[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 107 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6043-H6049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5016, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4718, BONUS DEPRECIATION MODIFIED AND MADE
PERMANENT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 661
Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5016) making appropriations for financial
services and general government for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or
clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived except for section 627.
(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in
paragraph (2);
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read.
(c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4718) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and make
permanent bonus depreciation. All points of order
[[Page H6044]]
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from
Oklahoma is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration on two measures: H.R. 5016, the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and H.R.
4718, that would permanently extend the bonus depreciation.
The resolution provides a modified open rule for consideration of
H.R. 5016 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor
and offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules on
this important piece of legislation.
The resolution also provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R.
4718, and provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In
addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 months ago, I was pleased to present the
House the rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills.
This rule will provide for the consideration of the eighth
appropriations bill by the House.
In the Appropriations Committee, we have already reported out 10 of
the 12 required appropriations bills and are moving closer to finishing
the two remaining bills. Contrast this with the other body, where they
have yet to pass even a single appropriations measure.
Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Appropriations bill maintains the
fiscal discipline agreed to as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013 that this country desperately needs. While the President requested
an additional $1.7 billion over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels, this
bill actually funds these programs at $566 million less than last
year's level.
In addition, this bill maintains a number of important funding
restrictions over the IRS. Given their unconscionable targeting of
conservative organizations and their deliberate stonewalling of
legitimate inquiries by the Ways and Means and Oversight and Government
Reform Committees, these funding prohibitions are necessary and
appropriate.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for consideration
of H.R. 4718, which permanently extends bonus depreciation. During this
extended time of sluggish economic growth, it is important for the
Congress to pass legislation that will encourage our job creators to do
just that--create jobs.
An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that permanent
bonus depreciation would actually grow the economy by 1 percent, adding
$182 billion to the economy; increase the capital stock by over 3
percent; increase wages by about 1 percent; and create 212,000 new
jobs.
{time} 1245
Since its creation in 2002, this credit has routinely been extended
on a bipartisan basis. It is important that we do so again today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for making good on his
commitment to ensure orderly and timely consideration of appropriations
bills. I also want to commend Chairman Camp for examining the Tax Code,
ensuring we can provide the tax certainty that so many businesses need
in order to make investment decisions that benefit us all.
I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. And with
that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are breaking a record yet again for the most
closed Congress ever. The majority has broken their own record for the
most closed Congress in history. Again and again, they have wasted
time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract
us from the problems at hand. And that certainly is true today.
The American people are hoping that Congress will create jobs, expand
educational opportunities, and support working families, but instead,
we insist on spending millions of dollars on investigating made-up
scandals and adding billions and billions to the deficit.
Today we have one rule for two bills: first, the bonus depreciation
bill, and, second, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, two
bills with nothing in common except to highlight the majority's
insistence of choosing policy over people.
Now, H.R. 4718 would make bonus depreciation permanent. This is a
policy that maybe you have never heard of, but it is a policy that used
to be bipartisan and still would be on a 1- or 2-year basis, like the
Senate has proposed. It is designed as a temporary measure, and I
emphasize ``temporary'' because if it isn't temporary, it is not
effective.
Bonus depreciation gives businesses an extra large immediate tax
deduction for a portion of the cost of investments in equipment.
Instead of spending more of the deduction over future years, it
incentivizes purchasing equipment now in order to provide an immediate
boost to the economy, instead of in the future when the incentive may
not be available.
And that is how it has always temporarily worked. But if we make it
permanent, then the taxpayers are simply subsidizing the cost of the
equipment that businesses would need to purchase anyway.
My good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is as good a businessman
as he is a Congressman--and that is saying a lot--said yesterday that
in 2003, his small business went out and bought $100,000 worth of
computers specifically because he could take advantage of the bonus
depreciation, which was in place and was a very smart thing for him to
have done. And that is exactly how bonus depreciation is supposed to
work.
Mr. Cole knew computers would be cheaper at that time than in a year
or two, when the tax credit would have expired. So he spent the money
on equipment. And that surely helped the economy, and I am sure it
created some jobs.
But why would Mr. Cole buy the computers immediately if he knew the
tax credit would be there forever? He wouldn't, I don't believe. We
will talk about that later.
