[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 108 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6110-H6121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BONUS DEPRECIATION MODIFIED AND MADE PERMANENT
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 661, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4718) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
modify and make permanent bonus depreciation, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution
661, 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 113-517, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4718
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BONUS DEPRECIATION MODIFIED AND MADE PERMANENT.
(a) Made Permanent; Inclusion of Qualified Retail
Improvement Property.--Section 168(k)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Qualified property.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means
property--
``(i)(I) to which this section applies which has a recovery
period of 20 years or less,
``(II) which is computer software (as defined in section
167(f)(1)(B)) for which a deduction is allowable under
section 167(a) without regard to this subsection,
``(III) which is water utility property,
``(IV) which is qualified leasehold improvement property,
or
``(V) which is qualified retail improvement property, and
``(ii) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer.
``(B) Exception for alternative depreciation property.--The
term `qualified property' shall not include any property to
which the alternative depreciation system under subsection
(g) applies, determined--
``(i) without regard to paragraph (7) of subsection (g)
(relating to election to have system apply), and
``(ii) after application of section 280F(b) (relating to
listed property with limited business use).
``(C) Special rules.--
``(i) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of clause (ii) and
subparagraph (A)(ii), if property is--
``(I) originally placed in service by a person, and
``(II) sold and leased back by such person within 3 months
after the date such property was originally placed in
service,
such property shall be treated as originally placed in
service not earlier than the date on which such property is
used under the leaseback referred to in subclause (II).
``(ii) Syndication.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii),
if--
``(I) property is originally placed in service by the
lessor of such property,
``(II) such property is sold by such lessor or any
subsequent purchaser within 3 months after the date such
property was originally placed in service (or, in the case of
multiple units of property subject to the same lease, within
3 months after the date the final unit is placed in service,
so long as the period between the time the first unit is
placed in service and the time the last unit is placed in
service does not exceed 12 months), and
[[Page H6111]]
``(III) the user of such property after the last sale
during such 3-month period remains the same as when such
property was originally placed in service,
such property shall be treated as originally placed in
service not earlier than the date of such last sale.
``(D) Coordination with section 280f.--For purposes of
section 280F--
``(i) Automobiles.--In the case of a passenger automobile
(as defined in section 280F(d)(5)) which is qualified
property, the Secretary shall increase the limitation under
section 280F(a)(1)(A)(i) by $8,000.
``(ii) Listed property.--The deduction allowable under
paragraph (1) shall be taken into account in computing any
recapture amount under section 280F(b)(2).
``(iii) Inflation adjustment.-- In the case of any taxable
year beginning in a calendar year after 2014, the $8,000
amount in clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal
to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the automobile price inflation adjustment determined
under section 280F(d)(7)(B)(i) for the calendar year in which
such taxable year begins by substituting `2013' for `1987' in
subclause (II) thereof.
If any increase under the preceding sentence is not a
multiple of $100, such increase shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $100.
``(E) Deduction allowed in computing minimum tax.--For
purposes of determining alternative minimum taxable income
under section 55, the deduction under section 167 for
qualified property shall be determined without regard to any
adjustment under section 56.''.
(b) Expansion of Election to Accelerate Amt Credits in Lieu
of Bonus Depreciation.--Section 168(k)(4) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(4) Election to accelerate amt credits in lieu of bonus
depreciation.--
``(A) In general.--If a corporation elects to have this
paragraph apply for any taxable year--
``(i) paragraphs (1)(A), (2)(D)(i), and (5)(A)(i) shall not
apply for such taxable year,
``(ii) the applicable depreciation method used under this
section with respect to any qualified property shall be the
straight line method, and
``(iii) the limitation imposed by section 53(c) for such
taxable year shall be increased by the bonus depreciation
amount which is determined for such taxable year under
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Bonus depreciation amount.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The bonus depreciation amount for any
taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the excess
(if any) of--
``(I) the aggregate amount of depreciation which would be
allowed under this section for qualified property placed in
service by the taxpayer during such taxable year if paragraph
(1) applied to all such property, over
``(II) the aggregate amount of depreciation which would be
allowed under this section for qualified property placed in
service by the taxpayer during such taxable year if paragraph
(1) did not apply to any such property.
The aggregate amounts determined under subclauses (I) and
(II) shall be determined without regard to any election made
under subsection (b)(2)(D), (b)(3)(D), or (g)(7) and without
regard to subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(ii) Limitation.--The bonus depreciation amount for any
taxable year shall not exceed the lesser of--
``(I) 50 percent of the minimum tax credit under section
53(b) for the first taxable year ending after December 31,
2013, or
``(II) the minimum tax credit under section 53(b) for such
taxable year determined by taking into account only the
adjusted net minimum tax for taxable years ending before
January 1, 2014 (determined by treating credits as allowed on
a first-in, first-out basis).
``(iii) Aggregation rule.--All corporations which are
treated as a single employer under section 52(a) shall be
treated--
``(I) as 1 taxpayer for purposes of this paragraph, and
``(II) as having elected the application of this paragraph
if any such corporation so elects.
``(C) Credit refundable.--For purposes of section 6401(b),
the aggregate increase in the credits allowable under part IV
of subchapter A for any taxable year resulting from the
application of this paragraph shall be treated as allowed
under subpart C of such part (and not any other subpart).
``(D) Other rules.--
``(i) Election.--Any election under this paragraph may be
revoked only with the consent of the Secretary.
``(ii) Partnerships with electing partners.--In the case of
a corporation which is a partner in a partnership and which
makes an election under subparagraph (A) for the taxable
year, for purposes of determining such corporation's
distributive share of partnership items under section 702 for
such taxable year--
``(I) paragraphs (1)(A), (2)(D)(i), and (5)(A)(i) shall not
apply, and
``(II) the applicable depreciation method used under this
section with respect to any qualified property shall be the
straight line method.
``(iii) Certain partnerships.--In the case of a partnership
in which more than 50 percent of the capital and profits
interests are owned (directly or indirectly) at all times
during the taxable year by 1 corporation (or by corporations
treated as 1 taxpayer under subparagraph (B)(iii)), each
partner shall compute its bonus depreciation amount under
clause (i) of subparagraph (B) by taking into account its
distributive share of the amounts determined by the
partnership under subclauses (I) and (II) of such clause for
the taxable year of the partnership ending with or within the
taxable year of the partner.''.
(c) Special Rules for Trees and Vines Bearing Fruits and
Nuts.--Section 168(k) of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (5), and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Special rules for trees and vines bearing fruits and
nuts.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any tree or vine bearing
fruits or nuts which is planted, or is grafted to a plant
that has already been planted, by the taxpayer in the
ordinary course of the taxpayer's farming business (as
defined in section 263A(e)(4))--
``(i) a depreciation deduction equal to 50 percent of the
adjusted basis of such tree or vine shall be allowed under
section 167(a) for the taxable year in which such tree or
vine is so planted or grafted, and
``(ii) the adjusted basis of such tree or vine shall be
reduced by the amount of such deduction.
``(B) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under
this subparagraph for any taxable year, this paragraph shall
not apply to any tree or vine planted or grafted during such
taxable year. An election under this subparagraph may be
revoked only with the consent of the Secretary.
``(C) Additional depreciation may be claimed only once.--If
this paragraph applies to any tree or vine, such tree or vine
shall not be treated as qualified property in the taxable
year in which placed in service.
``(D) Coordination with election to accelerate amt
credits.--If a corporation makes an election under paragraph
(4) for any taxable year, the amount under paragraph
(4)(B)(i)(I) for such taxable year shall be increased by the
amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) for such taxable
year.
