[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 24 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1001-H1017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FIGHTING HUNGER INCENTIVE ACT OF 2015

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 101, 
I

[[Page H1002]]

call up the bill (H.R. 644) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for 
contributions of food inventory, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 101, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
114-5 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 644

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``America Gives More Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD INVENTORY.

       (a) Permanent Extension.--Section 170(e)(3)(C) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking clause 
     (iv).
       (b) Increase in Limitation.--Section 170(e)(3)(C) of such 
     Code, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by striking 
     clause (ii), by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv), 
     and by inserting after clause (i) the following new clauses:
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The aggregate amount of such 
     contributions for any taxable year which may be taken into 
     account under this section shall not exceed--

       ``(I) in the case of any taxpayer other than a C 
     corporation, 15 percent of the taxpayer's aggregate net 
     income for such taxable year from all trades or businesses 
     from which such contributions were made for such year, 
     computed without regard to this section, and
       ``(II) in the case of a C corporation, 15 percent of 
     taxable income (as defined in subsection (b)(2)(D)).

       ``(iii) Rules related to limitation.--

       ``(I) Carryover.--If such aggregate amount exceeds the 
     limitation imposed under clause (ii), such excess shall be 
     treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection 
     (d)) as a charitable contribution described in clause (i) in 
     each of the 5 succeeding taxable years in order of time.
       ``(II) Coordination with overall corporate limitation.--In 
     the case of any charitable contribution allowable under 
     clause (ii)(II), subsection (b)(2)(A) shall not apply to such 
     contribution, but the limitation imposed by such subsection 
     shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the aggregate amount 
     of such contributions. For purposes of subsection (b)(2)(B), 
     such contributions shall be treated as allowable under 
     subsection (b)(2)(A).''.

       (c) Determination of Basis for Certain Taxpayers.--Section 
     170(e)(3)(C) of such Code, as amended by subsections (a) and 
     (b), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``(v) Determination of basis for certain taxpayers.--If a 
     taxpayer--

       ``(I) does not account for inventories under section 471, 
     and
       ``(II) is not required to capitalize indirect costs under 
     section 263A,

     the taxpayer may elect, solely for purposes of subparagraph 
     (B), to treat the basis of any apparently wholesome food as 
     being equal to 25 percent of the fair market value of such 
     food.''.
       (d) Determination of Fair Market Value.--Section 
     170(e)(3)(C) of such Code, as amended by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(vi) Determination of fair market value.--In the case of 
     any such contribution of apparently wholesome food which 
     cannot or will not be sold solely by reason of internal 
     standards of the taxpayer, lack of market, or similar 
     circumstances, or by reason of being produced by the taxpayer 
     exclusively for the purposes of transferring the food to an 
     organization described in subparagraph (A), the fair market 
     value of such contribution shall be determined--

       ``(I) without regard to such internal standards, such lack 
     of market, such circumstances, or such exclusive purpose, and
       ``(II) by taking into account the price at which the same 
     or substantially the same food items (as to both type and 
     quality) are sold by the taxpayer at the time of the 
     contribution (or, if not so sold at such time, in the recent 
     past).''.

       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to contributions made after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
       (2) Limitation; applicability to c corporations.--The 
     amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to 
     contributions made in taxable years ending after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. RULE ALLOWING CERTAIN TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM 
                   INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE 
                   PURPOSES MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(d)(8) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (F).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2014.

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL RULE FOR QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Individuals.--Subparagraph (E) of section 170(b)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions 
     of qualified conservation contributions) is amended by 
     striking clause (vi).
       (2) Corporations.--Subparagraph (B) of section 170(b)(2) of 
     such Code (relating to qualified conservation contributions) 
     is amended by striking clause (iii).
       (b) Contributions of Capital Gain Real Property Made for 
     Conservation Purposes by Native Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 170(b)(2) of such Code is amended 
     by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Qualified conservation contributions by certain 
     native corporations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any qualified conservation contribution 
     (as defined in subsection (h)(1)) which--

       ``(I) is made by a Native Corporation, and
       ``(II) is a contribution of property which was land 
     conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,

     shall be allowed to the extent that the aggregate amount of 
     such contributions does not exceed the excess of the 
     taxpayer's taxable income over the amount of charitable 
     contributions allowable under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Carryover.--If the aggregate amount of contributions 
     described in clause (i) exceeds the limitation of clause (i), 
     such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the 
     rules of subsection (d)(2)) as a charitable contribution to 
     which clause (i) applies in each of the 15 succeeding taxable 
     years in order of time.
       ``(iii) Native corporation.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `Native Corporation' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 3(m) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 170(b)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``subparagraph (B) applies'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (B) or (C) applies''.
       (B) Section 170(b)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``15 succeeding years'' and inserting ``15 
     succeeding taxable years''.
       (3) Valid existing rights preserved.--Nothing in this 
     subsection (or any amendment made by this subsection) shall 
     be construed to modify the existing property rights validly 
     conveyed to Native Corporations (within the meaning of 
     section 3(m) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) 
     under such Act.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2014.

     SEC. 5. MODIFICATION OF THE TAX RATE FOR THE EXCISE TAX ON 
                   INVESTMENT INCOME OF PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4940(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and 
     inserting ``1 percent''.
       (b) Elimination of Reduced Tax Where Foundation Meets 
     Certain Distribution Requirements.--Section 4940 of such Code 
     is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 644, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Here is what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation today: 
we are trying to provide some more certainty.
  Small businesses, they have to be able to plan for the future. 
Charities who are serving those in need, they also have to plan for the 
future. Families need to know whether there is going to be help for 
them at the local food bank. A lot of them look to the Tax Code, 
ironically, when planning for the future. They need a tax code that is 
easy to understand. But that is not the Tax Code that we have today. 
Whether we make the Tax Code more complicated--well, if we do that, we 
are

[[Page H1003]]

making their lives more unpredictable. That is a disservice to the 
people we are trying to serve.
  What would really help would be to fix our broken tax system. And 
ultimately, our goal is to get to a tax code that is simpler, that is 
flatter, that is fairer for everybody. But we have still got work to do 
on that front, and life doesn't wait for Washington. In fact, 
Washington has a really bad habit of letting really important 
provisions expire, only to renew them retroactively. This has got to 
stop, and we are trying to fix this.
  So this bill would make several of these provisions permanent. Number 
one, it would encourage charitable giving. Number two, it would help 
people contribute to charities from their IRAs, Individual Retirement 
Accounts, tax-free. Number three, it would let people deduct food bank 
donations from their taxes, and it would make other changes that make 
giving less expensive.
  The quick to the short, Mr. Speaker, is these are provisions in the 
Code that we know--because it has been demonstrated--make a big 
difference.

                              {time}  1445

  It is so important that we have a vibrant civil society, that space 
that stands between ourselves and our government, which is where we 
live and we lead our lives, that it is vibrant and that that space is 
there to help people in need. Private charity is the glue that keeps 
our communities together.
  In so many instances, private charities thrive on the good will and 
the donations and the generosity of other people, of businesses, and 
those businesses are affected by the Tax Code. What we have to do is 
provide certainty to those businesses who want to be generous and to 
those people who want to be generous, but to these charities who need 
some predictability, so they can plan their charitable endeavors.
  Mr. Speaker, knowing that this is a bipartisan notion, knowing that 
the good work that is done by these groups is absolutely essential to 
healing people in our communities, to getting people on to lives of 
self-sufficiency, getting them to where they want to be in life, the 
least we can do is provide some certainty so more of this can happen.
  Last year, Mr. Speaker, we waited until the end of the year to extend 
these provisions retroactive to the first of the year but only for that 
year--oh, and by the way, last year, we waited until December 11 to 
tell all of these charities, these donors to charities, Okay. Now, here 
is the benefit for the past year, but guess what, it already expired 
the beginning of this year.
  I know that it sounds kind of complicated. The point is this is no 
way to run a railroad. We need to provide families with certainty. We 
need to provide charities with certainty. That is what this bill does.
  The part that we are going to have a debate here, Mr. Speaker, is 
nobody seems to have a problem when we do this 1 year at a time. Nobody 
seems to have a problem suggesting that we ``pay for it'' which is, in 
my opinion, another way of saying raise taxes on other people just to 
keep them the same when we do it 1 year at a time, but when we say, 
Let's make this thing permanent, this thing that we do once every year 
that everybody is fine with, instead of doing it once every year and 
sometimes retroactively, let's just do it permanently so people in 
families and businesses can plan, then all of a sudden, there is a big 
problem.
  I personally don't understand that. It makes no sense because who we 
are serving is not Washington, who we are serving are the people who 
are trying to survive, are the people who are the beneficiaries of 
these charities or the charities who are doing the good works. That is 
why we are bringing this legislation to the floor. I am very excited to 
be a part of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the Members on both sides of the 
aisle for their hard work in this area, and with that, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues here are not the merits. That isn't the 
issue. The issue is whether we proceed this way. Proceeding this way is 
the opposite of bipartisanship--its very opposite. The chairman has 
said he wants to find common ground on common aspects.
  What this does is essentially pull terrain out from under common 
ground. It is the opposite of a search for common ground. The President 
has said he will veto. We have the messages right here once again. It 
is the opposite of bipartisanship.
  It is also, if I might say, the opposite of certainty for taxpayers. 
We went through this last year. These bills will not become law, 
period. If they were to pass the House and the Senate, they would be 
vetoed. That happened last year. It did not become law. It will not 
become law this year.
  These provisions will be continued if we don't pass tax reform. Mr. 
Chairman, you control the schedule. If you don't want to wait until 
December, do it earlier if tax reform doesn't become a reality.
  That is another problem with this bill and these bills. They are the 
opposite of tax reform. You don't do tax reform in a piecemeal fashion. 
Dave Camp, to his credit, understood that, so he came up with a 
comprehensive package.
  In the Senate, Republicans understand this. Senator Blunt said last 
week:

       As long as the Finance Committee feels there is an 
     opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are going to 
     not see a quick response to individual bills coming over.

