[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 25 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1041-H1051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 101,
I call up the bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for
other purposes, 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
114-6 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 636
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``America's Small Business Tax
Relief Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS FOR
SMALL BUSINESS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Dollar limitation.--Section 179(b)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``shall not
exceed--'' and all that follows and inserting ``shall not
exceed $500,000.''.
(2) Reduction in limitation.--Section 179(b)(2) of such
Code is amended by striking ``exceeds--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``exceeds $2,000,000.''.
(b) Computer Software.--Section 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such
Code is amended by striking ``, to which section 167 applies,
and which is placed in service in a taxable year beginning
after 2002 and before 2015'' and inserting ``and to which
section 167 applies''.
(c) Election.--Section 179(c)(2) of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``may not be revoked'' and all that follows
through ``and before 2015'', and
(2) by striking ``irrevocable'' in the heading thereof.
(d) Air Conditioning and Heating Units.--Section 179(d)(1)
of such Code is amended by striking ``and shall not include
air conditioning or heating units''.
(e) Qualified Real Property.--Section 179(f) of such Code
is amended--
(1) by striking ``beginning after 2009 and before 2015'' in
paragraph (1), and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(f) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 179(b) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Inflation adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2015, the dollar amounts in paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2014'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(B) Rounding.--The amount of any increase under
subparagraph (A) shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of
$10,000.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2014.
SEC. 3. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS OF S
CORPORATIONS MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Recognition period.--
``(A) In general.--The term `recognition period' means the
5-year period beginning with the 1st day of the 1st taxable
year for which the corporation was an S corporation. For
purposes of applying this section to any amount includible in
income by reason of distributions to shareholders pursuant to
section 593(e), the preceding sentence shall be applied
without regard to the phrase `5-year'.
``(B) Installment sales.--If an S corporation sells an
asset and reports the income from the sale using the
installment method under section 453, the treatment of all
payments received shall be governed by the provisions of this
paragraph applicable to the taxable year in which such sale
was made.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2014.
SEC. 4. PERMANENT RULE REGARDING BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF
S CORPORATIONS MAKING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 1367(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2014.
SEC. 5. 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. 636, America's Small Business Tax Relief 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.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have a little bit of a deja vu
here today because we are going to be talking on yet another tax
extender bill like we did yesterday. This one involves small
businesses.
Let me see if I can sort of lay out the case that is before us and
the decision that we as Members of Congress are going to have to make.
Small businesses are the engine of economic growth and job creation
in this country. Eighty percent of all businesses in America file their
taxes as small businesses under what we call
[[Page H1042]]
subchapter S corporations or partnerships, and one of the critical
ingredients to running a successful small business is to be able to buy
equipment for your small business and to hire people to do things. One
of the important provisions in the Tax Code to help do this is
something we call section 179 of the Tax Code.
Section 179 is really simple. It says to small businesses: We want
you to be able to write off the purchase of equipment to run your small
business so that you can be successful.
Well, here is what happened. For a number of years, small businesses
have been able to write off $500,000--a small business earning $2
million--to purchase equipment. The problem is, as of January 1 of this
year, that ability to write off $500,000 to buy a couple of trucks and
scaffolding and other kinds of equipment--maybe you want to buy a
tractor if you are a farmer, maybe you want to buy a skid steer if you
are a contractor--that $500,000 expensing limit has now gone down to
$25,000.
What typically happens is Congress says: We don't want that to
happen. Let's get it back up to where it was so small businesses can
plan and invest for their future.
And here is what happened last year. Last year, this expired at the
beginning of this year. So, we waited until December 11 to say: No, you
can expense up to $500,000 for these small businesses to purchase
things like tractors and all sorts of kinds of equipment.
So this is what we did to the American small business men and women
of America last year. We said: You don't know what is going to happen,
and we will let you know on December 11, and you will have a few weeks
to make all of these decisions before this expires. Just think about
that.
So from December 11 to December 31 of last year was the window in
which American small business men and women realized they had this
incentive to purchase and plan for equipment because on January 1 it
went away. And that is where we are today.