``(E) Deduction allowed in computing minimum tax.--Rules
similar to the rules of paragraph (2)(E) shall apply for
purposes of this paragraph.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 168(e)(8) of such Code is amended by striking
subparagraph (D).
(2) Section 168(k) of such Code is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under
this paragraph with respect to any class of property for any
taxable year, this subsection shall not apply to all property
in such class placed in service (or, in the case of paragraph
(5), planted or grafted) during such taxable year. An
election under this paragraph may be revoked only with the
consent of the Secretary.''.
(3) Section 168(l)(5) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 168(k)(2)(G)'' and inserting ``section
168(k)(2)(E)''.
(4) Section 263A(c) of such Code is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Coordination with section 168(k)(5).--This section
shall not apply to any amount allowable as a deduction by
reason of section 168(k)(5) (relating to special rules for
trees and vines bearing fruits and nuts).''.
(5) Section 460(c)(6)(B) of such Code is amended by
striking ``which--'' and all that follows and inserting
``which has a recovery period of 7 years or less.''.
(6) Section 168(k) of such Code is amended by striking
``Acquired After December 31, 2007, and Before January 1,
2014'' in the heading thereof.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to property placed in service after December 31, 2013.
(2) Expansion of election to accelerate amt credits in lieu
of bonus depreciation.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (b)
(other than so much of such amendment as relates to section
168(k)(4)(D)(iii) of such Code, as added by such amendment)
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.
(B) Transitional rule.--In the case of a taxable year
beginning before January 1, 2014, and ending after December
31, 2013, the bonus depreciation amount determined under
section 168(k)(4) of such Code for such year shall be the sum
of--
(i) such amount determined without regard to the amendments
made by this section and--
(I) by taking into account only property placed in service
before January 1, 2014, and
(II) by multiplying the limitation under section
168(k)(4)(C)(ii) of such Code (determined without regard to
the amendments made by this section) by a fraction the
numerator of which is the number of days in the taxable year
before January 1, 2014, and the denominator of which is the
number of days in the taxable year, and
(ii) such amount determined after taking into account the
amendments made by this section and--
(I) by taking into account only property placed in service
after December 31, 2013, and
[[Page H6112]]
(II) by multiplying the limitation under section
168(k)(4)(B)(ii) of such Code (as amended by this section) by
a fraction the numerator of which is the number of days in
the taxable year after December 31, 2013, and the denominator
of which is the number of days in the taxable year.
(3) Special rules for certain trees and vines.--The
amendment made by subsection (c)(2) shall apply to trees and
vines planted or grafted after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 2. 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).
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 may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H.R. 4718.
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.
Our current Tax Code is a wet blanket on this economy. It puts our
businesses, their workers, and their products at a severe disadvantage.
In this current climate, businesses aren't growing and hardworking
Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer hours.
Adding insult to injury, the United States is the only country that
allows important pieces of its Tax Code to expire. The result:
businesses and their workers are left constantly guessing whether
certain policies will be around next year, hurting their ability to
plan for the future.
The National Association of Manufacturers told Congress that the
``expiration of bonus depreciation at the end of 2013 has had a
chilling effect on the economy.'' This statement is clearly supported
by the fact that for the first 3 months of 2014 total capital
investment across the country fell by almost 12 percent, a major factor
in why the entire U.S. economy contracted by nearly 3 percent.
A survey of NAM members found that nearly a third of business owners
would not make any investments this year without bonus depreciation and
section 79 expensing, which the House voted on a bipartisan basis to
make permanent in May.
The legislation we have before us today would provide a permanent 50
percent bonus depreciation deduction and make the deduction available
to more farmers and business owners across the country.
In Congress, we always find a way to make things more complicated,
but today we can enact a simple, bipartisan provision that provides an
immediate incentive for businesses to invest and hire new workers.
Bonus depreciation has received longstanding bipartisan support and has
been renewed on a short-term basis 9 out of the last 12 years. After so
many years of this policy being in place, it is time for us to agree
that we should make it permanent so businesses can do what they do
best: invest in the economy and hire new workers.
The effects of making bonus depreciation permanent are real. Analysis
done by the Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation
would grow the economy by 1 percent, which would add $182 billion to
the economy; would increase capital stock by over 3 percent; would
increase wages by about 1 percent, or $500 for an individual making
$50,000 a year; and would create 212,000 jobs.
Growing a healthier economy, creating jobs, and helping Americans see
bigger paychecks is exactly what this country needs.
Making 50 percent bonus depreciation permanent is supported by
associations representing a variety of industries: farmers,
telecommunications, manufacturers, energy, construction, retailers, and
technology. Over 100 groups have voiced their support for bonus
depreciation stating that it ``will provide an immediate incentive for
businesses to make additional capital investments, thereby boosting the
U.S. economy and job creation.''
This provision has gained strong bipartisan support in the past, as
have many of the permanent tax policies the House has voted on this
year. By making longstanding features of the Tax Code permanent, we can
facilitate a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code. Such an overhaul
in turn will create an America that works with a strong, vibrant
economy. Today's vote will bring the immediate economic relief so many
businesses and hardworking taxpayers are asking for.
I urge my colleagues to join us in making a stronger, healthier
economy by passing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Point of Order
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Budget
Act of 1974. If you look at section 311, it is entitled, ``Enforcement
of Budget Aggregates.''
The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, violates that section of the Budget
Act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth
in the Republican budget that was passed on this House floor with much
fanfare on May 15. The bill before us does not keep the revenues at
those levels.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this point of order, to
point out that on May 15 of this year Chairman Ryan, chairman of the
Budget Committee, filed a statement in the Congressional Record
reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the
remainder of the budget window.
{time} 0915
And this is what he said when he filed that. This is, Mr. Speaker, in
the Record of May 15, page H4428. This is what Mr. Ryan said:
``This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget
Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach
the budget resolution's aggregate levels.''
This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, clearly
violates that provision of the statute of section 311(a) of the Budget
Act because it increases the deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion
above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this House. It
is a clear breach of the rule.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be sustained and that
the House Republicans have to live up to their own budget resolution
which, as I say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the gentleman's position
has absolutely no merit after the failures of this administration to
grow the economy and create jobs. We have an economy that is
contracting. We have more kids living at home than ever before. We have
real wages declining.
After the failure of the policies of this administration to get the
economy moving----
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CAMP. I do not yield.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will suspend.
Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to direct his comments to the
point of order?
Mr. CAMP. I do.
After the failures of the policies of this administration, the House
has spoken, and the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order, the
gentleman from Michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues
raised in the point of order.
I would ask the gentleman about section 311(a) of the Budget Act,
which is what this point of order is based on. Let's talk about the
point of order.
The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee voted for the House
Budget Act. He voted for it, and now he is bringing to the floor of the
House a provision that violates the same Budget Act that that budget
was passed pursuant to.
So, Mr. Speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order
because
[[Page H6113]]
what we have here is a situation where Republicans came to this House
floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the floor
today with another bill that violates the Budget Act's section 311(a).
So I would like a ruling on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Maryland makes a point of order against
consideration of the bill. Any such point of order is untimely at this
point. The gentleman from Maryland is free to engage in debate on the
bill.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Is the point of order as a result of the fact that
the Republicans apparently passed a rule that waives section 311(a) of
the Budget Act?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The legislation before the House is already
under consideration. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is not
timely. The gentleman's point of order would have had to have been made
before the legislation was being considered.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Did the Republican rule--the rule that was brought to
the floor of the House--include a provision that waived section 311(a)
of the Budget Act?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may consult House Resolution
661 for the answer to that question.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am looking at that, and it does indicate to me that
the House Republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that
requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their
own budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry. The gentleman was free to make those points during debate
either on the rule or during the consideration of the legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just would point out, Mr. Speaker, that here is
exactly what happened. The rule----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will suspend.