  What could be clearer? What could be clearer?
  This is also the opposite of fiscal responsibility.
  You have here three opposites--really four, and four opposites make a 
big minus.
  Fourteen billion is the cost of this bill and 79 billion, the next 
bill--that is 93. We marked up just a few hours ago in Ways and Means 
two more bills, one 42 billion and another one 177 billion--that is 
219. And you add up those, over $310 billion in terms of adding to the 
deficit.
  There has been some talk about helping the middle class. Action is 
the opposite of platitudes. Where is the action on the child tax 
credit? Where is the action on the EITC also affecting working and 
middle class families? Where is the action on the work opportunity tax 
credit? Where is the action on the minimum wage? The answer is we are 
now several months into this session.
  A reporter said to me, What is bill number one?
  I said, I have no idea.
  How about other bills that really address the needs of the middle 
class of this country?
  As expressed in Ways and Means, so many of us are very opposed to 
what is really a counterproductive path here. The merits, again, are 
not the basic issue.
  The basic issue, do we want to fly in the face of bipartisanship, fly 
in the face of certainty for taxpayers, fly in the face of tax reform, 
and fly in the face of fiscal responsibility? We should not be doing 
that. We should not be doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), the distinguished 
member from the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak very well about H.R. 641, the 
Conservation Easement Incentive legislation. I get confused sometimes 
by the discussion on the floor.
  If I understand it, if you do it for a year or 2 years and you don't 
pay for it, that is good policy, that is good legislation, that is good 
for America, but if you go beyond that time, it is not good.
  This is a piece of legislation that came up in 2006. In fact, my 
colleague Mr. Thompson brought it up. He and Chairman Camp did it. He 
and Mr. Gerlach, who retired last year, did it. This just makes good 
sense.
  I can tell you something about this. It is not only bipartisan, it is 
bicameral. It is in the President's budget. If you are talking about 
trying to work together to get somewhere, isn't this it? Isn't this it?
  Sometimes, we always try to bend the rules for something else, but 
this is about conservation. This is about allowing a landowner to set 
property aside. So I don't care if you are a farmer or a rancher, I 
don't care if you are a hunter or a hiker, I don't care if you

[[Page H1004]]

like to look at birds or hunt birds, there are over 65 associations 
around the country that say, Please do more of this, set this ground 
apart.
  Now, if you are a farmer or a rancher, you can still work that 
ground. All you are saying is this is a set-aside, this ground can't be 
developed, we can't lose this ground.
  This is so basic who we are as Americans. We are saying, Let's 
preserve what we have. Let's just keep what we have. Let's make sure 
that our kids can hunt, hike, and swim. Let's make sure that they can 
fish. Let's make sure they can do all those wonderful things that this 
land affords us to do.
  Then it becomes, Gosh, this is about politics. It is not about 
policy. It is good policy. It has never been paid for. I just don't 
understand why, all of a sudden--now--why is it paid for?
  I am only starting my third session here; but, my God, you would 
never do this back home. I wouldn't do this. I am an automobile dealer.
  I couldn't do this to a customer and say, Yeah, it is okay now, but 
do you know what, later on, you are going to have to pay me for it.
  And they say, Wait a minute, I thought you gave it to me.
  No, no. We are going to take it back.
  Mr. Speaker, there are millions of acres that have been set aside 
now. Why not give some permanency to this? We talk about tax reform. 
Let's give it some permanency. Let's do what makes sense for all of 
America.
  Let's talk about preserving America's ground and making sure it 
doesn't go under development. People can still farm it, and they can 
still ranch on it. It just makes good sense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am just asking our friends 
on the other side, let's think about what is good for the people we 
represent and not what is just good for the moment.
  We have always done this in the past. It has only become a problem 
now because it is not a 1-year extender or a 2-year extender. Now, all 
of a sudden, we say, Well, let's just let people know this is the way 
it is always going to be from now until all time.
  But, no, that is a bad idea to do that. You don't want to give 
anybody certainty. You don't want to give anybody permanency.
  There is no time in my life that I would ever say to my friends, my 
family, or anybody I represent, This is just a temporary thing for me. 
Tomorrow, I may have a change of heart.
  I just ask my friends, H.R. 641--Mr. Thompson is on this piece. Let's 
make sure that we move forward for America. Let's make sure that we set 
ground aside for the future.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, who is going to 
supply, if the gentleman will wait here, for a very clear answer.
  Mr. HOYER. The ranking member didn't write my speech, so I am not 
sure what my answer to the distinguished gentleman's comments is, but I 
will say this to my friend, I am not for 1 year. I may vote for 1 year, 
but that is not what we ought to do. It ought to be paid for if it is 1 
year, 2 years, permanent. There is no free lunch.
  You are in the automobile business. People come into your automobile 
store, and they would say, I would like to have that car for $10,000.
  And you say, Now, look, I paid $20,000 for that car. I can't sell it 
to you for $10,000.
  There is no free lunch. Unpaid tax cuts are a free lunch, a pretense 
that somehow it is just free, but I will tell my friend it is not free.
  The chairman, who was the chairman of the Budget Committee, offered a 
budget which cuts food stamps $125 billion. This bill is called the 
Fighting Hunger Incentive Act--$125 billion cut in food stamps. I tell 
you my friend voted for a $40 billion cut in food stamps in the farm 
bill.
  I am not for free lunches. I am for a lot of these tax cuts, but I am 
not for taking it out of the mouths of children, I am not for taking it 
out of NIH, and I am not for taking it out of our national security. We 
have got to pay for what we buy, and I vote that way.
  The chairman and I were one of 18 people one time that voted against 
a very popular bill that had to do with Social Security. We thought it 
was not paid for and not fiscally responsible, and he and I were one of 
18 people in this House that voted against it.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't have much time, but maybe we can get some more. I 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I could not be in better or more agreement 
with you. I have watched for 6 years--an opportunity in a country with 
the greatest assets in the world--watched our working class, our 
middle-income people, our lower-income people suffer the greatest harm 
they have ever had in their life.
  If this is truly about getting America back to work, putting food in 
the mouths of our children and being able to do all these things, the 
only one way to do that is to have a dynamic and robust economy. That 
is what I think we need to do.
  I have watched it for 6 years. It is appalling what we have allowed 
to have happen in a country that has been blessed with so many things. 
It is just bad policy. We can't get beyond the politics. That is what 
is hurting our people.
  It is not the fact that this is not being paid for because we are not 
manipulating it for a year or 2. The whole purpose of why we should be 
here is let's raise all America. Let's get everybody looking up, being 
able to feed everybody. We shouldn't have to have programs for people 
who can't take care of themselves because, by their very nature, they 
can do that. We have all of that potential.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I used to have a magic 1 
minute. I don't have that now. I would be glad to participate in 
debate. We have had bad policy, I tell my friend.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I agree.
  Mr. HOYER. Terrible policy.
  I don't know about you, but I am for Simpson-Bowles. The problem with 
Simpson-Bowles for some people is it paid for what it did, just like 
the Camp bill. The Camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero-sum 
game in the sense that it cut taxes and it paid for them--a zero-sum 
game--just like you had to run your business because, if you didn't run 
your business that way, you would have gone bankrupt.
  Now, I fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that 
way, as I say, one of 18 with my friend from Wisconsin, but I tell my 
friend, yes, we are following bad policy.
  This bill, you can argue for the merits. I get that. The next bill, 
you can argue for the merits, and the bill after that and the bill 
after that and the bill after that, and you have then caused $600 
billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay 
for because we are too old to be around long enough to pay for it.

                              {time}  1500

  So I rise against this bill not because I am against fighting hunger. 
Everybody ought to be against fighting hunger.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. But when you talk about fighting hunger, don't cut food 
stamps $40 billion. Don't suggest the way we pay for this tax cut is to 
cut $125 billion from food stamps over the next 10 years, as the 
chairman did.
  I disagree with that policy, and I respect the chairman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. No, I can't yield any more because I am running out of 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of two bills that we are considering on the 
floor this week to make tax cuts permanent, and it is unfortunate that 
neither of these bills is paid for 1 year or permanently. Together, 
they would increase the deficit by $93 billion. Nobody is suggesting we 
are going to pay for that, so our kids will pay for it.
  Democrats support extending many of the preferences we are talking 
about, but we are also deeply concerned about America's fiscal future. 
And I voted that way, not just talked that way.
  I hear a lot of talk from my friends in the majority about the debt, 
but

[[Page H1005]]