This tool was put in place between 2002 and 2005, at 30 percent and
then at 50 percent. It was reenacted in 2008 and then extended four
times, often as part of a larger stimulus package, most recently at 50
percent. That expired at the end of 2013.
Now, when enacted as a temporary measure, there has been bipartisan
support. However, the bill we have before us intends to make it
permanent, completely negating the purpose of the bonus depreciation as
a temporary measure.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into the
change, and they said, ``Its temporary nature is critical to its
effectiveness'' and that bonus depreciation ``was enacted for a
specific, short-term purpose.''
[[Page H6045]]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to now insert the Congressional Research
Service's report, ``Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary
Issues,'' from March 24, 2014, into the Record.
[From Congressional Research Service,
Mar. 24, 2014]
Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues
(By Jane G. Gravelle, Senior Specialist in Economic Policy)
Summary
The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 (S. 1859), which would extend
expiring tax provisions for a year, includes bonus
depreciation. The temporary provisions enacted in the past
for only a year or two and extended multiple times are
generally referred to collectively as the ``extenders.'' One
reason advanced for these temporary provisions is that time
is needed to evaluate them. Most of these provisions,
however, have been extended multiple times, and some suggest
that these provisions are actually permanent but are extended
a year or two at a time because permanent provisions would
significantly increase the costs in the budget horizon.
Historically, bonus depreciation has not been a traditional
``extender.''
Bonus depreciation allows half of equipment investment to
be deducted immediately rather than depreciated over a period
of time. Bonus depreciation was enacted for a specific,
short-term purpose: to provide an economic stimulus during
the recession. Most stimulus provisions have expired. Bonus
depreciation has been in place six years (2008-2013),
contrasted with an earlier use of bonus depreciation in place
for three years. Is bonus depreciation temporary or
permanent? The analysis of bonus depreciation differs for a
temporary stimulus provision, compared to a permanent
provision that can affect the size and allocation of the
capital stock.
A temporary investment subsidy was expected to be more
effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus,
encouraging firms to invest while the benefit was in place.
Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. Yet,
research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very
effective, and probably less effective than the tax cuts or
spending increases that have now lapsed.
If bonus depreciation is made permanent, it increases
accelerated depreciation for equipment, contributing to
lower, and in some cases more negative, effective tax rates.
In contrast, prominent tax reform proposals would reduce
accelerated depreciation. Making bonus depreciation a
permanent provision would significantly increase its
budgetary cost.
Compared to a statutory corporate tax rate of 35%, bonus
depreciation lowers the effective tax rate for equipment from
an estimated 26% rate to a 15% rate. Buildings are taxed
approximately at the statutory rate. Total tax rates would be
slightly higher because of stockholder taxes. Because nominal
interest is deducted, however, effective tax rates with debt
finance can be negative. For equity assets taxed at an
effective rate of 35%, the effective tax rate on debt-
financed investment is a negative 5%. The rate on equipment
without bonus depreciation is minus 19%; with bonus
depreciation it is minus 37%.
If bonus depreciation is permanent, estimates of U.S.
effective tax rates reflecting concerns that the U.S. rate is
higher than that of other countries overstate the effective
U.S. corporate tax rate; U.S. effective tax rates on
equipment would be significantly lower than the OECD average.
Moving to permanent bonus depreciation is inconsistent with
tax reform proposals made by the Wyden-Coats bill, the Senate
Finance Committee Staff discussion draft, and Chairman Camp's
proposal. All of these proposals would reduce the current
accelerated depreciation for equipment.
The usual extenders cost a fraction of the cost of
permanent provisions in a 10-year budget window, but bonus
depreciation is a smaller fraction because it is a timing
provision. A one-year extension costs $5 billion for FY2014-
FY2024, less than 2% of the cost of $263 billion for a
permanent provision.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. What the majority is fond of saying is that this bill
would bring in $10 billion in revenue. And I heard it over and over
again at the Rules Committee last night, that we are going to have $10
billion in revenue. But what they fail to say is that over 10 years, it
is going to cost us $287 billion, nearly $300 billion, which could buy
us a lot of high-speed rail, a lot of bridge infrastructure, a lot of
highway work. But what we are now doing is a permanent subsidy to make
tax cuts to every business that wants to buy equipment.