The gentleman from Maryland is not recognized.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Van Hollen raises such an important point. What is being done
here is totally inconsistent, and I will come to that a bit later, but
what is really important today about this bill is not what is being
done here, but what is not being done here.
Mr. Van Hollen points out how inconsistent this bill is. But no
matter how inconsistent, it is going nowhere. And it should go nowhere.
Essentially, what it does is to make permanent what has always been
considered temporary. Bonus depreciation, which has been temporarily
enacted during the previous two recessions to help assist the economy
during the short term--that is what it has been--allows companies to
write off investments more quickly than normal, providing them an
incentive to make capital investments now rather than later. And that
incentive actually disappears when the provision is made permanent.
That is why CRS has said its temporary nature ``is critical to its
effectiveness.''
Secondly, it is unpaid for. Talk about consistency, talk about a
budget bill that talks about the importance of deficit reduction, and
here you have the Republicans proposing a bill that would add $287
billion in debt. That would bring the total of the bills that the
Republicans have brought forth here to over $500 billion.
When all is said and done, House Republicans will have added more
than $1 trillion to the deficit by permanently extending a select group
of corporate tax cuts.
But let me just say I must confess I am amazed at the inconsistency
of this position. It was 5 months ago in the chairman's and the
Republican Ways and Means draft that they proposed to eliminate this
provision entirely. Bonus depreciation was gone. And now they come
forth and they say, Let's make it permanent.
That gives inconsistency a bad name. It is appalling. It is really
also dangerous. And let me indicate why.
The more than $500 billion in tax spending that the House Republicans
will have approved today is the equivalent of what we spent last year
on all nondefense domestic discretionary spending, which Republicans
have cut so deeply in recent years that it is at its lowest level on
record as a percentage of GDP. That includes spending for such vital
domestic priorities as health research, food safety, and veterans'
health.
Left unaddressed in this approach with the Republicans are key
domestic priorities such as the New Markets Tax Credit, the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit, and the renewable energy tax credits.
So here we are.
Unfortunately, this bill is going nowhere. There likely will be an
extension of bonus depreciation in an extender package, if we ever get
to it, but for a short period of time, costing a fraction of this bill.
So what is really important today is not a bill that is going
nowhere--and should go nowhere--but for what is not being done.
I just want to list what is not being done.
We have immigration reform. A Senate bill is not being brought up by
the House Republicans. On unemployment insurance, a Senate bill
providing help for those looking for work is not brought up here.
The employment nondiscrimination bill, the Senate bill is not brought
up here. Paycheck fairness is not bring brought up. A minimum wage bill
is not brought up.
We have the Ex-Im Bank caught in the contest and the conflicts within
the Republican Conference. We also have a highway bill we are going to
get next week with another patch because of the inability of the House
Republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill. And
voting rights reform, you have a bill sponsored by a senior Republican
in this House, and it has not seen the light of day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish by saying how appalling it is
that the Republicans come forth and say, Let's make it permanent,
unpaid for, costing $287 billion, when in the proposal that they put
forth, this provision would have been eliminated.
That is 180 degrees in a split second. It just shows, I think, the
hypocrisy of bringing this bill up, made especially hypocritical when
there has been this utter failure to address all of these other
legislative proposals, many of which have passed the Senate.
So we are going through the motions here today. It is really a sad
moment for this institution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
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. Thank you, Chairman Camp, for your leadership on this
important issue and your leadership on the tax-writing committee. If we
would have had similar leadership in the Senate and at the White House,
we would have a different discussion today, and that would be one on
comprehensive tax reform.
Unfortunately, we are not having that discussion because there hasn't
been leadership. In fact, there has been zero leadership from this
White House. And after 5\1/2\ years of this President being in the
White House, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for this
economy. Taxes are higher. We have more regulations. We have an economy
that is sputtering along. In fact, the facts are that the first quarter
of this year, our economy retracted.
This bill is a jobs bill. It is that simple. It is a jobs bill. We
have had bonus
[[Page H6114]]
depreciation since 2002. This isn't new. It has been in the Tax Code
under temporary law since 2002, and extended many times--many times,
retroactively. It expired, ladies and gentlemen, in December.
I was talking to a CFO of a large American manufacturer this week,
and he said to me, You understand that when you retroactively do this,
it doesn't help our economy.
{time} 0930
When you only do it, in essence, for 1 year, which is the narrative
that my friends on the other side of the aisle are acquiescing to, in
that this is a fruitless waste of time because we should just accept
the Senate bill that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee at the
end of the year, which will retroactively extend bonus depreciation
back to January of this year for another year--next year, 2015--that
doesn't do a whole lot to grow our economy.
It is better than a sharp stick in the eye, 1 year; yet, if you talk
to a CFO, like I did this week and as I have over and over and over
again, a business plan is for several years.
When a business owner who is a manufacturer buys a piece of machinery
to make a widget, it costs a lot of money. This expense is 50 percent
of that, Mr. Speaker.
Guess what? You can make more widgets, and you can hire a new
employee. The new employee makes money, pays taxes to the city of
Columbus, pays taxes to the State of Ohio, pays taxes to the Federal
Government--more tax revenue, a job, more jobs.
That is why hundreds of businesses and organizations are for this
piece of legislation, which has been around--unpaid for--for 10 years.
I mean, think of the logic here, ladies and gentlemen. If we extend
spending, we tell the American people that it doesn't cost them any
more money. If we extend a current tax cut--so stopping a tax hike--it
costs them more money. That is Washington, D.C., math. It makes no
sense. That is the inconsistency.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this is about jobs; this is about
our economy. This is bipartisan. It doesn't need to be partisan. I have
said before that I don't want to give up my voting card to the U.S.
Senate. Let the House speak.
Let's have a good, old-fashioned conference committee. I don't expect
I will get my way. I know Chairman Camp doesn't expect he will get his
way. We will have a good, old-fashioned compromise. I know that is a
dirty word sometimes around here.
As my sixth grade daughter says: Isn't it supposed to work where the
House passes a bill, and the Senate passes a bill, then you kind of
work out the differences, and it goes to the President?
Yes, Angelina, that is the way it is supposed to work.
I wish the folks on the other side of the aisle would allow us to
change this narrative of the Senate won't accept this, so let's just
take the Senate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett), another member of our committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans say they would like to help,
but they claim we just don't have enough resources for medical research
in order to address cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's,
multiple sclerosis, and other dread diseases--diabetes, for example.
Wildfire season is approaching, and there are not enough resources to
begin planning to prevent those wildfires because there is not enough
money to actually address the fires when they begin, and delay is
occurring.
We have hurricane season and tornadoes all over the country, but
there is not enough money for the National Weather Service to give us
all of the details we need.
Only yesterday, we learned that Republicans were refusing, once
again, to correct the bankrupt transportation fund. The best they can
do is postpone the bankruptcy into next year--after the election--as
our highways crumble and bridges literally fall down.
As for the comprehensive safety inspection of our food and our drugs,
they would like to do it, but there is just not enough money, and there
are not enough funds available to monitor effectively infectious
diseases or to produce vaccines to stop other diseases.