that talk too often fails to translate into fiscally responsible 
policy. It didn't in 1981 when we cut taxes deeply and increased the 
national debt from the time I came in under Reagan 189 percent, more 
than any President that has been President during my term in the last 
34 years.
  We have seen these two tax bills before--when Republicans brought 
them to the floor last Congress, along with several other permanent tax 
cuts, which, together, would have ballooned the deficit by more than 
$600 billion. That is twice what we will spend on medical research at 
NIH and 10 times what it would cost to expand community college access.
  I also hear a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle talk 
about a broken tax system. I tell my friend, that system is going to 
remain broken. That system is going to remain broken unless we do what 
Camp did.
  Did I agree with everything that Camp did? No. But I respected him 
for putting together a package of tax reform that gives what Mr. Ryan 
says we need, and I agree with him--certainty. People need to know. 
These ought to all be permanent. The R&D tax credit ought to be 
permanent so people can plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. America's businesses and families deserve the certainty 
that comes from tax reform, not partisan piecemeal reform bills that 
undermine--undermine--tax reform. That is what Roy Blunt was talking 
about.
  Roy Blunt has already been quoted, so I won't repeat the quote. But 
what he said is, as long as the Finance Committee feels there is an 
opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are not going to see a 
quick response to individual bills coming over.
  That is why this is bad policy; because you are not going to get from 
here to there unless you have a comprehensive bill that makes the tough 
tradeoffs and summons the courage of this Congress to pass meaningful, 
permanent, paid-for tax certainty for our citizens.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say I 
truly, sincerely want to say this.
  I very much respect the majority whip. We have had a great 
relationship over the years. I very much respect the gentleman. He is a 
class act legislator. I look forward to his support of our coming work 
from the committee if he wants to be part of tax reform.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman.
  That was the longest magic minute I think I have seen.
  Mr. HOYER. No, I have done longer when I had the minute, believe me.
  I want to tell the gentleman, in all sincerity, I look forward to 
being able to support a bill that is comprehensive, paid for, and gives 
our citizens and individual taxpayers the certainty they need to have 
the confidence they need to grow our economy.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just want to keep on my time.
  Let me ask about the time allotment, by the way. Who is where.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 37 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 33\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, normally, I don't try to get into these baseline issues 
because it is kind of arcane budget issues. But here is where I think 
there is an inconsistency or a problem, and so people listening to this 
debate, there is a lot of confusion here.
  If we were talking about a spending bill--let's just say the highway 
trust fund or TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--and it 
expired and we said, well, let's just extend this bill, this law, and 
the spending in it at its current levels for another 5, 6 years, we 
wouldn't have to ``pay'' for that. It wouldn't cost anything. It is 
already in the baseline. So if we were basically talking about a 
spending bill here, none of these kinds of criticisms would hold merit, 
would be usable.
  So here we are talking about taxes, and so I think people are getting 
the impression from this debate that we are talking about a tax cut 
here, that we are talking about doing something to businesses or 
individuals and cutting their taxes. These are laws that are already on 
the books. Charities, that is what we are talking about here in this 
particular bill. All we are saying is don't raise their taxes. That is 
what we are saying here.
  The choice before us is fairly obvious. Either we raise taxes on 
small businesses and individuals with respect to charitable giving, or 
we keep them where they are today and just go raise taxes on somebody 
else, or we acknowledge reality for what it is: they have these 
benefits, they have had these benefits, we all agree they ought to keep 
these benefits, and every year we renew these benefits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  But we do it in such an awful way. We wait until the end of the year, 
then we do it retroactively or we do it 1 year. Nobody knows what is 
going on. Nobody can predict the Tax Code. Nobody can make decisions. 
As a result, these charities, these families, these small businesses 
suffer. That is what we are trying to fix here.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Schock), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I would just say so much has been said I am not sure I will need 3 
minutes.
  Obviously, I am here to speak in support of a measure that I 
introduced in this body last July that passed by a 2 to 1 majority. 
That means nearly every Republican and tens and scores of Democrats, a 
whole host of Democrats that passed by a 2 to 1 majority, voted for 
almost identical language contained in this bill.
  Now, the negotiation in the agreement between the House and the 
Senate to make this more permanent fell apart, and so we did what we 
have always done, which is extend it for another year.
  Just a few months ago--just a few months ago--Republicans and 
Democrats came together in this body to vote on identical legislation 
to extend it a year at a time. In fact, this piece of legislation has 
been extended four times since 2006 under the same proposal that we are 
submitting here, just not a year at a time but, rather, permanent, the 
same pay-fors or lack thereof, written almost identically.
  So what is at stake? What is at stake is how much the people of our 
respective districts are going to benefit and whether they will 
benefit.
  Back in my district, the head of the Galesburg Community Foundation 
says that, when he is meeting with donors, if they can give to their 
IRA, as this bill will allow, they give, on average, four times the 
amount of goods and services that they would otherwise give without the 
IRA donation provision--four times.
  This isn't about the donor; it is about the recipient. And so I would 
just simply ask: Why don't we give the certainty not to the donor but, 
rather, give the certainty to the recipient, whether it be food and 
shelter, whether it be education benefits here in our country and 
around the world, a benefit from this provision, give them the 
certainty, do what we have always done, but do it early and do it now?
  Rather, I would ask anyone who stands up to oppose this: 10 months 
from now, where will your vote be on a 1-year extension? Where will 
your vote be on a 2-year extension? What is wrong with making what we 
have been doing since 2006 1 year and 2 years at a time permanent?
  It is important for us to give the certainty to the beneficiaries and 
to the communities who benefit from this provision. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on this. And I hope, once again, as we did last July, this body 
will pass this bill with an overwhelmingly 2 to 1 majority.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The answer to the gentleman is you pay for certainty. If you make 
something permanent, you should pay for it. And that is essentially 
what our chairman did when he chaired the Budget Committee. His budget 
never assumed these provisions were permanently in the baseline or he 
would never have

[[Page H1006]]

been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years. That is the 
reality.
  If you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget, you 
have got to face up to paying for them; otherwise, you squeeze out 
other necessary programs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee, a very active 
member.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainty, we are told, is the key factor 
here--first words from Chairman Ryan in support of this bill. I think 
the first certainty we have here is the knowledge that this bill is 
part of a package that, approved through today, is certain to borrow 
$317.5 billion. That is basically a request to this House and this 
Congress that we approve the borrowing of $317.5 billion. And when you 
look at other measures they have approved in the past, they are really 
on a pathway to borrowing almost $1 trillion to finance these tax cuts.
  I believe that certainty is important to taxpayers. I think that when 
someone pays for Medicare and Social Security, they need to be certain 
that it will be there. They need to be certain that the water that they 
drink and the air they breathe is not contaminated. They need to be 
certain that the food that they put on their family's table is safe, 
that it has been inspected by a meat inspector or another type of 
health inspector. They need to be sure when they drive home, they need 
to have the certainty that the bridge that they drive over is not going 
to fall down, as it did in Minneapolis a few years back. They need to 
be certain that there is educational opportunity, quality education, 
for their children. They need to be able to do all this without just 
having to rely on charity.
  This bill certainly selects a subset of tax provisions that benefit a 
few Americans and gives them preference. And I like some of these 
provisions. In fact, I am a cosponsor of some of these provisions, like 
the conservation easement. But they are measures that can and should be 
fully paid for instead of asking for another IOU. And because they are 
select provisions, they exclude many working and middle class American 
families.
  For example, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is based on 
the principle that we want all Americans to be able to get 
postsecondary education in a college or a trade school, but a choice 
that they make and get $2,500 directly off of their tax bill to pay for 
tuition and books; the child tax credit that so many American families 
claim to help with their children; the earned income tax credit that 
even President Reagan said was a key factor in getting people out of 
poverty, those are key provisions that were left over on the side and 
not selected for borrowing or for anything else.
  It is certain that many Americans have been left out of this very 
costly package. Working families do need to depend on more than 
charity. They need to be able to depend on this Congress to respond to 
their needs.
  Now, there is seldom a week that goes by in the area of medical 
research that there is not a group here on Capitol Hill concerned with 
Alzheimer's research, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's, 
cancer, AIDS, or any number of dreaded diseases, basically saying: Find 
a cure for my family member or my neighbor; find a cure before I get 
this dreaded disease. There are groups that come here after the tough 
droughts we had here last year saying the Forest Service and the 
weather service need more resources in order to deal with the natural 
disasters associated with climate change.

                              {time}  1515

  We have been unable to find the funds for our crumbling roads and 
bridges. We do not have the investment we need from pre-K to 
postgraduate in education.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. When you dig another hundreds of billions of dollars--or 
maybe $1 trillion--into debt, it provides an excuse for many of those 
who don't believe in those programs to say: Gee, we would love to help 
you with education for your children, and, yes, it would be good if we 
had another meat inspector, but we just can't afford to do that.
  So we get to the point that Mr. Ryan has raised: Why is it we should 
raise taxes on some in order to maintain and renew some expired tax 
credits for others? I think there are two reasons.
  One is that some people are still not paying their fair share. We 
have got some multinational corporations that don't pay as much as a 
percent of their income as the people who clean up their offices. The 
second reason is that it is for the same reason that we say, if we need 
additional money for our national defense or for our educational and 
retirement security at home, we have to come up with the revenues to 
pay for that if we are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility.
  There are some good provisions in this bill, but we need the 
certainty that we will not be digging ourselves deeper into debt, 
preventing our ability to meet other vital national needs for our 
families.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say: 
I wonder what the reaction would be if we chose to change the way that 
the spending baseline is treated, such that, if any program in its 
authorization expired, then it would expire on the baseline, and you 
would have to offset the spending for renewing any program. I would be 
curious to see what the reaction would be for that.
  I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the chairman for his leadership on leading the 
effort to simplify the Tax Code and give some confidence and certainty 
to those who use it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, the America Gives 
More Act. This legislation is absolutely about helping those who are 
most in need. Those are our charities and our foundations across the 
country, which are working day in and day out to help those who are 
most in need.
  There are a number of important tax rules that we have already 
discussed that are governing charitable donations and charitable 
organizations, but they have always been temporary. We have already had 
these provisions in law, and they have already expired, so here we are, 
acting under retroactivity already. It is time to get rid of these 
short-term fixes and embrace long-term solutions. This legislation 
simply makes the provisions permanent.
  It encourages companies to donate food to help feed the hungry. It 
makes it easier for individuals who might want to use their money in 
their IRA retirement funds and give that money to charitable 
organizations to help others of all varieties. It incentivizes 
landowners to help protect and preserve our environment for future 
generations through conservation easements.
  I want to just address one other provision that is in this bill, 
which I actually authored with my colleague, Mr. Davis of Illinois, to 
help simplify the Tax Code for private foundations. He has been a very 
strong advocate in leading this effort.
  I think we would all agree that private foundations make a world of 
difference in our communities. We all have them in our States. I know, 
in Minnesota, we have 1,400 different foundations that donate about $1 
billion annually to all of those who are in need. Across the country, 
there is something like 86,000 foundations that give tens and tens and 
tens of billions of dollars. Now, these are really impressive figures, 
but the truth is those figures could actually be a lot higher, and here 
is why.
  The foundation community has come to us, and they are telling us that 
the Tax Code is discouraging them from actually giving large donations. 
Today, these institutions face a really complex, cumbersome, two-tiered 
system of taxation that requires them to pay either a 1 percent or a 2 
percent excise tax on their investment income, but in order to qualify 
for the low rate in any given year, they have got to go and donate an 
amount greater than the average of their 5-year rolling average from 
the previous 5 years.
  This, actually, creates a very perverse disincentive for these 
foundations to not make any donations of large amounts in times when we 
might have a natural disaster, when there are economic tough times. 
Absolutely now, this is because a large donation in

[[Page H1007]]

these times would significantly increase a private foundation's 5-year 
average and make it difficult for them to actually qualify for the 
lower rate. It also makes sure that they are not going to get the low 
rate for the next 4 years. We are eliminating this disincentive by 
replacing a very complicated, two-tiered system with a simple, flat, 1 
percent excise tax on all private foundation investment income.
  It is important to simplify the tax planning process especially for 
smaller foundations, because they are the ones who are spending money 
on accountants and lawyers to navigate the Tax Code when those are 
valuable resources that could actually be used to help give grants to 
others who need those resources. This bill simply makes sure that 
charitable giving decisions are going to be based not on the Tax Code 
but on the needs of our communities.
  The bottom line is: every dollar that these organizations are paying 
in taxes is one less dollar that they are giving to those who truly 
need it. I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi, our distinguished 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership 
on helping to have a budget that produces growth to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about issues on which we are very 
much in agreement in terms of the policy toward charitable giving. In 
fact, some of this legislation has been introduced by Mr. Levin and Mr. 
Thompson on the Ways and Means Committee, in fact, in offering an 
amendment in Rules last night, which was rejected by the Rules 
Committee, to go forward in a way that was fiscally sound and was paid 
for.
  Here is the problem that we have. We all want to have comprehensive 
tax reform, where we can close loopholes and we can lower the tax rate 
and we can have transparency in our Tax Code. In order to go to the 
table to do that--and I know there is bipartisan interest in doing so--
we should go to the table with as much freedom as possible and not 
constrained by taking rifle shots on the floor of the House for certain 
pieces of the Tax Code. The whole package that the Republicans are 
putting forth is about $800 billion. That is a lot of money.
  It is important for people to know that, in our budget every year, we 
have a part of the budget that is called tax expenditures. They are 
well over $1 trillion. Some of them are worthy, and we want to protect 
them--certainly, charitable deductions fall in that category--but many 
of them are not. Many of those tax expenditures, which means giving a 
tax break whether it is special interest loopholes in the Tax Code to 
special interests, do not create growth. They increase the deficit, and 
they are just like spending. They are called expenditures because they 
are giving a tax break to certain special interests.
  Okay. How does that fit in here?
  We want to go to the table--put everything on the table--and subject 
it to agnostic scrutiny to say: What works for growth? What is fair 
about transparency? How do we proceed in a way that lowers the 
corporate rate? increases the revenue to the budget? that has fairness, 
simplicity, and transparency?
  What the Republicans are proposing this week is totally in opposition 
to our being able to do that effectively. What they are saying is let 
us take $800 billion--permanently, unpaid for--out of the mix, and then 
we have less to negotiate on in terms of what we can do on the other 
side of the budget, which are investments into the future.
  I have always said--and I think that most economists would agree--
that nothing brings more money to the Treasury or reduces the deficit 
more than investments in education--early childhood education, K-12, 
higher ed, postgraduate--lifelong learning. That is about growth. That 
is about bigger paychecks, confidence to spend, demand injected into 
the economy, jobs created, revenue produced. It is all part of how we 
can go forward with a budget for the future that creates growth and 
reduces the deficit.