Now, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scored this at $287
billion over 10 years. We are not making that up. The majority is
cobbling together a piecemeal approach, and it will not work. We would
love to have tax reform, we cry out for tax reform, but this isn't it.
To cap it all off, this is another closed rule. And let me say what
that means. Even if a Member wanted to offer an amendment to pay for
the nearly $300 billion cost of this bill--which is the rules under
which we operate, you know, PAYGO--they wouldn't be allowed.
There are so many better things to spend that $300 billion on, the
things that we really need in this country. But the closed rule ensures
that it would stifle the debate and hijack the process. And, more than
that, we know the Senate will not take this up.
So, once again, we are doing a bill that might make some people feel
good but not if they think about it a little bit. Because even the
businesses who are going to be prospering from the tax decrease are
going to be responsible for the loss of $300 billion.
So with the second bill, which is H.R. 5016, the Financial Services
Appropriations, the majority is cherry-picking which agencies to fund
and which to strangle for purely political purposes. They will continue
chasing down the all-but-defunct IRS conspiracy rabbit, getting funding
for the IRS but making it so that $2 billion worth of the tax revenue
will not be collected because they have cut the budget of the IRS so
much. So add that $2 billion to the $300 billion that we are voting on
today for depreciation, and add that onto the deficit, too, since it is
not paid for.
In addition, as the majority crisscrosses the country touting states'
rights, they have also put forward legislation that obstructs, once
again, the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting funding for
constitutionally protected medical care. The majority insists on
ensuring that women are second-class citizens, and they continue to
chip away at our constitutional rights.
Furthermore, this bill continues to prevent multi-State policies
under the Affordable Care Act from providing coverage for abortions
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, except in the most
desperate of circumstances.
We need to say over and over again that, of the women in this country
who are using birth control, 58 percent--more than half of them--are
using it for medical reasons. And they are being deprived. Mr. Speaker,
58 percent of the women in this country who are using prescription
contraception are using it because they have medical issues, and it is
expensive. But we will not let them get any help because we simply
don't believe in providing health care for women.
Government workers deserve the same benefits and the same access to
comprehensive health care as those in the private sector enjoy. It is,
in fact, dangerous for the majority to target abortion care and require
its exclusion from health insurance plans that include other important
and necessary reproductive health services. Women expect and deserve
the best health care and coverage that fits their needs.
And let's remember that 58 percent of the women who use oral
contraceptives use them for medical purposes, not just for birth
control.
I would like to be able to say that women should expect their
government to be able to put their health and safety above election-
year politics, but this is what we have come to expect here. Women
deserve better. But I am afraid in the House, women's rights, again,
continue to be undermined. Time and again, we have prioritized in this
House--some of us--politics over people.
Let me mention the veterans, for example. Listen to this. This is
really important to know. While those veterans who have served and
sacrificed for our country are waiting months in line for medical care,
the House majority will spend more money investigating and trying to
debunk a nonexistent Benghazi scandal than helping our veterans get the
care they need. That is right. The committee investigating Benghazi has
a much larger budget than the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If that is
not a political statement, I don't know what is.
And I need to point out that just yesterday, transcripts from the
Armed Services Committee about Benghazi proved that everything that
could have been done was done.
And I know that when I last did the rule on the floor on the special
Benghazi committee that I received a call from the mother of one of the
Navy SEALs that died, saying that she really wished the Congress would
stop dragging their family back through that horror. They know what
happened.
[[Page H6046]]
Instead of working on the real problems--and we have got them--they
are finding time to sue the President for doing his job, to hold vote
after vote to repeal ObamaCare. And let's remember the shutdown of the
government that took $24 billion in that short time out of this
economy.
So we come here to make things better. And with these actions and
with this behavior, we make things worse.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As usual, my friend is a sharp and acute debater and makes points
over a broad number of issues.
I do want to say, for the record, I am not such a great businessman,
but I have a great business partner who has been my partner for 25
years. She is the managing partner. She made the call. And I have been
very fortunate to be friends and partners with her for many, many
years.
I think she probably moved as quickly as she did because she didn't
think the government would have the good sense to keep this open. But
the fact is, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have done bonus
depreciation. When my friends were in the majority, they continued to
routinely extend it themselves.