There is not enough to adequately staff our Federal prisons. There is
not enough to fully fund Federal law enforcement. There is certainly
not enough to provide strong, effective foster care for the many
children, after having been abused and neglected, who are removed from
their homes.
As for workforce development, so that we can be competitive with our
friends abroad, there doesn't seem to be the resource to permit
children from pre-K to postgrad to achieve their full God-given
potential.
While there are so many vital needs that we just don't seem to have
the resources to address, these same Republicans tell us today that we
can afford to borrow from the Chinese or the Saudis--or whoever will
lend to us--the resources to deliver bonuses to some people. They urge
more public debt to fund more bonuses.
While they rightfully argue on every expenditure program that we
should be looking for evidence-based programs--programs that actually
work and that provide the promised outcomes--and that we ought to
eliminate duplication and inefficiency, they have absolutely no
interest in evidence-based tax expenditures, which is what is involved
today. When the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they abandon
evidence and pursue ideology.
The evidence-based approach to this particular expenditure could not
be clearer. What is involved here is that when any business goes out
and obtains machinery, a vehicle, a truck, a building, they depreciate
it over the useful lifetime of that asset--standard accounting
principles.
What is involved here today is Washington math. It is the Washington
manipulation of traditional accounting rules. It is a matter of
violating those traditional accounting rules, and we have learned from
the economic studies that that is a very sorry, not evidence-based
investment.
Indeed, even as a stimulus, the analysis shows that, for every dollar
that is invested, we get 20 cents of growth. A fellow could go bankrupt
with that kind of economics, and that is exactly what they would have
the country doing and not meeting its other needs while funding
something that doesn't work.
Both the Federal Reserve bank and Goldman Sachs--which is not exactly
a Democratic organization--concluded this year that letting this
special tax treatment expire that they want to make permanent and
extend forever will not have any significant economic impact.
Today's bill is an example of the very kind of waste and inefficiency
line items that they always say, in campaign rallies, they can discover
and eliminate, but which, today, they are perpetuating.
I am for a pro-growth, pro-jobs creation set of government policies--
including tax policies--that promote competitiveness. It is
competitiveness that involves an adequate transportation system, a
trained workforce, the research in medicine as well as in technology to
help us compete, but we don't have the Federal resources to hand out
one bonus after another to corporations when we know it won't work,
when it will not grow our economy and at the same time that the same
people who are advocating for policies that don't work refuse to pay
for policies that do work.
We should reject this bill. It is not in the interest of the country.
It may be good politics in an election year, but it is bad economic
policy, as near every economist who has looked at the issue in an
objective way has concluded.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee and an outstanding member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that short-term tax policy is bad for
business, bad for the economy, and bad for jobs, yet we have heard
today from our friends on the other side of the aisle a couple of
things.
Number one, some have argued that we are too busy, and there are too
many other things to be dealing with
[[Page H6115]]
in Congress and so forth, and we ought to be doing other things rather
than this. I guess you could make that argument. I don't think it is
really persuasive. We can do all of these things, and they are not
mutually exclusive.
There is some argument that said that this proposal somehow is a
manipulation. That is how the gentleman from Texas described it. I
think the manipulation is having something in the Tax Code that we know
we need to make permanent and not making it permanent, so let's
manipulate the adverse effect out of the Tax Code. That is what we
should be doing.
There are some who have said that this is insignificant. I heard that
a couple of minutes ago. This is not insignificant. According to the
Tax Foundation, they say:
Permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1
percent.
That is not insignificant.
It would increase capital stock by over 3 percent.
That is not insignificant.
It would increase wages by 1 percent, and it would create
over 200,000 jobs.
That is not insignificant. That is according to the Tax Foundation.
So what is the choice? The choice is to vote ``no'' and walk away
from that type of growth, Mr. Speaker. Now, who would do that?
You get these types of numbers, according to the Tax Foundation, by
just pushing the green button. You get that type of growth by voting
``yes'' and then by getting out of the way and letting the economy come
back.
The gentleman from Ohio is not overcharacterizing this. The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi)--who has great insight, by the way--is not
somebody who is saying this is the panacea, and it all goes away. That
was the hype we heard during the stimulus debate.
Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? It was the characterization of, if
you just spend $1 trillion, it is all going to be roses after that.
There is hardly anybody who uses the word ``stimulus'' anymore on the
other side of the aisle with a straight arrow. It has been completely
eviscerated from the talking points of the White House.
The point is we can do something significant today--not monumental,
not colossal--but to characterize the type of growth that the Tax
Foundation has said this will yield to as ``insignificant'' is either
not a clear view of economic reality or it is just too dismissive and
too much a view that we can just be saviors in this situation.
We can do some good things today, and we can support the gentleman
from Ohio. We can make permanent this proposal, and we can move this
economy forward.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
To the gentleman from Illinois, I favor long-term tax reform. He
helped produce a long-term proposal that eliminated this provision. It
eliminated it.
Now, you come down and say you want to make it permanent. I guess I
can't speak directly to you.
Mr. ROSKAM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ROSKAM. You make a fair point, and that is that permanency is
something that we need to strive for. You and I would be on common
ground with the idea of permanently fixing this provision.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute.
Mr. ROSKAM. Will the gentleman yield 20 seconds?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ROSKAM. I take your point that permanency is a good thing.
Mr. LEVIN. I said ``long-term.''
My point is you, 6 months ago, helped produce a package that
eliminated this provision, and now, you come here, and you say you want
it permanent. This is acrobatics. This is congressional acrobatics.
You are just spinning in an opposite direction, and you are making
this place a circus.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind).
Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this place is riddled with ironies from week to week,
and this week is no different.
Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee was working on a markup of
legislation for another short-term extension of the highway trust
fund--the transportation and infrastructure investment we desperately
need in this country.
We were scratching and clawing to try to find an additional $10
billion over the next 10 months to try to keep some of these projects
moving forward; and here, today, we have another permanent change to
the Tax Code at a cost of $287 billion over the next 10 years and not a
nickel of it paid for--no offset, no effort to pay for this at all; yet
our roads are deteriorating, and our bridges are falling down.
We are literally becoming a Third World nation when it comes to our
infrastructure system, and I am afraid that is becoming an insult to
Third World countries today. We are turning into a Fourth World nation
when it comes to our infrastructure.
Instead of having this fruitless debate on the floor yet again,
knowing that this legislation won't be moving forward, we ought to be
having a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee to develop consensus
on a 6-year transportation bill that every State desperately needs in
our country, but we are not doing that. In fact, the easiest thing to
do during an election year, apparently, is to support tax cuts without
paying for them.
Every economist and virtually every business owner will tell you
that, substantively, this doesn't make any sense either. The whole
point of bonus depreciation is to try to spur capital investment at a
time when the marketplace has frozen up, and it is the fear of
uncertainty that is preventing business owners from moving forward on
their capital purchases.
{time} 0945
You take away that temporary nature of bonus depreciation and you
ruin the whole desired effect of what you are trying to accomplish.
But I have a feeling that the chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. Camp, and others in the committee, they already know
this, and that is why, earlier this year, when they introduced their
comprehensive tax reform discussion draft, they completely eliminated
bonus depreciation. And not only that, they clawed back the accelerated
depreciation, which is the basis of this as well, in order to help pay
for a lowering of rates overall.
