[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.
____________________