the deficit to fund 
permanent tax breaks for businesses, while insisting on fully 
offsetting the cost of initiatives for middle class and working 
Americans, including veterans benefits, student loans, and unemployment 
insurance.
  The Democratic Motions to Recommit would put the brakes on 
Republicans' deficit-busting spending spree, and shorten these tax 
extensions. Democrats have always strongly supported expanded ``Section 
179'' expensing for small businesses and tax relief for S-Corporations, 
but permanent extensions of tax breaks that cost hundreds of billions 
are hypocritical and irresponsible.
  We need comprehensive tax reform that addresses the tax needs of 
middle class families as well as businesses. In the meantime, 
Republicans shouldn't be punching hundred billion dollar holes in the 
deficit.
  It is time for Republicans to stop ignoring hard working American 
families, and work with Democrats to create jobs, invest in innovation, 
and build an economy that works for everyone not just the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote for a two-year extension but these 
bills must be paid for--because if they are not--future generations 
will suffer because of the unsustainable debt.
  Let us get back to being fiscally responsible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
616, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. NEAL. In its current form, I am opposed to this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Neal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4457 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Amend section 2 to read as follows:

     SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF EXPENSING LIMITATION.

       (a) Dollar Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2013'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``2013, 2014, or 2015'', and
       (2) by striking ``after 2013'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``after 2015''.
       (b) Reduction in Limitation.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     179(b) of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2013'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``2013, 2014, or 2015'', and
       (2) by striking ``after 2013'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``after 2015''.
       (c) Computer Software.--Clause (ii) of section 179(d)(1)(A) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``before 2014'' and 
     inserting ``before 2016''.
       (d) Election.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``before 2014'' and inserting ``before 
     2016''.
       (e) Special Rules for Treatment of Qualified Real 
     Property.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(f) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``or 2013'' and inserting ``2013, 
     2014, or 2015''.
       (2) Carryover.--Paragraph (4) of section 179(f) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``2013'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``2015''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2013.

  Mr. NEAL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I move to dispense with 
the reading of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit must be pretty 
powerful with that confab that had to take place on the other side.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Tiberi--and he is my friend--and I 
am going to remind all that Mr. Camp did a pretty good job with the 
draft that he put out. That is not what this is about today.
  This is about short-circuiting a long tradition in the Ways and Means 
Committee as to how tax reform ought to be handled. A reminder, again, 
1986 was the last time that we spoke of tax reform in an earnest 
manner. Mr. Tiberi was, indeed, very animated. I understand the point 
that he is making.
  The problem is, if you do a piecemeal approach to tax reform, you 
will never do fundamental tax reform. It is like the temptation of 
repatriation. If you repatriate those dollars, you will never do tax 
reform. People will just wait for another tax holiday. That is the 
weakness of the argument that we just heard. A 2-year extension makes a 
good deal of sense--let some of this economic morass clear up.
  Now, Mr. Tiberi was correct when he quoted Jack Lew, an old friend. 
Economic growth is very weak. The number of people working is the real 
issue; 200,000 jobs a month won't do it. So why can't we find common 
purpose and expand the runway in terms of economic growth for all 
members of the American family? Are you telling me that this austerity 
package has worked?
  By the way, Mr. Tiberi's comment when Mr. Tiberi said the investing 
class in America and the business class, they are looking for 
stability, they look at this institution every day and think that they 
are finding stability, with the arguments that take place here?
  There are enough men and women in this institution and on the Ways 
and Means Committee of good will to continue the conversation that Mr. 
Camp has begun on tax reform. This is piecemeal. It is an ill-conceived 
manner and way to do tax reform.
  Again, a reminder, the last time we did tax reform, the Internet had 
not been invented. That ought to tell us the story.
  Here is what tax reform might look like: acknowledging that fossil 
fuel is not going away in the near future, we can still build a path to 
the renewables by using the Tax Code.
  Let's expand the earned income tax credit. Let's embrace new markets 
tax credits. They have worked in every nook and cranny of this country. 
Let's take a look and embrace, again, build America bonds.
  In reference to Mr. Tiberi's commentary, let me say this as well: 
yes, we need a permanent R&D credit, but let's make it even more 
robust. We heard a presentation yesterday in Massachusetts that, in 
Cambridge and Boston today, you have the greatest concentration of R&D 
in the world. Do you think I am not for a more robust research and 
development credit?
  Again, good minds ought to be able to find this path forward, and I 
challenge the Republicans today: let's get on with renewing the Export-
Import Bank. That makes a good deal of sense as well, and you know 
why--because it is sound economic policy.
  This idea that theology takes over all in tax debate is a mistake. 
Embrace what works, not just the rigid ideology of the intransigence 
that keeps us from finding a common path.
  We started out 3 years ago with Mr. Camp's work. For 3 years, we sat 
together, talked, took substantive testimony, and listened to what 
people had to say. Come in and defend your preference, come in and 
defend this deduction. Actually, the conversation was very good.
  I can't understand the logic of that very sound conversation bringing 
us to this intersection of public debate. Are we to throw all of that 
good will over the side? In this simple moment, are