I would submit, of the 14 tax bills that would permanently change the
Code that have been reported out of the committee so far at a cost of
close to $900 billion, none of which is being proposed, if we support
those measures and they get enacted into law, we might as well kiss
comprehensive tax reform good-bye, because the tools that we will need
to be able to lower the rates and broaden the base and make our Code
more competitive are taken away from us. If you permanently extend
bonus depreciation, you take away an important tool when we do run into
recessionary times when businesses may need an additional incentive to
invest capital and get off the sidelines.
That hasn't been the problem here. Since 2002, we have had bonus
depreciation. We have got a track record now. You look back on it. Most
economists will tell you it has been dubious, at best.
The 2000s were the worst job growth decade in our Nation's history.
When President Bush left office in 2008, he had a net negative job
growth during those 8 years when he was in office.
Since bonus depreciation expired at the end of last year, we have
been averaging, every month, close to 240,000 additional private sector
jobs being created in our economy today. That is without bonus
depreciation being in place.
So what we ought to be doing today is having a serious discussion of
how we can come together as an institution and find a way to help pay
for a 6-year infrastructure bill that will create jobs, that will start
spurring the economic activity that we desperately need, that will lay
the foundation for long-term economic growth with a viable
infrastructure system that is there to sustain it, rather than having
another debate that we know is going nowhere.
[[Page H6116]]
And that is unfortunate because we do--and I agree with my friend
from Texas, we need a pro-growth, competitive economic policy for the
American people, one that recognizes reform the Tax Code to help our
businesses, large and small, to be more competitive globally, but one
that also recognizes that there are important public investments that
we have to make as a nation in order to ensure the type of growth in
the future.
Part of that is the infrastructure investment that is being
neglected, or 23 extensions merely being kicked down the road with
short-term measures. Part of it is having a top-flight, quality
education system and a workforce development system so that we have got
the best educated, best trained workforce in order to compete with
increased global competition. It is broadband expansion in every inch
of our territory. It is basic research funding. It is these type of
things that, yes, we are going to need some resources in order to do an
effective job.
But we keep coming to the floor, week after week, calling for
permanent changes to the Tax Code without any ability to pay for it,
that is going to hinder our flexibility in the future to really spur
the type of economic growth and job creation that we desperately need.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. Let's start coming
together on a real pro-growth strategy and work on the jobs that we
desperately need.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume, and then I will yield to Mr. Roskam.
To the American people it must be really confusing. So we have had
bonus depreciation, this tax policy, temporary for over 10 years,
unpaid for; supported by many on the other side of the aisle, unpaid
for; temporary, many times retroactive. And yet, moving that policy
forward for 10 more years, the same way it has been paid for over 10
years, costs money, bad policy, even though we are giving for the first
time certainty, predictability to people who actually create jobs in
America, who must have a business plan and must make those big
purchases. Amazing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address two of the criticisms that I
heard from my colleague.
The gentleman from Michigan makes a fair point about permanency.
Look, permanency is a great goal. Permanency in tax reform is an
outstanding goal. In this current environment it becomes clear that the
President of the United States has made raising marginal rates a
precondition for tax reform. We are of the view that that doesn't help
grow the economy. The President clings to his orthodoxy that it does,
and so it is not likely that this is going to be--a massive tax reform
effort is going to be completed.
So then the alternative is, all right, well, so what do you do in the
meantime? I think in the meantime what we do is we make this provision
permanent. It keeps open the opportunity for us to revisit tax reform
in the future. But we ought not to be leaving the types of numbers that
I mentioned a minute ago.
Just to refresh your recollection, Mr. Speaker, those numbers were,
by voting ``yes'' on this, according to the Tax Foundation, it grows
the economy by 1 percent, increases capital stock by over 3, increases
wages by 1 percent, and creates over 200,000 jobs.
Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin made an interesting point. There
were several assertions, but one of them I found to be very, very
broad. He says, substantively, this doesn't make any sense. Those were
his words. Those aren't my words. Those were his words.
Now, think about that assertion, Mr. Speaker, in the context of
dozens and dozens and dozens of business groups who say this does make
sense, including, from his home State, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and
Commerce; the Rhode Island Manufacturers Association; American Farm
Bureau; the Associated Equipment Dealers; Illinois Manufactures', from
my home State; and, Mr. Speaker, from the great State of Kansas, which
is near and dear to you, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, all of which
say that this makes sense.
This is not dubious, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, that--
what?--dozens of economists from all over the world have said, oh, this
is a nefarious plot and it is completely not going to do anything. That
is ridiculous. This is good.
The gentleman from Ohio has been working on this for months and
months and months. And while it is not about him, he brings great
insight to this debate. There is an opportunity, by voting ``yes,''
according to the Tax Foundation, to grow this economy. We should vote
``aye.''
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let the facts be shown: in 2006 and 2007, bonus depreciation expired,
and it was renewed when the recession really took a hold. CRS has said
research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective. We
will renew it, but not for 10 years, costing $287 billion made
permanent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Danny K. Davis), also a member of our committee.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
ranking member for yielding.
The longer I listen to this discussion and debate, it reminds me of a
game that children play: around and around and around we go, around the
mulberry bush, because we keep going around and around and around.
I strongly oppose the bill that is before us that would make bonus
depreciation permanent. Yes, I support bonus depreciation on a short-
term basis to boost the economy if there is a letdown and to provide
some incentives to do things that we might not be doing. But I cannot
support adding $287 billion to our deficit for a permanent corporate
giveaway while tens of thousands of my constituents and tens of
millions of Americans experience deep poverty, unemployment, and
economic distress.
H.R. 4718 is a corporate giveaway that even the Republican tax reform
bill repealed.
There is a tremendous need to incentivize economically distressed
communities like many parts of Chicago, other urban as well as rural
areas, and those incentives have lapsed. They are threatened. We are
not sure that they are going to be coming.
This bill continues the Republican legislative focus on the wrong
issues, ignoring the key programs that create jobs, strengthen our
citizens, and grow our economy.
Just imagine what unemployment insurance does. It allows the person
who does not have a job--the knowledge that something is going to be
coming--to go to the grocery store and buy milk or bread.
Or what happens when there is employment opportunities, if roads and
bridges are being repaired? A person gets a sense of confidence that
there might be work for them to do.
I remember a song several years ago about ``Get a Job''; and the guy
said that every day, when he reads the paper, he reads it through and
through, trying to find out if there is any work for me to do, but his
wife says, ``Get a job.''
Individuals who have become totally upset because, no matter what
they seem to do, there is no relief. So how could I vote for this bill
when there are still 3.3 million long-term unemployed individuals who
have not been aided?
I can't go to church on Sunday or walk down the street without
somebody asking me: When is Congress going to do something about our
unemployment checks? Are they going to come?
Or they ask: When are the repairs going to be made on our roads and
bridges? When are we going to get some new sidewalks? How do you fix
the potholes that are erupting all over our community?
When are we going to really take care of the Medicare physician or
doctors fix?
When are we going to stop irrational budget cuts that strangle
education, research, and innovation?
When are we going to provide confidence and hope?
When are we going to stop the process where the rich continue to get
rich and the poor continue to get poor, and the middle class gets
squeezed in to where we almost create two groups and two categories of
people: those who have much and those who have little?
[[Page H6117]]
So I would urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill and give confidence
to the American people that their needs will be taken care of.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 15 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from
Kansas, I would like to submit, for the Record, a letter from over 100
associations that represent thousands of employers and job creators, of
whom represent hundreds of thousands of employees. In the letter they
say, this piece of legislation that we are about to vote on today helps
them create jobs and increases productivity.
July 9, 2014.