  So we have this obstacle, which sounds very good. How do you vote 
against these provisions, which are good provisions, about nonprofits 
and conservation and all of these other things? We agree--as I say, our 
colleagues have introduced them--but then you say that they are 
permanently unpaid for. Again, mixing some of the good with the not so 
good is like a Trojan horse moving in. It looks good, but wait a 
minute. There is a lot in the gut of that horse that is not good for 
growth or for reducing the deficit.
  All we are saying to everyone today is we can come to agreement on 
some of the principles about tax deductions for charitable 
organizations. It is curious to hear our colleagues talk so movingly 
about providing food for hungry people when very few of them want to 
vote for food stamps, but that is a whole other issue. It just shows 
some inconsistency in all of this.
  Just remember this one thing: if we want to have comprehensive tax 
reform--if we want to reduce the deficit, if we want to have balance in 
terms of investments plus how we produce revenue--we have to do it in a 
comprehensive way. That is what a budget is about. What we are doing 
today is to throw up, to just stack the deck against any investments in 
growth, because we have already taken $800 billion off the table if we 
go down this path.
  What we are doing today is to say other tax reforms that we want to 
make for fairness are already in jeopardy because of some of what is in 
this. As I say, some are positive and some are not. Let's be discerning 
in how we make the judgment. You can't be discerning by saying: I am 
going to vote for permanent, unpaid-for tax expenditures--which, as I 
say, have a blend of positive and negative in them, but it is hard to 
make a distinction without seeing the whole, big picture of it.
  I urge my colleagues to say: While I support some of what is good in 
all of this, I do not support permanently taking it off the table for 
consideration and not paying for it at this time.
  In order to talk this through and have a clear instead of this drive-
by approach to tax policy--an antideficit exploding spree that our 
Republican colleagues are on while they profess to be deficit hawks--
and while we are working this out and having a discussion about this, 
we, in our motion to recommit, will have a 1-year extension of the 
provision that we are talking about here so that, okay, in the course 
of this time, we will go forward with a tax extender for 1 year.
  Hopefully, in that time, under the leadership of the Budget chair, 
who is also from the Ways and Means Committee--he understands these 
issues very well. In fact, his own budget would not be consistent with 
what he is putting on the floor today as he is the former chair of Ways 
and Means, now of the Budget Committee. No. It is the reverse, but it 
is related. They are so related because how we produce revenue is so 
essential to how we do our budget, and the gentleman knows that because 
his own budget would be inconsistent with what is on the floor today.
  So I say to my colleagues: Hold on. Vote ``no'' on this. Vote ``yes'' 
on the motion to recommit, which gives us a year to talk this through 
but to do so in a way that reduces the deficit, produces growth, makes 
bigger paychecks from that growth to increase more revenue, and we 
would have these provisions go forth in a way that is fair, that is 
paid for, and that is part of comprehensive tax reform.
  With that, again, I thank the gentleman for his exceptional 
leadership and the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their 
courage in opposing something that has popular appeal. There is a 
reason why. They are not bad policies. It is just that they are not 
paid for, and they are permanent. We should do this, but we should do 
it right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``yes'' 
on the motion to recommit.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to say to the gentlewoman, the minority leader, that I 
appreciate the tone and the temperament of her remarks. I thought that 
was well done.

                              {time}  1530

  I disagree with the basic premise on baseline. I won't get into the 
details. I talked about that a little bit before.

[[Page H1008]]

  So I have some differences of opinion on the facts as she laid them 
out. I see it quite differently. But I thought that was a good tone and 
temperament that speaks well to the need for tax reform that is 
comprehensive. We believe that this helps move us in the right 
direction toward tax reform.
  I won't go to the baseline issues again, only to say I think this is 
a positive step in the direction toward comprehensive tax reform, which 
clearly the gentlewoman--meaning both parties--agree is something that 
we have to tackle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California said that we needed to 
use agnostic scrutiny when we are evaluating these. I think it is a 
little bit ambitious to have a roomful of agnostics when we are all 
true believers. We all come in with an agenda.
  An agnostic, Mr. Speaker, would look at the four things in the bill 
that we are contemplating today and would say of all four of these 
things: Surely these are not going to get caught up and swept away in 
tax reform; surely, it is not going to be how we are treating food 
charities; surely, it is not going to be how we are dealing with 
conservation easements; surely, it is not how we are treating IRA 
contributions to charities; and surely, it is not trying to make 
private foundations and give them a sure footing. Surely, these are the 
things we can all agree on based on agnostic scrutiny.
  Did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? There is nobody on the other 
side of the aisle who has stood up today and said: The food charity 
thing? Disaster. I'm against that. Or: Conservation easements? 
Ridiculous. Look into that a little bit more. Or: The IRA 
contributions? Be careful there. Or: Private foundations, getting them 
all squared away? I'm against it. Not one person said that.
  So what was their argument? They wrap themselves up in process. But 
by wrapping themselves up in process, they have opened themselves up to 
criticism, because if we had gone a different route, if the chairman 
had taken a different path, they would have said: Chairman Ryan, why 
don't you start on things where there is bipartisan agreement? And here 
the chairman is bringing bills to the floor that have been 
enthusiastically, actively supported, Mr. Speaker, by our friends on 
the other side of the aisle. Why have they supported them? Because they 
are good ideas. This is where there is an incredible amount of common 
ground.
  There have been some false arguments made on the other side that are 
just not that persuasive, and the argument by the gentleman from Texas 
created the impression that if you vote ``yes'' on this, then we are 
not going to be able to afford meat inspectors. We are not going to be 
able to have bridges or a cure for cancer. It is somehow out of our 
reach. Spare me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am reminded at times like this of a letter that Thomas 
Jefferson wrote in 1790 to a man named Charles Clay. I am going to give 
you three lines from this letter that I have committed to memory 
because I think it deeply resonates where most Americans are when they 
look at our House today.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Charles Clay. He said:

       The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. We must be 
     content what we can get from time to time and eternally press 
     forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men 
     even to do what is for their own good.

  Mr. Speaker, that is Jefferson's admonition--no stranger to vision, 
no stranger to the big picture as the author of the Declaration of 
Independence.
  We don't walk away from tax reform, the aspiration that we all have, 
but it is to say: Look, if we are going to be agnostically scrutinizing 
these things, even an agnostic would say this ought not to be caught in 
the crossfire.
  We ought to vote ``yes'' for this bill and move it along.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Essentially, what the gentleman from Illinois says is: Well, let's do 
tax reform by picking and choosing a piece or a few at a time.
  That is the opposite of tax reform. He described it. That is the 
difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson), a very distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Democratic lead on the conservation 
easement bill and to very regrettably say that I rise in opposition to 
this bill that I think so highly of.
  I don't disagree with the policy. I don't disagree with the need for 
certainty, something that has been referred to many times today. And I 
don't disagree that the way the Republicans did it last year--in the 
last 2 weeks and doing it retroactively--I don't disagree that that was 
the wrong way to do it.
  I have worked for permanency on conservation easements ever since 
Chairman Camp and I passed the big expansion in 2006. I have been the 
Democratic lead in every Congress to make conservation easements 
permanent.
  Conservation easements are good public policy. They protect open 
space. They protect important ag lands. They protect important wildlife 
habitat. They are essential for clean air and clean water. They are 
essential for locally sourced good, healthy food. They are important to 
hunters, to fishermen, to conservationists.
  They are important to people who live in rural areas and they are 
important to people who live in urban areas. Nowhere is that more 
apparent than what happened in New York. We were able to save New York 
City from having to spend $8 billion in building a water filtration 
system because we were able to protect their watershed area, in large 
part through conservation easements.
  We all know that these are important. Every one of us knows it is 
important. That is why every Congress, when we introduce this bill, we 
get upward of and sometimes over 300 bipartisan coauthors on the bill, 
but the problem is this bill isn't paid for, as you have heard a number 
of times.
  Sadly, I offered an amendment that would have totally offset the cost 
of the conservation easement portion of the bills that we are taking up 
today. It was an offset with no tax increases. It didn't increase 
anybody's taxes, didn't put the taxes on the back of somebody else, 
didn't shift the cost to anyone else. As a matter of fact, it focused 
on scofflaws who have been able to avoid paying their taxes because of 
a short statute of limitations. We offered to extend that statute of 
limitations. We could have paid for this whole thing. Unfortunately, my 
friends on the Republican side of the House rejected that amendment.
  So instead, we are here with this bill, not paid for. Instead, today, 
we are going to vote on $93 billion worth of unpaid-for tax bills that 
will add $93 billion to our deficit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. If you add that to what our Republican 
colleagues did in the Ways and Means Committee this morning when they 
passed $225 billion of unpaid-for tax expenditures, that means that 
just today the Republican side of this House spent $320 billion that we 
don't have, directly shifting the cost to our deficit and our debt.
  This is not tax reform, Members, and this is not paid for. It is not 
a good way to proceed, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished member from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. REED. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill, the 
America Gives More Act of 2015. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to 
talk about a bill that is near and dear to me, and that is the Fighting 
Hunger Incentive Act, which is a subpart of this underlying bill.
  The ranking member and I had a conversation the last time this 
legislation was before the House for consideration. We got a large 
bipartisan vote in support of the fighting hunger provisions.