[[Page H5339]]

we going to cast aside a deliberative process that really was much of 
the better that I have had a chance to witness in almost 25 years on 
the Ways and Means Committee?
  That is what you are doing today. You adopt these piecemeal 
approaches to tax reform, you will never get tax reform.
  Think of these numbers: there is more than $2 trillion sitting 
offshore in cash and tangible assets. The bottom lines of corporate 
America are stronger than they have been in years.
  My last point, downward pressure on wages since 2002 ought to be what 
motivates us to do tax reform.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and seek time in 
opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, you know what I hear from the other side? They 
are happy with the way things are. They are happy with a contracting 
economy, negative 1 percent growth in the last quarter. They are happy 
with fewer people in the workforce than the Carter years.
  They are happy with more young people living at home than ever 
before. They are happy with declining incomes for the middle class 
because they are saying just keep doing what we have been doing.
  In fact, as I think about it, my friend from Massachusetts said:

       Let's just wait and let the economic morass clear up.

  That is a direct quote.

       Let's just wait.

  Mr. NEAL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. No, I will not yield. The gentleman has had his time. I 
have very limited time here.
  Let me just say: if we just sit and wait, nothing is going to change. 
This policy has been extended many, many times for more than the budget 
window, unpaid for, with large bipartisan votes. Clearly, at the end of 
the year, this policy will be extended, unpaid for.
  So why not do something good for America? Why not do something good 
for those employers and those workers who are looking for an economy 
that starts to recover?
  We are the only nation in the world that has temporary tax policy. We 
are the only nation in the world that lets significant policies that 
help people invest and create jobs expire. At the end of the year, this 
will have been expired for a year, and then we will retroactively put 
it in place, but what we really need is permanent policy.
  So let's stop threatening small businesses with higher costs. That 
absolutely makes no sense. Let's get people back to work. Let's get 
people earning higher paychecks. Let's do something right for America. 
Vote against this motion to recommit and vote for the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit on H.R. 4457 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 4457, if ordered; the 
motion to recommit on H.R. 4453; passage of H.R. 4453, if ordered; and 
adoption of House Resolution 617.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180, 
nays 232, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               YEAS--180

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--232

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Cantor
     Crowley
     Engel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     LaMalfa
     McHenry
     Meng
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Nunnelee
     Pompeo
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Schakowsky
     Speier
    

                              {time}  1149

  Messrs. HUDSON, KELLY of Pennsylvania, STIVERS, ADERHOLT, MARINO, 
YOUNG of Alaska, BILIRAKIS, HUELSKAMP, SCALISE, and

[[Page H5340]]

PERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CLYBURN, CARSON of Indiana, BECERRA, and HIMES changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, June 12, 2014 I missed a recorded 
vote, rollcall No. 308, the motion to recommit H.R. 4457. I would have 
voted ``yes'' on this measure.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2014, I was unavoidably 
detained during the vote on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 
4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act (rollcall No. 308). Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272, 
nays 144, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               YEAS--272

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--144

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Coble
     Granger
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     LaMalfa
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Pompeo
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Stutzman
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1157

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

                          ____________________