And after more than a decade, it has become, frankly, pretty much a
permanent feature of our Tax Code. Now it is not so permanent that you
can absolutely rely on it in the business sense. But I still accept the
argument, after something that has been repeatedly confirmed by both
sides, and both sides have repeatedly extended it and made it
effectively permanent, we ought to go ahead and provide business with
that certainty. Again, we will have a debate on that, and that is
appropriate.
The second point I want to discuss, where I do differ with my friend
a little bit: look, we always quibble no matter who is in the majority
over how open the process is and how much the minority is allowed to
participate in it. When we do that, we usually need to remember, if we
are in the minority, what our record was when we were in the majority.
I want to remind my friends on the other side that throughout the
111th Congress, the final 2 years of their time in the majority, the
House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the
definition of a closed process. On the contrary, under Republican
control, the House has returned to the consideration of appropriations
bills under an open process, with 22 open rules.
Again, I was on the Appropriations Committee when my friends took the
opportunity that every Member enjoys, to come down and participate in
the appropriations process, away from everyone--their side and our side
alike.
Additionally, the Congress has allowed under our control more than
1,000 amendments to be offered on the House floor, including a total of
488 amendments offered by Democrats and another 137 bipartisan
amendments. Forty percent of all submitted amendments have been made in
order. Compare that to our friends, who made only 17 percent in order
under their majority regime in the 111th Congress.
So when you actually compare the record of the Republican majority to
the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis would show that
Republicans are running a far more open and transparent House. I think
that is something that my friends need to recall when they raise this
particular critique.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my good friend from New York for yielding
and for her work on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, A Congress controlled by Members trying to reduce the
Federal footprint at every turn ought to be the first to reject two
amendments in the Financial Services appropriation, which fly in the
face of their own core philosophy.
First is the abortion amendment that would keep the District of
Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income
women.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, 17 States that are represented in this House spend their
own local funds in this way, and we are determined to fight until the
district's low-income women have the same reproductive health rights as
the women who live in those 17 States.
There is a second bill--a second amendment that targets the District
of Columbia and its marijuana decriminalization law at the same time
that the States are rapidly moving in the same direction.
Eighteen of them, before the District even got there, have
decriminalized marijuana. Two States have legalized marijuana, 23
States have legalized medical marijuana, and a recent Pew Research poll
found that more than half of the American people support marijuana
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment that targets the District of Columbia is
authored by Representative Andy Harris of Maryland. Maryland is one of
the States that has decriminalized marijuana.
Now, he couldn't convince his own State, where the voters are
accountable to him, not to decriminalize marijuana.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the generosity of the ranking member.
He wants to come to this floor and try to convince this body, where
not a single Member is accountable to the residents of the District of
Columbia, that it should not allow the District to decriminalize its
marijuana laws. I don't know why the Members from those 18 States have
decriminalized, but let me tell you why they were decriminalized in the
District of Columbia. They were decriminalized for racial justice
reasons. We discovered, through a scientific study, that African
Americans were eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana
possession than Whites, even though Whites and Blacks in the District
of Columbia and in the United States of America use marijuana at the
same rate.
Forty years ago, this Congress passed the Home Rule Act leaving local
matters to the District of Columbia, just like your local matters are
left home. We demand the same respect for local control for the
District of Columbia residents who are full American citizens, like
everybody else who represents people on this floor.
We demand that our American citizens have the same respect for their
local control that on this floor, that every day, you demand for your
own residents.
I thank the ranking member.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the District
of Columbia. She does a tremendous job representing her community, and
she is an articulate and able Member of this body. It is true. We do
have an unusual degree of authority as Congress over the Capital of the
United States. That is a constitutional issue and an article I, section
8 issue.
Being the Capital brings great privileges and benefits to Washington,
but it also, unquestionably, at times, brings some difficulties and
some strains as well; so we all--whoever is in the majority--try to
manage that as best they can.
In terms of the abortion issue, the language in this bill that
applies to D.C., as I understand it, has been pretty routine under both
Democrats and Republicans over the years, and so that is my
understanding of that issue.
On the marijuana issue, the Federal prohibition here has existed for
many years and was actually proposed in the President's budget. The
amendment that was offered and adopted in the committee--and there was
a very spirited debate about this by Dr. Harris--does add new language
to prohibit local funds for recreational use of marijuana. The intent
is to prevent D.C. from legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
D.C. has enacted a law which makes possession of small amounts of
marijuana a civil offense, carrying a $25 fine, and that goes into
effect later this month.