[[Page H1009]]

And I know the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, has worked 
extensively on this legislation for years and years and years. I know 
in our last debate and conversation here that the ranking member had 
some concerns that I questioned whether or not he cared about the 
people that were going to be helped by this act.
  I want to make it clear here today, Mr. Speaker, I understand the 
ranking member cares about those individuals, just as I do--just as all 
of us, as Democrats and Republicans, should be focusing this debate not 
necessarily always about the arguments of D.C. but about the people 
that we came here to represent and help.
  Fighting hunger is a bipartisan issue. We unite as Americans when our 
fellow citizens are suffering. When you look at the millions of 
Americans who are going hungry every day, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be 
divisive. We shouldn't be arguing about the details of what my 
opponents on the other side are putting forth today.
  We should stand for those millions of Americans, where we say this 
tax policy is going to result in tons and tons of food not going into 
landfills, not going into the garbage, but going onto the tables of our 
fellow Americans that could use that food the most: the hungry, the 
poor.
  And we can argue whether there are other ways to do it and there are 
other things that we can do to help them, but we can agree that this is 
one piece of a solution to this problem that we could pass today and 
move the needle and care for our fellow Americans.
  That is why I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this legislation. We don't want food going into landfills. We want food 
to be put on the table of the people that need it most.
  We have concerns about the debt on both sides. I get it. But here is 
an opportunity for us to come together. I am concerned about the debt. 
My colleagues are concerned about the debt. But here is an opportunity 
for us to show the American people that sent us here that we care about 
them, we are listening to the American people, and we are willing to do 
something about it in order to make sure that this policy results in 
that food going to our fellow citizens who need it most.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if could I ask how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
22\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), another distinguished member of our 
committee, the chairman of our Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think we should clarify something. Every day, Americans donate 
food, clothes, and money to charities. Millions of Americans do that 
all the time. Most of those Americans don't expect to get something in 
return. They do it because it is the right thing to do, and it makes 
them feel like they are part of the American community. So every day 
Americans are giving.
  Now, the Tax Code happens to also try to encourage us to do more 
giving, which I think all of us agree is good. So let's remove that 
from the debate because I think we are confusing folks who might be 
watching this.
  This isn't about trying to give people an incentive to give because 
Americans are doing it whether or not the Tax Code says to them: We 
want you to do this.
  The issue is this. Under the Tax Code, some Americans--not a majority 
of Americans, not even a third of Americans, but a fraction of 
Americans--can take advantage of the provisions in the Tax Code that 
give them tax breaks for having given something.
  You have heard a discussion about food. If you gave canned goods 
because the boy next door put up a bag and you put canned goods in 
there and you gave them away, this provision isn't about that. No. 
There are a fraction of American taxpayers, mostly companies, 
restaurants, and so forth, who can take advantage of that. You can't. 
Americans can't take advantage of that provision.
  Say you have an IRA, or Individual Retirement Account. Some Americans 
have an IRA. The majority of Americans don't, but some do. You want to 
be charitable. Say you have done fairly well. You want to give some of 
your IRA to a charity. The Tax Code says: We want to incentivize you to 
do that.

                              {time}  1545

  The Tax Code right now says you can give up to $100,000 in your IRA 
to charity. Guess what? That won't be recognized as income.
  How many Americans make $100,000? Not too many--but say you make 
$100,000. How much are you going to pay in taxes? How many of you have 
$100,000 in your IRA that you give away to a charity? Well, there are 
some people who can, and there are some people who do. Guess what? They 
get a tax break for doing that.
  It is a pretty big tax break if you think about how much you would 
pay in taxes on $100,000 of your income. They get to give that money 
away. Guess what? They don't get taxed a cent on that $100,000 that 
they just gave out of that IRA that they can do.
  By the way, you don't get to just do it once in your lifetime. Every 
year, an American can give away $100,000 out of your IRA and get the 
tax break.
  How many Americans do that? A tiny, tiny fraction--but guess what? 
When you take that IRA rollover tax break and you take that other tax 
break for those companies that can give away food and you take the 
other tax breaks for those who have land that they could give away to a 
charity, guess how much it adds up to?
  It adds up to what we, today, provide in funding to do research 
against breast cancer and all the research funding we put in to do 
Alzheimer's research, the same amount of money.
  When people say, You don't have to worry about the cost of that, you 
don't have to pay for this--well, we could spend twice as much money to 
find a cure for breast cancer, twice as much money to find a cure for 
Alzheimer's disease, if we weren't giving away these tax breaks to 
somebody who can afford to give away $100,000 in their IRA every year 
to do good.
  By the way, that wealthy American could give $100,000 out of that IRA 
today, but they get a tax break for doing it. Would that stop them from 
giving away $100,000 just because they don't get the tax break? I don't 
think so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BECERRA. I don't think so because you don't have to be wealthy in 
America to give. We all want to give. In fact, the folks who give the 
most are the folks who earn the least. They give what they can.
  How many times have you been invited to someone's home who you know 
it is hard for them to put food on the table, and they invite you to 
eat at their home, and they don't expect you to give them a thing?
  We give because we think it is the right thing to do. The Tax Code 
wants to incent that, and that is good because we want to help charity.
  To say that it doesn't have to be paid for, when we have to pay for 
all the cancer research, for breast cancer, when we have to pay for the 
research to cure Alzheimer's disease, when we have to pay for those 
food inspectors to make sure that the food that gets on our table is 
free of carcinogens and diseases and microbes that could endanger us--
absolutely, we have to pay for those things. As it was said earlier, 
there is no free lunch.
  All we are saying is this: Let's do good. If we are going to give 
someone who is wealthy a chance to do good, let's pay for it. Let's 
figure out a way to do that because we want to be charitable, but let's 
not play this game that it doesn't cost somebody in America for this 
tax break to go mostly to wealthy folks.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished House 
majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman for 
yielding.
  I have to pause for a moment. We debate a lot of things on this 
floor, and they are worthy debates, and they are interesting debates, 
but let's first, Mr. Speaker, tell the American people what we are 
debating today. Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, that is what we are 
debating.

[[Page H1010]]

  Lots of times, I question why we have debates on the floor certain 
times. Right now is one of them. I really wonder if the American people 
tuned in today and said: You were really having an argument against 
Fighting Hunger Incentive Act?
  Let me walk through what we are debating because, just a couple of 
days ago, I just went down the road here to the D.C. Central Kitchen. 
It is a nonprofit, feeds a lot of homeless, also helps people build 
jobs.
  You know how it was created? Because a small businessman saw people 
who were hungry, then he saw an inaugural for the 41st President of the 
United States and said: Should that food all be wasted?
  He took the leftovers and found someone who needed it. Then he went 
further and he goes: You know what, these people coming to eat, what 
they really need is they need a job, so why don't I create a culinary 
school?
  Ninety-nine classes have gone through this culinary school. And you 
know what? I met this young man who went through class number two. 
Early in his life, he did some things wrong, and he was incarcerated 
for more than 20 years.
  But you know what his life is today? He is the supervisor for 8 
years. He has a 5-year-old daughter, and he has a college fund for that 
daughter. That is because the current Tax Code allows it to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the other side, you would think we are 
creating a whole new bill. We are taking a Tax Code and extending it, 
instead of having a problem when someone wonders: Will I still get that 
donation?
  So I asked them, I see how many people you feed here and the number 
of volunteers--if you want to volunteer at the D.C. Central Kitchen, 
you have to sign up, and the opening is in May because people want to 
give back.
  They say 60 percent of all the food they get is donated. They get 
fish that would actually go into a dump beforehand. But you know what? 
It is not easy, if you are a small farm somewhere else, to donate it.
  This incentive allows it happen. Why? Because one person saw a need--
he didn't go to government to do it, but he used the system to actually 
enhance and build it up.
  I don't have to just go to D.C. to see this. I see this in my own 
community. My wife and I go down to the mission in Kern County. I see 
lives changed. I see people fed.
  But you know what? I see all walks of life. I was down to feed the 
mission one day, and a person that was just a couple of lines behind it 
in there to get food went to the same elementary school as me and the 
same junior high and the same high school. That is the greatness of 
this country, that we are willing to help one another.
  Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand. If we are willing to help each 
other, why do we have to fight to make it allowed to do that?
  There are worthy fights on this floor, but this is not one. We are 
better than this, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you this: What I am most 
amazed and dumbfounded by, this bill has a veto threat.
  This bill to help hunger, to help the next Dawain, to help the next 
individual be fed, has a veto threat.
  You know what? I read the veto threat. The administration doesn't 
oppose the provision because it is already in law.
  So many times, people say: Why do you wait till the last minute in 
this House? Well, we are not now. We are taking it up early, so nobody 
has a problem.
  But you know what the administration, Mr. Speaker, the President 
said? He is threatening to veto this bill because Congress didn't pass 
other bills the President wanted and because the President might oppose 
future bills that the House could pass.
  Seriously? That is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, I believe in this 
country. I believe in mankind. I believe in the goodness of all of us. 
It is not about party. It is about helping one another.
  We are fighting for the incentive to end hunger and encouraging 
others to do it. We shouldn't have to debate about it. We should 
celebrate it.
  I look forward to this bill passing with a large majority and the 
President signing it and all of us, as Americans, coming together to 
help the most precious because it is in every single one of our 
communities, hunger.
  Let's put our political games aside, Mr. Speaker, and let's rise to 
what people expect of this House, to help the common good.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I think the majority leader is leaving the floor, but I want him to 
hear me. I am an original if not the original sponsor of the provision 
regarding food donation. I have a son and daughter-in-law who are 
working on this very issue.
  The issue is this: the majority leader helped lead an effort to cut 
food stamps by $40 billion. The argument was we could not afford it. 
Now, they come forth here with a provision that they don't want to pay 
for, added to other provisions that will cost $200 billion, $300 
billion, going to $700 billion or $800 billion.
  That puts a bad name on the notion of commitment. Commitment needs to 
have some consistency.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have long supported 
the tax incentive for businesses to deduct charitable contributions of 
food inventory. Indeed, I have a bill to expand the deduction for non-C 
corps, as does the bill under consideration.
  The food inventory deduction allows us to help stock America's food 
banks and feed the hungry. Importantly, we need to address the food 
inventory deduction because, unlike other business tax extenders, the 
food deduction provision cannot be useful if extended retroactively. If 
it expires, our hunger relief organizations miss out on potential 
donations of food.
  In Chicago, where I live, one in six people, including children, do 
not know where their next meal is coming from.
  In addition to advancing charitable and S corps tax provisions, this 
committee should be prioritizing the permanent extension of the earned 
income tax credit to help the working poor afford food and other basic 
needs for their families.
  We should be prioritizing the new market tax credits to help 
distressed communities so that the hungry can have jobs so that they 
can purchase their own food and not rely on food banks.
  Although I strongly support incentivizing charitable donations of 
food inventory, I do not support passing unpaid for, permanent, and 
piecemeal tax breaks while the needs of other vulnerable citizens go 
unmet.
  We should be considering the EITC, AOTC, new market tax credit, work 
opportunity tax credit, tuition and fees deduction, teacher tax 
benefits, Promise Zones, and hundreds of other tax provisions that help 
our communities and our people.
  One of the things that I have learned--if I know nothing else--is 
something that Frederick Douglass was known for saying, that in this 
world, you may not get everything that you pay for, but you most 
certainly will pay for everything that you get, and if you don't pay 
one way, then you will definitely pay another way.
  The price of increasing the deficit, not providing a broad, 
comprehensive tax reform effort, is something that we ought not be 
paying for. The principles and concepts in many of the provisions, 
obviously, we agree, but we do not agree that you can go on paying for 
what it is that you need.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on these provisions.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fighting 
Hunger Incentive Act of 2015.
  Roughly one in 10 Minnesotans live in poverty. Sadly, this means that 
many Minnesotans, including children, lack access to the food and 
resources they need to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle.
  This morning, I had an opportunity to tour and make sandwiches at 
Martha's Table, an organization here in D.C. that reaches more than 
18,000 people through their programs. I saw firsthand the need for 
legislation like this.
  This legislation will permanently extend the enhanced charitable 
deduction for all businesses that donate food to charities and food 
banks. This will encourage more businesses to chip in and help in the 
ongoing fight against hunger.