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
undersigned associations--and the companies we represent--
appreciate the efforts of the House Ways and Means Committee
to make permanent important tax provisions that expired at
the end of 2013. In particular, we support swift action on
legislation (H.R. 4718) to permanently extend bonus
depreciation, creating a pro-investment tax climate that will
spur much needed economic growth and jobs and provide a
bridge to broader tax reform.
Continued uncertainty about bonus depreciation is
discouraging investment in the United States and, in some
cases, keeping companies totally on the sidelines. This
impacts both companies that make investments and companies
that manufacture capital equipment.
In contrast, since 2008, members of our associations have
responded positively to the availability of 50 percent
expensing, including an important part of the legislation
allowing companies to utilize Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
credits in lieu of 50 percent expensing.
Many of our companies have been recognized for this
commitment to domestic investment that creates jobs and
increases productivity. Renewing bonus depreciation and the
comparable AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation will
provide an immediate incentive for businesses to make
additional capital investments, thereby boosting the U.S.
economy and job creation.
Thank you in advance for supporting this important
legislation when it comes to the House floor for a vote later
this week. Our associations and member companies will
continue to support comprehensive tax reform, but until an
agreement becomes effective, extending bonus depreciation is
essential to maintaining the nation's economic momentum. In
order to plan with certainty, companies must know as soon as
possible what the tax rules for capital investment and job
creation in America will be in 2014 and beyond.
Sincerely,
Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Aerospace
Industries Association; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute; Airlines for America; American Boat
Builders & Repairers Association; American Composites
Manufacturers Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe
Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American
Foundry Society; American Lighting Association; American
Petroleum Institute; American Trucking Associations; AMT--The
Association For Manufacturing Technology; Arizona
Manufacturers Council; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce;
Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated Industries of
Arkansas; Associated Industries of Florida; Associated
Industries of Missouri; Association of American Railroads.
Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Association of
Washington Business; Auto Care Association; Biotechnology
Industry Organization; Book Manufacturers' Institute, Inc.;
California Manufacturers & Technology Association; Chemical
Coaters Association International; Colorado Association of
Commerce & Industry; Corn Refiners Association; Council of
Industry of Southeastern New York; CTIA--The Wireless
Association; Forging Industry Association; Fuel Cell and
Hydrogen Energy Association; General Aviation Manufacturers
Association; Georgia Association of Manufacturers; Greater
North Dakota Chamber; Illinois Manufacturers' Association;
INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry; Indiana
Manufacturers Association.
Industrial Energy Consumers of America; Industrial
Fasteners Institute; Industrial Heating Equipment
Association; Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries;
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute; International Sign
Association; Iowa Association of Business and Industry; IPC--
Association Connecting Electronics Industries; ISSA--The
Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association; ITTA--The Voice of
Mid-Size Telecommunications Carriers; Kansas Chamber of
Commerce; Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association; Medical
Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA); Metals Service
Center Institute; Mississippi Manufacturers Association;
Missouri Association of Manufacturers; Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Association; National Air Transportation
Association; National Association of Electrical Distributors;
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers;
National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM);
National Automatic Merchandising Association; National
Business Aviation Association; National Cable &
Telecommunications Association; National Council for Advanced
Manufacturing; National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA); National Marine Manufacturers Association; National
Mining Association; National Propane Gas Association;
National Roofing Contractors Association; National Stone,
Sand & Gravel Association; National Tooling and Machining
Association; National Waste & Recycling Association; Nebraska
Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Nevada Manufacturers
Association; New Jersey Business & Industry Association; Non-
Ferrous Founders' Society; North American Die Casting
Association; North Carolina Chamber.
NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing
and Convening Technologies; NTCA--The Rural Broadband
Association; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; Portland
Cement Association; Precision Machined Products Association;
Precision Metalforming Association; Resilient Floor Covering
Institute; Rhode Island Manufacturers Association; San
Antonio Manufacturers Association; Secondary Materials and
Recycled Textiles Association (SMART); South Carolina Chamber
of Commerce; Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association;
Specialty Equipment Market Association; Specialty Graphics
Imaging Association.
SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association; Steel
Manufacturers Association; Texas Association of
Manufacturers; Textile Rental Services Association; The
Hardwood Federation; The State Chamber of Oklahoma; U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; United States Telecom Association; USA
Rice Federation; Valley Industrial Association; Window and
Door Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers &
Commerce; Woodworking Machinery Industry Association; World
Alliance for Decentralized Energy.
Mr. TIBERI. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms.
Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
{time} 1000
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to make 50 percent
bonus depreciation permanent because it grows the economy and creates
jobs. Short of comprehensive tax reform, a permanent extension of bonus
depreciation is our best option to grow the economy, create jobs, and
lift wages.
This bill is important to Kansas manufacturers and to Kansas farmers
and ranchers. The Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus
depreciation would grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 million
to the economy, increase wages, and create over 210,000 jobs. The Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates that this legislation will increase
economic growth and could reduce the debt by as much as $10 billion.
But, most importantly, today's bill moves our Tax Code in the right
direction. It is broad-based in that it does not pick winners and
losers and does not favor one type of investment over another. Simply,
it favors investment in the types of capital that create jobs and put
more money in people's pockets.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another distinguished member of our
committee.
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today with this faulty effort for one reason
and one reason only: the failure of fundamental tax reform.
Now, a good-faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal,
but it really didn't go anywhere.
I would note in this institution, known for its emotions, that the
response of the Democratic minority to the Camp draft proposal was
fairly muted, thinking that this might be a worthwhile start to an
ongoing conversation that would be bipartisan and bicameral.
A good start, we had. The model that we embraced over 3 years really
worked quite well. Without the glare of publicity, we actually had an
adult conversation back and forth between the parties, the
stakeholders, and heard from virtually everybody you could hear from.
Well, when the proposal was offered publicly, the response on the
Republican side was one of histrionics--Well, you can't do this. And
you can't do that. Well, let's not try this. And let's not do that--
even though an academic exercise had been undertaken that was
worthwhile. So tax reform was killed
[[Page H6118]]
in the crib before there was even an opportunity to have a
conversation.
Now, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) said that everybody on this
side is afraid to use the word ``stimulus.''
Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. I am going to use it, and I
am going to use it in the motion to recommit.
Stimulus has worked in America's economic history, when America
actually did big things. Mr. Lincoln found time during the midst of the
Civil War to do the Transcontinental Railroad. Mr. Roosevelt did the
Panama Canal. Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Reagan did the Big Dig in Boston.
These are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done, and not to shy
away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy
that has dubious economic consequences.
Now, let me say this as well. And I intend, in the motion to
recommit, to speak to it.
Remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two
parties? Remember when there was a healthy give-and-take, where we
actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the Ways and
Means room, still the most desired committee to sit on in the Congress?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. NEAL. The point that I make on this is very simple. We started
out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. This is not the way to do
tax reform. We need to go back to the drawing table and draft a
proposal that the American people will come to see as competitive and
will highlight the role that optimism has always played in American
public life.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee and the Health Subcommittee chairman.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Tiberi and
Chairman Camp for bringing this very important jobs bill to the floor.
The truth is, America's economy is really hurting. This is the
slowest recovery, most disappointing recovery in half a century. We are
missing about 5 million jobs from our economy. We have a lot of small
businesses struggling. The average family of four in America is missing
over $1,000 a month from their paycheck, their budget because of this
disappointing recovery.
So what is missing? Well, it is not government spending. That is
above where it was in 2008. It is not family spending. That is above
what it was. What we are missing is business investment. When
businesses along Main Street buy new buildings, new equipment, and new
software to make themselves more competitive, that is when jobs occur.