In November, D.C. may have a ballot initiative to legalize possession
of
[[Page H6047]]
small amounts. I suspect this will be an ongoing discussion and concern
between the Congress and the community.
Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman
for yielding.
First, let me set straight that the District of Columbia gets not one
single benefit that any other Member who pays taxes--except we pay
taxes without representation--not one single benefit that is any
different from what other members get.
Secondly, on marijuana decriminalization, I respect the differences
we have there, and the States are experimenting now. The District has
only decriminalized marijuana, and recently, a member of the council
introduced an amendment--which I bet you the other 18 States have not
done--to educate our young people about marijuana, so that they don't
go off and try it.
Nobody is for smoking marijuana--I wish we hadn't smoked all those
cigarettes, there would be millions of people alive if we hadn't--but
we really don't want to see people go to jail for possessing marijuana,
and we don't want to live in a city where the only people who get
arrested for possessing marijuana are people who look like me.
This is a city full of college students. They don't get arrested.
Those who get arrested are African Americans because the police patrol
those areas more sternly than others. We are asking for racial justice,
but above all, we are asking for local control.
I want to say one thing about your citing of the Constitution. You
are absolutely right. The Constitution gives the Congress control, but
Congress passed, 40 years ago, the Home Rule Act, and that Home Rule
Act was Congress' understanding that there ought to be no Members of
this House who don't have total control over their own local money and
over their own local affairs.
We ask for the same respect, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the points
that she made. I would just say that, again, this is going to be an
ongoing source of tension--it has been.
To clarify, when I said the Capital benefits, I meant to imply in no
way that citizens here don't have the same obligations, same
responsibilities, and bear the same burdens. I happen to have two
wonderful military bases in my facility. We think we are privileged to
host them. We derive considerable benefit and employment from their
presence.
I will note, just as the gentlewoman suggests, we pay taxes, too. We
are American citizens, and those weren't put there for our benefit.
They were put there for the purposes of defending the country, but we
are happy to have them.
I suggest there is probably a lot of that same pride in this
community for hosting the Capital of the United States, so that was my
intent in that remark.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if my friend has any more requests for
time?
Mr. COLE. I do not.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We are going to call for the previous question, Mr.
Speaker, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up the legislation that would treat
wildfires like similar major natural disasters and ensure that money
intended for managing public lands is actually used for that purpose.
It is time to make commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire
budget.
Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal on wildfires, I am pleased to
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank my good friend for yielding that time.
Mr. Speaker, sometime in the end of July or, at the latest, very
early August, the inadequate budget for forest firefighting for the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service will be exhausted--
that's right, exhausted.
We are going to be at a point where there will be fires raging across
the West. We are looking at record drought, record dry fuels, and you
will be able, probably, to smell or see the smoke across a lot of the
country.
Mr. Speaker, we should be doing everything we can to prepare for this
and prevent this in the future, and that is the crux of this argument.
We are not going to stop fighting fires. They can't because the forests
will burn and people will die. No, we are going to stop it, but they
will borrow from and decimate every other account in their budgets.
Forty percent of the Forest Service budget goes to fighting fires on
an annual basis, which means every year we repeat this little Groundhog
Day thing. They have to suspend the programs that would prevent future
forest fires--that is fuel reduction programs, forest health programs.
They have to cut into the recreation budget and all of the other
activities and things that they must do--cut into their timber
management program, everything gets decimated--and the money just goes
to fight fires.
We have the rarest of rare things here: a bicameral, bipartisan bill
that is supported by the President of the United States. What else in
this town is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the President?
Mr. Speaker, this should be a no-brainer. I have asked for hearings
in the committee on the coming catastrophe this summer. No hearings
have been held. We have legislation with 100 cosponsors--no action, no
hearing, and no action on that bill.
We need this funding this month, and that way, the Forest Service
won't have to decimate the programs that would prevent or mitigate
future forest fires. So, come on, guys, let's wake up, smell the smoke,
and do what is right and needs to be done--an adequate budget to fight
the catastrophic forest fires across the Western United States.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, San Diego and the entire State
of California are facing a prolonged drought that is placing us at
increased risk for wildfires. We are currently in the midst of what is
expected to be one of the longest and hardest wildfire seasons in
recent memory.