[[Page H1011]]

  We have an obligation to help those around us, and this is a 
nonpartisan, bipartisan way to make a big difference.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen), our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget so dedicated 
to these issues. If he needs more time, he should just ask.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, things are not always what they seem, and this is one of 
those cases. It is unfortunate because tax incentives for charitable 
giving are the kind of issues we should be handling in a bipartisan 
way. We should be working together in a bipartisan manner to reform our 
Tax Code and this as part of that.
  Unfortunately, we are not doing that today, and this bill along with 
the series of other bills that will be coming to the floor in the days 
to come will add $350 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, most of the bills that are coming next are permanent 
extensions of tax breaks to major corporations. In the process, they 
don't pay for any of that. They don't close a single corporate tax 
loophole to provide those tax breaks.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am holding in my hand the budget that Republicans 
passed in this House just a year ago. Now we have the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means--he was chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, a good friend of mine. In their budget last year, they said 
they would not do what they are doing today. They passed a budget 
saying they would not have tax extenders that added to the deficit. I 
am reading right here from the budget that I think passed unanimously 
with Republican votes. It says they will only do these tax extenders if 
such measures would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal 
years 2015 to 2024.
  Here we are, less than a year later, throw their budget out the door. 
Why did it matter? Because last year they wanted to pretend their 
budget was in balance after 10 years, and they knew that if you had 
these tax extenders that were unpaid for, they wouldn't have a balanced 
budget. It wasn't balanced anyway, but no matter, that is why they did 
it.
  Now, why does this matter beyond the fact that the Republican 
majority did one thing last year and is doing something different 
today? It matters because when you increase the deficits, our 
Republican colleagues are going to come right back around to us and 
say: You know what? The deficits are going to go up, and so we have to 
cut some of the investments that are supposed to help vulnerable 
people--the very people our Republican colleagues say they want to help 
today. They are going to say: Deficits are going up. We have got to cut 
those programs.
  You know how we know that? Even before they increase the deficit like 
they are doing today, they were cutting those investments last year. In 
fact, while they are claiming to fight hunger today, here is what the 
budget from last year did: it would have cut the food and nutrition 
programs by 20 percent, $137 billion. That would have ended nutrition 
assistance for 3.8 million Americans.
  Now, I heard one of my friends and colleagues, Mr. Roskam from 
Illinois, saying Democrats are opposing this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I heard some of our colleagues saying we are opposing 
this on the basis of process. Really? Cutting nutrition assistance 
programs for 3.8 million Americans is process?
  You know what else their budget did? It cut the category of spending 
that we use for the Women, Infants, and Children program to the point 
that 200,000 women, infants, and children would have been cut off of 
supplemental nutrition assistance under the Women, Infants, and 
Children program. Process? Really? I thought our colleagues were saying 
they wanted to fight hunger.
  That budget last year, the one I am holding in my hands that passed 
here, you know what else it did? It did not extend tax credits for 
vulnerable people. It did not extend the earned income tax credit bump 
up. It did not extend the child tax credit. At the same time, they had 
a budget, and I suspect they will again this year, that cuts the top 
income tax rate for millionaires. That is what they do.
  We can do a lot better, Mr. Speaker. That is what Democrats are 
saying. We can make these reforms to the Tax Code. We can make the 
charitable deduction permanent, but we can do it in a way that doesn't 
hurt other programs for hungry people. We can help hungry people 
through one mechanism without hurting those same people through another 
mechanism. That is why the President said he was going to veto this 
bill, not because it helps the deduction for charitable giving. This is 
a bill that says we are going to help some hungry people. But you know 
what? We are going to do something else in our budget that actually 
hurts those same hungry people even more, much more.
  Now, I am also holding in my hand the Democratic budget that was 
presented last year. You know what we do? We permanently extended this 
charitable deduction--permanently--just like this bill. But you know 
what we did not do?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend.
  So I just want to be clear. In our budget, we extended permanently 
this charitable deduction to fight hunger, the fighting hunger 
incentive. We did that.
  But you know what we did not do? We did not cut the food and 
nutrition program, SNAP, by 20 percent. You know what we did not do? We 
did not cut the part of the budget that funds the Women, Infants, and 
Children program so that 200,000 people would not have the benefit of 
that.
  You know what we did do? We cut a lot of the corporate tax breaks. We 
said we should not have a Tax Code that actually rewards American 
companies that move American jobs and capital overseas, so we would cut 
down on those. In that way, we were able to pay for them. That way, Mr. 
Speaker, we were able to extend the charitable deduction permanently, 
but we were also able to avoid cutting the Women, Infants, and Children 
program and avoid cutting the food and nutrition programs. That is what 
we are saying.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today, what they are saying is, by 
increasing the deficit, yes, we are going to extend this program to 
fight hunger; but, on the other hand, when their budget comes around 
next year, they are actually going to pass stuff that hurts those same 
people even more.
  What we are saying is we don't have to help people by hurting people. 
We can do it all if we are willing to cut some of those corporate tax 
breaks, tax expenditures, spinning the Tax Code for major corporations 
that are put there because they have good lobbyists in Washington.
  So let's do this the right way. That's the way we did it in the 
Democratic budget last year. That is the way we will do it in the 
Democratic budget again this year. Let's not help people by hurting 
other people or even hurting the people we are trying to help.
  Mr. Speaker, I regretfully urge that we reject this bill and do this 
the right way.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Knight).
  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I have gotten to sit during this debate, and 
for the last hour or more I got to listen to nobody arguing, nobody 
wondering that this is a bad idea, nobody saying that this is something 
we shouldn't do.
  When you walk around your district--and me being a freshman, I get to 
hear all my friends. You know, you never ask your friend whether you 
are a liberal or a conservative or a Democrat or Republican. You just 
talk to your friends. Friends always ask me: Why don't you get 
something done?
  As a State legislator in California, it was difficult for us to get 
some things done. I was always frustrated about that. I never liked to 
hear the term ``ABC''--Anywhere but California. But the reason that 
term came up was because of certainty, was because businesses didn't 
know what we were going

[[Page H1012]]