And that is what is missing out of the economy.
What this bill does is make it more affordable for our local
businesses to immediately write off, deduct from their taxes a portion
of what they buy in equipment and software and technology. That makes
it more affordable, it allows them to do more of it, and that creates
jobs along Main Street. And that is what this bill is all about,
creating not government jobs, not temporary jobs, not stimulus jobs.
This is about creating jobs along Main Street by letting our local
businesses invest.
It has always been a bipartisan bill. This is an area that
Republicans and Democrats agree on. Unfortunately, it is an election
year. We are going to hear all of the arguments against it. But the
truth is, our local businesses are struggling. They need this tax
relief. And our economy needs the jobs because we are not going to get
back to a balanced budget until we have more people working and more
jobs created and more revenue coming in the door.
I commend our leadership for bringing this very important business
bill, jobs bill, to the floor. And I urge Republicans and Democrats to
come together to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to read the Statement of Administration Policy:
The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
4718, which would permanently extend ``bonus depreciation''
rules that allow corporations to speed up deductions for
certain investments and, thereby, delay tax payments. This
provision was enacted in 2009 to provide short-term stimulus
to the economy, and it was never intended to be a permanent
corporate giveaway. Moreover, H.R. 4718 includes no offsets
and would add $287 billion to the deficit over the next 10
years, wiping out more than one-third of the deficit
reduction achieved by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of
2013.
The deficit increase in H.R. 4718 is more than 20 times the
cost of the proposed extension of emergency unemployment
benefits, which Republicans are insisting be offset, and more
than triple the discretionary funding increases for defense
and nondefense priorities enacted in the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2013, which were offset. House Republicans also are
making clear their priorities by rushing to make business tax
cuts permanent without offsets, even as the House Republican
budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million
working families and students by letting important
improvements to the earned income tax credit, child tax
credit, and education tax credits expire.
The administration wants to work with the Congress to make
progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help
middle class families, including pro-growth business tax
reform. However, making costly business tax cuts permanent
without offsets represents the wrong approach.
If the President were presented with H.R. 4718, his senior
advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIBERI. I yield myself such time as I may consume for my closing.
Mr. Speaker, the choice is very clear. As the gentleman from
Massachusetts--who is a friend of mine and who I agree with on a lot--
said we should be here to talk about comprehensive tax reform and not
temporary tax policy.
In my years here in this United States Congress and my years, more
importantly, on the Ways and Means Committee, there hasn't been a
chairman that has been more bipartisan, more inclusive, and made a
stronger effort to comprehensively reform our Tax Code than Chairman
Dave Camp. If he would have had a partner in the White House and a
partner in the Senate to move the ball along as far as he did, quite
frankly, in a very bipartisan way, we wouldn't be here today.
But here are the facts: for the past 5\1/2\ years, Barack Obama has
been the President of the United States of America. Here is a fact: the
first quarter of this year, our economy retracted 2.9 percent.
This bill is a jobs bill. Simple enough. And, in fact, during my time
on the Ways and Means Committee--putting Chairman Camp aside--without
Chairman Camp, with other chairmen, we haven't had any bipartisanship.
We haven't had tax bills. We didn't have an effort to comprehensively,
in a bipartisan way, have a Tax Code rewritten. It has only been
Chairman Camp.
So we can talk about theory and academics. But here we are today,
with one choice in an economy that is not near where any of us want it
to be after 5\1/2\ years of Barack Obama as President.
We have a piece of legislation that we know creates jobs that for 10
out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. For 10 out of the last
12 years, it hasn't been paid for. And there is no benefit to job
creators for long-term certainty. None. Zero.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have already submitted for the Record a list
of hundreds of associations that represent thousands and thousands of
employers around the country who create jobs for hundreds of thousands
of employees who say this is one of the best job-creating tools they
have.
I know people who want a job. They would rather have a job than
unemployment insurance. They want a job really badly.
Something my dad said to me a long time ago when he lost his
manufacturing job of 25 years: ``The most important thing is a job.''
And that is how simple this is, ladies and gentlemen. That is how
simple this is.
In 5\1/2\ years, we have higher taxes, more regulations. This is
about jobs. This is what job creators want. Let's give them what they
want. Let's go to the Senate. Let's have a conference committee. Let's
work it out the good old-fashioned way.
I know the gentleman from Massachusetts and I, if we got locked in a
room, we could work it out the good old-fashioned way. Let's do it.
I urge my colleagues, let's not make this partisan. Let's make this
bipartisan, as it should be, as it has been, and go work with the
Senate to get this done and help Americans get a job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
[[Page H6119]]
Pursuant to House Resolution 661, 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. I am opposed to it in its current form.
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. 4718 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 3, line 22, strike ``or''.
Page 3, line 24, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
Page 3, after line 24, insert the following:
``(VI) which is qualified restaurant property, and''.
Page 4, line 2, strike the period and insert ``, and''.
Page 4, after line 2, insert the following:
``(iii) which is placed in service by the taxpayer before
January 1, 2016.''.
Page 13, line 20, strike the quotation marks and final
period.
Page 13, after line 20, insert the following (and
redesignate the succeeding provisions accordingly):
``(F) Termination.--This paragraph shall not apply to any
tree or vine planted or grafted after December 31, 2015.''.
(d) Special Rule for Inverted Domestic Corporations.--
Section 168(k) of such Code, as amended by this Act, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Special rule for inverted domestic corporations.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer which is, or
is a member of an expanded affiliated group which includes,
an inverted domestic corporation, paragraphs (1), (4), and
(5) shall not apply.
``(B) Inverted domestic corporation.--For purposes of
paragraph (6), the term `inverted domestic corporation' means
any foreign corporation--
``(i) which, pursuant to a plan or a series of related
transactions, completes after May 8, 2014, the direct or
indirect acquisition of--
``(I) substantially all of the properties held directly or
indirectly by a domestic corporation, or
``(II) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially
all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a
domestic partnership, and
``(ii) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value)
of which, after such acquisition, is held--
``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic
corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic
corporation, or
``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic
partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits
interest in the domestic partnership, or
``(iii) the management and control of the expanded
affiliated group of which, after such acquisition, occurs
(directly or indirectly) primarily within the United States,
and such expanded affiliated group has significant domestic
business activities.
``(C) Exception for corporations with substantial business
activities in foreign country of organization.--A foreign
corporation shall not be treated as an inverted domestic
corporation for purposes of this paragraph if after the
acquisition the expanded affiliated group which includes the
entity has substantial business activities in the foreign
country in which or under the law of which the entity is
created or organized when compared to the total business
activities of such expanded affiliated group. For purposes of
the preceding sentence, the term `substantial business
activities' shall have the meaning given such term under
section 7874 regulations in effect on May 8, 2014, except
that the Secretary may issue regulations increasing the
threshold percent in any of the tests under such regulations
for determining if business activities constitute substantial
business activities for purposes of this subparagraph.
``(D) Management and control.--For purposes of subparagraph
(B)(iii)--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations for purposes of determining cases in which the
management and control of an expanded affiliated group is to
be treated as occurring, directly or indirectly, primarily
within the United States. The regulations prescribed under
the preceding sentence shall apply to periods after May 8,
2014.
``(ii) Executive officers and senior management.--Such
regulations shall provide that the management and control of
an expanded affiliated group shall be treated as occurring,
directly or indirectly, primarily within the United States if
substantially all of the executive officers and senior
management of the expanded affiliated group who exercise day-
to-day responsibility for making decisions involving
strategic, financial, and operational policies of the
expanded affiliated group are based or primarily located
within the United States. Individuals who in fact exercise
such day-to-day responsibilities shall be treated as
executive officers and senior management regardless of their
title.