That is why I also agree that we have to take action immediately to
ensure adequate funding for wildfires by bringing to the floor H.R.
3992, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014.
It is a bipartisan bill with dozens of sponsors from both sides of
the aisle. It is fiscally responsible and has broad support from
Washington and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, in May, San Diego saw an early start to fire season,
when nearly a dozen wildfires erupted over a 5-day period, burning
27,000 acres and destroying 65 homes. Every day, communities in the
region are at risk of wildfires.
This is an elongated fire season. We are not used to seeing these
kinds of events in San Diego until September or October. That means
that the cost to contain fires and the damage they cause will increase,
and it makes it vital that we provide sufficient funds for officials to
respond to them.
So we need to make the existing disaster contingency fund open to
cover part of the cost of wildfire response. I have seen the impact of
catastrophic wildfires firsthand. It is clear to me that wildfires
should be treated the same as other natural disasters like hurricanes
or tornadoes or Superstorm Sandy.
Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we change the law in this way on which
there is an agreement, so that natural disasters include wildfires and
allow our States and localities to access the necessary funds, without
forcing us to choose between disaster relief and disaster prevention,
which is a silly budget policy, but the one we are following today.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and
amend the rule, so we can bring up H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act of 2014. We can bring it to the floor for a vote today.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the last two speakers,
in terms of the substance of their argument. I happen to be a cosponsor
of that legislation, which is proposed by
[[Page H6048]]
my good friend, Mr. Simpson, and I think they are discussing a very
real and very important issue, and this is an issue where there is
considerable bipartisan agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I probably will end up opposing the manner in which you
are going to try and bring this to the floor, but I do think it needs
to come to the floor. There is an orderly process to do that. There are
discussions underway to continue to work on it; but, again, my friend
makes a very good point.
I have tried consistently during my tenure here, no matter who is in
control, to recognize that, when we have disasters, that people who are
dealing with them need immediate help, and you need to vote accordingly
and try and make that occur.
{time} 1315
I sit on the Interior Subcommittee where we wrestle with this funding
issue that both of my friends brought up, and they are precisely right.
Since you can't predict a fire, you can't produce the amount, we end up
treating fires differently than every other kind of disaster and we
savage the normal budget process and actually drain a lot of accounts,
accounts that in some cases would help us prevent future fires by
helping us get rid of hazard fuel buildup in forests and things of that
nature.
Again, I think my friends make a good point. I think we are going to
continue to work on this in a bipartisan manner. I hope we will get
there.
I will note for the Record that when we were actually considering the
Republican budget, we were engaged on that committee, which I sit on as
a representative from Appropriations, in discussions with one of our
Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle about bringing an
amendment and actually writing it in the budget. We had Republicans
prepared at that point to vote for that amendment in sufficient
numbers. The White House, I was told, was actually in favor of doing
that. For whatever reason, the decision was made not to do that. Again,
I cast no aspersions here, but I think we probably missed a more
appropriate opportunity of actually cementing it down.
But I will say this: both of my friends have my commitment to
continue to try and work with them and find an appropriate vehicle and
appropriate time to get this done. I appreciate very, very much the
fact that you came to the floor and brought it up and reminded us of
how significant an issue this is. This is something we should be able
to work across the aisle and accomplish. I thank my friend.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is prepared to close, I
will close.
Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the majority continues to choose politics over people,
create problems instead of solving them, and insist on silencing debate
in the Chamber. It is time to consider the real problems facing the
country, and with summer comes the destructive fire season that affects
so many of my colleagues' districts.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and move to
consider the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to make the commonsense
changes in the Federal wildfire budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that one of the basic
functions of Congress is to actually fund the government. This rule
would continue that process for consideration of appropriations bills
for fiscal year 2015. In addition, it would allow for consideration of
legislation that makes bonuses depreciation permanent, a provision that
has existed as part of our Tax Code under both Democrats and
Republicans since 2002.
I have enjoyed the debate. As always, I appreciate exchanging views
with my good friend from New York, by way of Kentucky, two States
blessed, and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 661 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3992) to provide for wildfire suppression operations, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget, the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Agriculture, and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3992.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
[[Page H6049]]
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________