to do from year to year. That is exactly what we are talking about 
today--certainty. ``Certainty'' is just not a word that we throw 
around. ``Certainty'' is something that has meaning. If we are going to 
extend this for, now, 7, 8 years in a row, it is obviously a good idea.
  Going back and forth and volleying back and forth saying that this is 
a great idea, we all agree, we just want to do it on a 1-year basis, 
doesn't give certainty, doesn't give that reliability that this is good 
policy, we all believe in it, and we can get what we desire out of it.
  When we go back to our districts and we go to our food pantries or we 
go to places that are helping the needy and helping the people that 
need it, feed people that need to be fed, wouldn't you like to go back 
there and say: ``You know what? This is not something we are going to 
kick back and forth next year or the next year. This is something that 
is going to be on the books. We have sheer certainty about this''?
  So listening to this debate and listening to what is happening of 
these four measures is what I draw out of this. What I draw, what we 
can get today: bipartisan, moving this forward, getting certainty for 
these measures that we seem to all agree upon.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  As I have been sitting here, I have to admit, my thoughts have 
changed back and forth. My mind has changed. My speech has changed 
dramatically.
  It occurred to me: I think my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are asking the wrong question. The question should not be: What is this 
going to cost the taxpayers? The question should be: What will the cost 
to the taxpayers be if we let these deductions expire?
  Then it occurred to me, in listening to some of the speeches, that 
there is not a lack of sincerity in the desire to feed hungry people, 
not on their side, and certainly not on our side. I grieve when 
somebody's sincerity is questioned in this way. But I think what the 
question is is: Who do you trust to deliver the solution to people's 
needs, to people's hunger? What about college education? What about 
women's shelters? Who is best prepared to deliver those resources and 
those services?
  I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it is charity. It is charity. The 
Sermon on the Mount wasn't communicated to the Congress; it was 
communicated to the congregation. It wasn't delivered to the democracy; 
it was delivered to the disciples. Our Tax Code ought not punish 
charity; it ought to lift it up.
  I think we are asking the wrong question: Who is best prepared to 
deliver these services?
  I think the other wrong question is we are arguing over what is not 
in the bill sometimes as opposed to what is. I wish there was more in 
it. I wish that we could include life income tools and the charitable 
IRA rollover. The chairman knows that. I hope to get to that. But I 
also know that incremental change is better than no change. Incremental 
progress is better than no progress. I hope we can get to comprehensive 
tax reform. I am confident we can. But today I am asking our 
colleagues, let's do what we can do. What we can do is this bill that 
is in front of us. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), another member of our committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  It is unfortunate we are here today, once again, in a situation where 
I think the overall intent sounds very good: charitable giving, helping 
the poor, helping the hungry. Quite often that is something you hear 
from our side of the aisle. In fact, all last year we had done the food 
stamp challenge. We had done a number of things to bring focus and 
attention to the plight of the hungry in the United States, and it is a 
bit raw to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak 
about their solution to this issue as a tax bill unpaid for that adds 
more than $14 billion back on to our national deficit and to our debt, 
ultimately.
  The President announced that he would cut the deficit in half within 
4 years. He has now reduced the deficit by over a trillion dollars, 
from $1.4 trillion to a little bit over $400 billion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Not perfect. We still have a ways to go. But isn't that 
remarkable? A Democratic President that reduced the deficit, was handed 
a deficit of over a trillion dollars by his Republican predecessor, and 
now this President can lay claim--and I think rightfully so--to having 
reduced the deficit, yearly deficit, by over a trillion dollars.
  Yet here are my Republican colleagues. Once again, they see an 
opportunity to add on to the deficit again here in this particular 
measure by $14.3 billion. It doesn't sound like much, but when you add 
up the whole package, it is well over $300 billion you want to add back 
to the Nation's deficit. I think it is wrong. I think most Americans 
think that is wrong. Democrat, Republican, it matters not. We are 
making progress. You are putting that on the back of future 
generations. The hungry that you pretend to be taking care of today are 
going to have to try to pay for these bills in the years to come. I 
think this is wrongheaded. I hope that my colleagues on this side do 
not support this measure.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, one thing that is 
particularly of pride for organizations and individuals in southeastern 
Pennsylvania is the success of the Chester County Food Bank and many 
other food banks.
  Fighting food insecurity is something that you wouldn't think is a 
real problem in the more wealthier enclaves of this country, yet there 
are those who wake up every morning not knowing where their meal is 
going to come from. Food banks provide a very valuable service. The 
Fighting Hunger Incentive Act aims to assist our food banks and assist 
organizations and individuals to help fight hunger. That is what this 
bill is about. We should pass it, and we should move on in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard a lot of discussion about many of these programs, maybe 
most of all about food programs. But really, let's look at it beyond 
the rhetoric. Essentially when it comes to food programs, what the 
Republicans are doing is giving with one hand while they take with 
another. And there is much more that they take than they would give.
  The food provision here comes to $2.2 billion. They have chopped $40 
billion from food stamps; that is 20 times more. As the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) pointed out, when you add in WIC and other 
programs, they have cut way over $100 billion. And they say they had to 
do that, in part, because they could not afford it.
  So they come forth with bills that are going to add to the deficit, 
and that shows what this is all about, because they pass these bills 
adding to the deficit, and then they come back and they say, Sorry, 
when it comes to other needed programs, we don't have the money.
  Indeed, not only do they give with one hand and take with another, 
and much more, but they give an empty hand, an empty hand like this--
nothing in it--for the Child Tax Credit, for the Work Opportunity Tax 
Credit, for the New Markets provision that really matters, for the 
EITC. And then they say, Well, we can't afford it, yet they won't close 
the tax loopholes. It is so inconsistent.
  I think in terms of the impact on human beings, it is not only 
inadequate but it is impersonal.
  So we come here fortified. We are determined to do the right thing 
when it comes to tax reform. We are going to do the right thing when it 
comes to other important issues, including fiscal responsibility. And 
we are going to make sure that there are the funds available for needed 
programs because we have paid for things.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. That really is standing up for the 
right thing

[[Page H1013]]

when it comes to bipartisanship, to tax reform, and to fiscal 
responsibility.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  I guess I will just try to summarize this debate in a couple of ways. 
What I am hearing is, to paraphrase: We like this policy. We think 
there is a need. We just want to raise taxes.
  Let me put it a different way. If there was a popular spending 
measure that came here to the floor that extended the same policy from 
last year to this year because it was expiring, I don't think we would 
be hearing these concerns.
  In fact, with Trade Adjustment Assistance, something that is very 
popular among this committee and the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, that is exactly what happened in December. The law expired. A 
straight extension of the law, of spending, continued. It didn't cost 
anything. Why? Because that is how the baseline treats spending.
  I didn't hear all the hues and cries about deficits when we extended 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance law, that spending program. So we hear 
all of these cries about it.
  Actually, let me take that back. We don't hear all these hues and 
cries about the deficits when we extend these tax provisions for 2 
years. We don't hear these concerns when we extend current law tax 
provisions for 1 year. And we don't hear these concerns about deficits 
when we retroactively extend it from last year, going forward. We only 
hear these concerns when we are giving people the certainty.
  So the real actual question before us is: Do we have to raise taxes 
on other hardworking Americans just so that we can keep them where they 
are for everybody else? Do we take money away from charities and people 
giving donations or raise taxes on other hardworking Americans? Or, 
just like Trade Adjustment Assistance was extended this last year, do 
we treat these important provisions the same, which is: they are in the 
Code; they have been in the Code; we want them in the Code; we agree 
they should be in the Code--let's keep them in the Code. That is the 
decision here.
  So the newfound concern about deficits, I find, is really more of a 
thinly veiled attempt to raise taxes. I think what this baseline 
argument is really all about is: Do we just want to have a Tax Code 
that raises more and more and more taxes? Do we want to put ourselves 
in this position of just always raising taxes? Or do we want to give 
taxpayers a break? We are not even saying give them a break. We are 
saying, just don't raise their taxes; just keep them where they are.
  So this isn't costing anything, in that we are not lowering someone's 
taxes. We are just keeping their taxes where they are, and we are 
preventing them from going up. So let's just make it really clear.
  I guess the new definition of preventing tax increases from hitting 
hardworking Americans is now a big tax cut. That is basically what we 
are hearing here.
  We don't buy that logic. We don't want to raise people's taxes. We 
want to reform the Tax Code. And we want these kinds of provisions that 
are very important, that we know will stay in the Tax Code even with 
tax reform. We want people to know that they are there so they can plan 
accordingly.
  We are doing 179 tomorrow. We want farmers to be able to buy tractors 
before December 11 in the year. We want people to make decisions to 
donate food to charities. Maybe you are doing well in retirement and 
you have got a little bit of money out of your Individual Retirement 
Account and you would like to donate it to a charity, we think you 
ought to be able to do that. We want foundations to be able to make 
donations for the greater good in their communities. Those are the 
things we are getting here and, more importantly, we are giving them 
the certainty they need to make long-term plans so they can do more of 
it. That is why we should pass this bill. That is why I think everybody 
should vote for this bill. That is why I think Democrats and 
Republicans should vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  It's not because I don't support providing additional assistance to 
benefit charities. I do.
  It's because this bill is a trick to actually cut funding for groups 
like food banks and homeless shelters in the long term.
  The reason is, the cost of this bill is not paid for, meaning the 
entire cost of these tax breaks will be added to the nation's deficit.
  $14.2 billion will be added to the deficit.
  This after President Obama has already slashed the deficit by \2/3\ 
from the trillion dollar deficits he inherited from his predecessor 
George Bush.
  So what will be the result of these new larger deficits that my 
Republican colleagues are creating today?
  We all know.
  Republicans will soon turn around and cry crocodile tears about the 
budget and demand deeper cuts in spending.
  And that means less Federal grants towards homeless veterans 
shelters, food banks, senior centers and other organizations that help 
people in need.
  I ask, has the Republican austerity program benefitted charities so 
far?
  Have the budget cuts known as sequestration benefitted local 
charities and nonprofits?
  The answer is a resounding no.
  It is the charities themselves who have said the painful budget cuts 
forced on them have put charities in a situation where more than 50 
percent of nonprofits report that they are unable to meet demand for 
their services.
  So why are our charities, our schools, our communities suffering 
under the Republican majority?
  Because my Republican colleagues claimed to be so concerned about 
deficits--many of which were caused by the trillion dollar Bush tax 
cuts that did nothing for our economy or to create jobs--that they have 
demanded steep spending cuts without ever asking the wealthiest 
American to pay more.
  Yes, my Republican colleagues have used their so-called concerns 
about the deficit to justify cutting spending to social programs that 
serve children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations--shifting the 
burden to already-stressed nonprofits. This is a vicious cycle that 
needs to stop and it needs to stop today.
  Funny thing is we could have stopped this process of adding to the 
deficit, while still benefitting charities, if the Republicans simply 
allowed a vote on a Democratic amendment to pay for the costs of these 
tax cuts.
  The Republicans refused to even allow a vote in Congress.
  Republicans will argue that tax cuts pay for themselves.
  But everyone who has been forced to live under the austerity program 
over the past few years know otherwise.
  Republicans argue there is wasteful spending that needs to be cut in 
order to mandate new spending. Sometimes they are right.
  But let's be clear there are wasteful tax programs out there that 
should be repealed to pay for more beneficial tax cuts as well.
  We can find common ground here.
  Let's go back to the drawing board and pass these tax cuts, but in a 
fiscally responsible manner.
  So I reluctantly oppose this bill as it will just add to the deficit 
and lead to more painful spending cuts for the charitable groups that 
we are claiming to help today.
  I urge a no vote on the underlying bill.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight an important bill that is 
being considered by the House today--the ``America Gives More Act of 
2015 (H.R. 644).'' This legislation contains a package of four 
charitable giving incentives: the IRA charitable rollover; the enhanced 
deduction for donating food inventory; the simplification of the 
Private Foundation Excise Tax; and the enhanced deduction for donating 
conservation easements, the last of which is of critical importance to 
Montana.
  Since 2006, the enhanced tax incentive for qualified conservation 
easement donations has opened the door to voluntary, landowner-led 
conservation on millions of acres across the country. This provision 
allows Montanans, particularly our ranchers and farmers, who donate the 
development rights on their land to deduct a larger portion of their 
income over more years. It is common sense that modest income donors 
with highly valued lands should be allowed the same tax deductions they 
would have been entitled to if their incomes were larger.
  These donations are extraordinary in many ways. One of which is the 
time they take and the money they cost the donor. Decisions to give 
away what is often a family's most valuable asset routinely take more 
than a year and require hiring an attorney and an appraiser at 
considerable cost. Having this incentive expire after a year guarantees 
that most of the people who would most benefit from it will never even 
begin the process of considering it.
  I support this bill, especially when it benefits constituents like 
Dan Lilja. About 35 years ago he moved to rural western Montana after 
graduating from the University of Montana. He married a local, Sally, 
and started Lilja Precision Barrels in Plains, Montana, in 1985.