``(E) Significant domestic business activities.--For
purposes of subparagraph (B)(iii), an expanded affiliated
group has significant domestic business activities if at
least 25 percent of--
``(i) the employees of the group are based in the United
States,
``(ii) the employee compensation incurred by the group is
incurred with respect to employees based in the United
States,
``(iii) the assets of the group are located in the United
States, or
``(iv) the income of the group is derived in the United
States,
determined in the same manner as such determinations are made
for purposes of determining substantial business activities
under regulations referred to in subparagraph (C) as in
effect on May 8, 2014, but applied by treating all references
in such regulations to `foreign country' and `relevant
foreign country' as references to `the United States'. The
Secretary may issue regulations decreasing the threshold
percent in any of the tests under such regulations for
determining if business activities constitute significant
domestic business activities for purposes of this paragraph.
``(F) Expanded affiliated group.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `expanded affiliated group' has the
meaning given such term in section 7874(c).''.
Mr. NEAL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
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.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
{time} 1015
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my comments to the other
side.
Mr. Tiberi, who is indeed my friend and a terrific guy, said that
there is no partner at the White House. When we undertook this very
significant proposal on tax reform, it wasn't the White House; it was
the Speaker of our House--the Speaker of this House--who said, ``Blah,
blah, blah.''
Now, I want to tell you that I am not bilingual, Mr. Speaker, but
when you tell me blah, blah, blah, I get it. It ain't going anywhere.
To blame the White House when the Speaker of the House poured cold
water on it is outrageous.
Now, we heard of several companies that have been proceeding with
inversions. For those of you paying attention to this, it simply means
that a company moves offshore, they declare that they are no longer a
corporate citizen of America, but instead, they will reincorporate to a
foreign address for the express purpose of avoiding American corporate
income taxes.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal that we have here is pretty simple. As they
line up, the dam is breaking. I hear in the next few weeks that up to
47 companies--as the Congressional Research Service has pointed out--
are lining up to leave. They include manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and
financial services sectors.
We should be doing fundamental tax reform as Mr. Camp laid out the
proposal, but the issue of inversions and depreciation before us today,
while seemingly unconnected, are intimately connected.
Mr. Speaker, given the Republican opposition to Chairman Camp's
proposal, we cannot move forward on a House bill that reforms our Tax
Code in a current or meaningful way at the moment, but we can address a
very fundamental issue right here this morning without changing the
nature of this legislation.
We can, in fact, address the issue by linking inversion to the
purpose of bonus depreciation, and through that, we can suggest that
any company that moves offshore cannot take advantage of corporate
inversion and bonus depreciation simultaneously. That is what we are
proposing today.
Now, I have a history with bonus depreciation. Remember Nancy
Johnson, a Republican Member; and Phil English, a Republican Member? I
supported with them the use of bonus depreciation--as Mr. Roskam wanted
to
[[Page H6120]]
hear me say, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus.
On a short-term basis, bonus depreciation makes some sense, but not
to make it permanent at the cost of $867 billion.
Friends, to do bonus depreciation separate from fundamental tax
reform is economic nonsense. We need a comprehensive look at the Code
and remind ourselves that bonus depreciation is but the following: a
tool in the toolbox to make economic repairs.
Now, this proposal that our Republican friends have today with this
cost attached to it is the least defensible of all of the extender
proposals that they have offered.
Our own Congressional Research Service says that you do bonus
depreciation for a short-term purpose to provide an economic stimulus
during a recession. It is ``a temporary investment subsidy that is
expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term
stimulus . . . Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness.''
Now, this is important to remember here today. Chairman Camp repealed
bonus depreciation, period. Now, we are bringing it back to be made
permanent on a Friday morning, with no thoughtful or deliberative
discussion other than the Speaker of the House saying, ``Blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah.''
What I am suggesting here today is that we cannot afford to spend
$825 billion on this hit-or-miss chance that we are taking to do
fundamental tax reform in this way.
Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the nub of what we are proposing.
What this motion to recommit does is it keeps bonus depreciation as
always intended, a temporary tool in our toolbox in an economic
downturn.
This motion is a commonsense piece of legislation that extends bonus
depreciation for 2 years--2 years--in a thoughtful and deliberative
way, then we go back to fundamental tax reform, and then we take it up
in a much more integrated way.
Now, lastly, if you voted yesterday for the DeLauro amendment, you
need to be consistent today and vote for this motion to recommit which
addresses the DeLauro amendment and puts behind us this conversation of
ad hoc tax reform.
Mr. Speaker, 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 gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMP. Well, I am pleased to hear that my colleague on the other
side actually agrees with me that we need bonus depreciation because
this motion to recommit extends that policy for 2 years.
The reason why I oppose this motion to recommit is because, again,
this is temporary tax policy. We are the only nation in the world that
allows important tax provisions to expire. We are alone on that. Nobody
else does that. That is why it is so important that we make this policy
permanent.
Let me just say that the economy is contracting 2.9 percent in the
last quarter. It is not growing. We are going the wrong direction. We
have people whose real incomes are declining. People are out of work.
More kids are living at home than ever before. We need to do something
permanent to get this economy growing.
Look, families are struggling in America. Let's do something pro-
growth, something permanent. Certainly, we agree on the policy. You
just don't want to do it for as long as we do.
We would like to make this permanent. We have done it for 10 years,
and for all practical purposes, with the uncertainty, we have agreed
that the policy should be permanent. When you do it for that long, it
should be.
Let me just say, look, temporary policy never works. We have more
than 100 associations and businesses representing millions of workers
that have come forward and said: Please make this policy permanent, we
support what you are doing, and we need it, so that we can have the
certainty that we need to make investments.
Look, the Tax Foundation has said that if we do this, if we make this
permanent, we will grow the economy by 1 percent, that we will add $182
billion to the economy, we will increase stock, we will increase wages
by 1 percent, which is $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year.
Let's give America a raise. Let's vote for this bill. Let's vote
against this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, let me just also say a lot of Americans know that the
country is going in the wrong direction, but what they are really
concerned about is they don't see us doing anything to make it better.
We can restore the American Dream and not have it be some remnant of
the past if we support permanent tax policy.
Reject the temporary nature of this. Vote ``no'' on the motion to
recommit, and vote for final passage on 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191,
nays 229, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 403]
YEAS--191
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
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)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--229
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
[[Page H6121]]
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
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
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--12
Aderholt
Carney
DesJarlais
Graves (MO)
Hanabusa
Kingston
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Richmond
Schiff
{time} 1049
Messrs. STEWART and MULVANEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. CASTOR of Florida and Messrs. PETERS of California and FARR
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258,
noes 160, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 404]
AYES--258
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
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
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--160
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
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
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
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
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Aderholt
Carney
DesJarlais
Doyle
Graves (MO)
Hanabusa
Kingston
Lynch
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Richmond
Schiff
{time} 1057
Mr. NEAL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the
following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:
rollcall vote 403: on Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R.
4923--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 404: on Passage of H.R.
4923--I would have voted ``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, today, the eleventh day of July 2014, I
was unable to cast a vote on rollcall Nos. 403 & 404 due to a personal
matter.
Had I been present, I would have voted against rollcall No. 403 and
in favor of the underlying legislation of rollcall No. 404, H.R. 4718,
Making Bonus Depreciation Permanent, introduced by Representative Pat
Tiberi of Ohio.
____________________