[[Page H1014]]

Dan's interest in bench shooting inspired him to design some of the 
world's best rifle barrels. Lilja barrels are used in rifles by the 
U.S. Army, the U.S. Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, Coast Guard, the FBI, the 
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Canadian Special Forces, among 
others. These customers demand the best and Lilja Precision Barrels 
delivers a quality product.
  Dan and Sally own property in Sanders County along the scenic Clark 
Fork River. They entered into a conservation easement with the Montana 
Land Reliance to protect this property from inappropriate subdivision 
and to provide critical winter and spring habitat for elk and big horn 
sheep.
  In a way that is both patriotic and conservation-minded, Dan and 
Sally have contributed to the health and preservation of western 
wildlife habitats and the security of our country. This is just one of 
the many stories of how conservation easements are preserving our rich 
heritage, and I call upon the House to support this bill for the 
betterment of not only Montana, but our country.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, because I was traveling to attend the 
President's cybersecurity summit in California, I was not present when 
the House voted on H.R. 644, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015.
  While I support goals of the tax provisions in this bill and 
recognize the value of extending them permanently, I am concerned that 
H.R. 644 does not pay for them. I have long been a supporter of 
improving and streamlining charitable donations to make it easier for 
individuals to donate food, but this one-sided approach of passing 
bills that offer tax reductions without increasing revenues is 
unsustainable.
  H.R. 644 will add $14.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years. By 
bringing this and similar tax extender bills to the floor for votes, 
Republicans continue to demonstrate that they are not serious about 
deficit reduction. It is long past time for Congress to have a 
reasonable and informed debate on comprehensive tax reform. These 
piecemeal, unbalanced extender votes are not the way to approach real 
tax reform.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
speak about H.R. 644, the America Gives More Act.
  The bill before us today contains provisions that I strongly support, 
but it is with much frustration that I will vote against today's bill. 
Rather than tackling comprehensive tax reform, House Republicans are 
once again doing just the opposite. It seems like Congress has given up 
on comprehensive tax reform only six weeks into the year. The American 
people deserve better.
  I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this, but 
we need a tax code that is simple, fair, and provides certainty to all 
taxpayers. Watching the Republicans cherry pick a few bills while 
leaving countless other deserving, historically bipartisan bills in the 
dust is not how to run this committee or this country.
  I have been proud to support local food banks in Los Angeles for many 
years. The work that they do is truly invaluable. Countless families in 
my district, and across Los Angeles County, are able to put food on the 
table and send their kids to school on a full stomach because of our 
local food banks.
  Yet year after year we let our local charities down by kicking the 
can down the road, sometimes kicking the can backwards, when can only 
muster retroactive policy. Our federal tax code is like a spider web. 
If we tinker with one provision, others provisions are affected. That 
is why we must tackle comprehensive tax reform to provide true 
certainty to both tax payers and charities.
  I strongly support the individual charitable provisions before us 
today, but this is not how to run a country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 101, 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 the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 644 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 7. NO INCREASE IN DEFICIT OR DELAY OF COMPREHENSIVE TAX 
                   REFORM.

        Nothing in this Act shall result in--
       (1) an increase in the deficit, or
       (2) a delay or weakening of efforts to adopt a permanent 
     extension of the provisions of this Act, so long as it is 
     accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner.

     SEC. 8. SHORT-TERM EXTENSION WHILE COMPREHENSIVE TAX REFORM 
                   IS UNDER CONSIDERATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any 
     temporary provision of law the application of which is 
     otherwise made permanent under this Act shall be hereby only 
     extended for 1 year.

     SEC. 9. TAX BENEFITS DISALLOWED IN CASE OF INVERTED 
                   CORPORATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the case of a taxpayer which is, or is 
     a member of an expanded affiliated group which includes, an 
     applicable inverted corporation, the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 shall be applied and administered as if the provisions 
     of, and amendments made by, this Act (other than this 
     section) had never been enacted.
       (b) Applicable Inverted Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``applicable inverted corporation'' means any foreign 
     corporation which--
       (A) would be a surrogate foreign corporation under 
     subsection (a)(2) of section 7874 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 if such subsection were applied by substituting 
     ``80 percent'' for ``60 percent'', or
       (B) is an inverted domestic corporation.
       (2) Inverted domestic corporation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a foreign corporation shall be treated as an 
     inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a 
     series of related transactions)--
       (A) the entity 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
       (B) after the acquisition, either--
       (i) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of 
     the entity 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

       (ii) the management and control of the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the entity occurs, directly or 
     indirectly, primarily within the United States, and such 
     expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business 
     activities.
       (3) Exception for corporations with substantial business 
     activities in foreign country of organization.--A foreign 
     corporation described in paragraph (2) shall not be treated 
     as an inverted domestic corporation 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 applying 
     section 7874(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 and the preceding sentence, the term ``substantial 
     business activities'' shall have the meaning given such term 
     under Treasury regulations in effect on May 8, 2014, except 
     that the Secretary of the Treasury 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 paragraph.
       (4) Management and control.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(ii)--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury 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.
       (B) 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.
       (5) Significant domestic business activities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (2)(B)(ii), an expanded affiliated group has 
     significant domestic business activities if at least 25 
     percent of--
       (A) the employees of the group are based in the United 
     States,
       (B) the employee compensation incurred by the group is 
     incurred with respect to employees based in the United 
     States,

[[Page H1015]]

       (C) the assets of the group are located in the United 
     States, or
       (D) 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 paragraph (3) 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 of the Treasury 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.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``domestic corporation'', ``foreign corporation'', and 
     ``expanded affiliated group'' shall each have the same 
     meaning as when used in section 7874 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (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 Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will 
not kill the bill or send it back to committee if adopted. It will 
simply allow us to proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Ryan, spoke a few 
moments ago about the notion of goodwill and confidence. But he used a 
peculiar term as a substitute. He called it the ``baseline.''
  What about a baseline of some goodwill and confidence building and a 
measure that acknowledged that, in terms of procedure, this is a 
violation of the confidence that we have all tried to establish as we 
proceed to tax reform?
  Some of us who have been around for a long time and have participated 
in actual tax strategy, we would offer the following: the last time 
that the Tax Code was changed in America, the Internet had not been 
invented, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States, and Tip 
O'Neill was the Speaker of this House.
  Now, in terms of procedure, why we object is the following: if you 
recall, the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Camp, waited until tax 
reform last year was completely dead and then asked us to go through 
the motion. And that, in the end, is exactly what it was, to have gone 
through the motion of trying to pass some permanent extended tax bills.
  Well, in New England 2 weeks ago, we were talking about deflated 
footballs. Now we are talking about deflated tax reform expectations.
  Six weeks into this Congress, and we are doing this procedural 
instead of substantive achievement that might lead to some tax relief, 
as the President has acknowledged, for American corporations or tax 
relief for individual and family filers?

                              {time}  1630

  We are doing this with the argument that, somehow, Democrats don't 
support charitable giving? Our objection today is based on the 
following: Fiscally, this is reckless; procedurally, it violates the 
notion of goodwill in the House; and lastly, and just as importantly, I 
think it pushes apart the two parties from getting to tax reform.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a positioning amendment: How might we embarrass 
the minority? Do you know what? They are saying here, as they go 
forward in this argument, that this keeps everything the way it is, it 
extends charitable giving.
  You have to borrow the money eventually to pay for this. That adds to 
the deficits. Mr. Speaker, that is the argument that we are having here 
today. We want to know how this is paid for. We are not objecting to 
the thrust or mission of what is being offered. Under different 
circumstances, these bills would pass without any problem with broad 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't have any personal quarrel with the merits of 
this policy, but when it is unpaid for, it means more borrowing. We all 
support the work of public charities and private foundations in our 
communities. We support the good works of charitable communities, and 
we strive to provide these charities with the resources that they need 
to carry out their mission.
  Let me ask you this: Why would they try to masquerade this notion 
that somebody from Massachusetts is against charitable giving?
  Universities, hospitals, and foundations, they abound throughout my 
State. Like the rest of our Caucus, I favor charitable giving and 
object to the procedure in which this is being offered today. We object 
to the procedure.
  Why are we taking up this time debating these bills? We should be 
coming together on tax reform, as promised, for middle class families 
that grows the economy. If the goal of Mr. Ryan is to eventually remove 
all deductions, preferences, and exclusions in the Code to get to a 
lower rate, that should be stated, but not to do it this way.
  We are debating bills that the administration has already said they 
will veto and the Senate has given us no indication they will take them 
up.
  So to fix this moment, our motion to recommit offers the following: a 
1-year bridge to tax reform. By the way, my predictions of this in 
terms of the extenders have been far more accurate over the years than 
their proposals on the extenders.
  We are suggesting here a proposal that does not add to the deficit 
and addresses the longstanding problem of corporate inversions. By the 
way, why are companies inverting? Because of the tax system in America.
  We are suggesting today that there is a difference and a distinction 
to be drawn between tax evasion and tax avoidance. They are avoiding 
taxes in some cases and evading them in the others.
  We have an opportunity to do something about this Tax Code that would 
help bring that about. We pay for our provision. It gives, I think, a 
measure of comfort for the Democratic minority today to vote for this 
motion to recommit, and I urge Republican support for this provision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My friend 
got a little animated.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a lot there. I will just say this. Here is the 
question before us: Do we want to give businesses and charities 
certainty or not? If we would pass this motion to recommit and it went 
into law, then we will be right back here at the end of the year with 
the same old problem. We will be right back here. We will be right back 
here in the same old problem.
  They are saying, Let's just do 1 year. Let's just say it takes a few 
months to pass through the Senate and all of this, then we are back 
here at the end of the year saying, Oh, my gosh, all these charities 
are going to be in jeopardy in January.
  Let's get off this merry-go-round, Mr. Speaker. It is ridiculous. We 
all know this is good policy. We all know this is the right thing to 
do, and we all know that businesses and charities need the kind of 
certainty that we are providing, and most of us believe that not 
raising taxes is not the same as cutting taxes.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and 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

[[Page H1016]]

time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 168, 
nays 245, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               YEAS--168

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Cartwright
     DeLauro
     Duckworth
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Kaptur
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Pearce
     Price (NC)
     Roe (TN)
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Veasey

                              {time}  1659

  Messrs. LOUDERMILK, WESTERMAN, LATTA, GRIFFITH, BILIRAKIS, and AMODEI 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COHEN and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the 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.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279, 
nays 137, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 80]

                               YEAS--279

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

[[Page H1017]]



                               NAYS--137

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cartwright
     DeLauro
     Duckworth
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Kaptur
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Mulvaney
     Pearce
     Price (NC)
     Roe (TN)
     Ruiz
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)

                              {time}  1707

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GARAMENDI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________