So we are saying: Let's stop this monkey business, let's stop this
crazy notion of injecting all this uncertainty into small businesses
and make this provision that is bipartisan--this provision that we know
creates jobs--let's make it permanent so that small business men and
women of America can plan their purchases.
I remember talking to a dealer of Case tractors. We make Case New
Holland tractors in Racine, Wisconsin. We call them Case Magnums. These
are phenomenal tractors that increase the productivity of farmers and
ranchers. They are also used for construction. Well, it is a pretty big
purchase. It is about $200,000, $250,000 for a nice Case Magnum, and it
is a big purchase that somebody needs to think about and plan.
Case, the dealer in Janesville, Wisconsin, had to wait from December
11 to December 31 to be able to try and market these tractors as
something that a small business person or a farmer could actually
purchase. Think about the kind of uncertainty you are injecting into
the economy when people cannot think and plan and invest in their
businesses because of Congress.
So what we are simply trying to do here is produce certainty so that
the men and women on the line in Racine, Wisconsin, making Case
tractors can make those tractors and so that the dealers selling those
tractors can sell those tractors so the farmers and ranchers and
construction contractors can buy those tractors, knowing that this
incentive that has been here and not, up and down is there, and they
can plan accordingly, so that we can grow the economy and create jobs.
The purpose of all of this is to get people back to work. The purpose
of all of this is to recognize that small business is the backbone of
our economy, and one of the biggest things that is threatening small
businesses, one of the reasons why we have this middle-income wage
stagnation, one of the reasons why we have slower than average economic
growth, is because we have all this uncertainty in our economy.
We need to give businesses certainty. We need to help them plan for
the future. We need to stop this crazy game of extending a tax benefit
that has been on the books for quite some time one year at a time or
retroactive one year at a time and give businesses certainty.
This notion that not raising taxes is all of a sudden some tax cut
that one must pay for is a notion that we just completely disagree
with, which is a difference of opinion between ourselves and the other
side of the aisle.
And so I urge adoption of this Tiberi bill to extend the 179 limit to
$500,000, to make it permanent and help small businesses grow and
create jobs.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last year, as we remember so well, Republicans reacted to the tax
reform proposal from then-Chairman Dave Camp with a ``blah, blah, blah,
blah.'' That reception, echoed in the overall chilly reaction of the
Republicans, stemmed in part from that plan's honesty.
Chairman Camp had pledged not to increase the deficit with his
proposal. To achieve that goal, he played it straight--at least within
the first 10 years. He proposed a tax on banks that drew cringes from
his fellow Republicans. He put forward a surtax on the highest
earners--essentially, a third tax rate. And he eliminated one of the
most widely used provisions in the Tax Code: the State and local sales
tax deduction. In the process, he paid for making permanent tax
provisions like the bill before us today, this single piece of
legislation costing about $80 billion alone.
Like it or not, it was at least somewhat honest accounting. And so
started a Republican ploy to get around the hard realities of tax
reform. The gist of that ploy: take a number of provisions separately,
make them permanent, and don't pay a dime for them. Not a dime. The
reason? The expectation of needing to raise less revenue in tax reform
would allow Republicans to more easily cut tax rates.
Republicans feared that by trying to pay for their tax cuts--and they
still do fear this--by shifting to the highly uncertain dynamic scoring
may not be enough. So they are further trying to rig the system with
baseline games and making permanent tax provisions outside of tax
reform.
Not having to pay for $800 billion worth of tax extenders made
permanent would make it easier for Republicans to lower taxes,
especially on higher income taxpayers, carrying out further their
trickle-down tax policies. It would allow them to avoid having to end
the abuse of tax savings and incentives to ship jobs overseas.
By massively increasing the deficit--this is so important--through
permanent unpaid-for tax revisions, Republicans could later cite this
debt that they created as a reason to take a hatchet to programs like
Head Start or fail to adequately fund the vital research at the
National Institutes of Health. The President blew the whistle on that
scheme--the rigging of the system and sound policy--with support from
Democrats. Last year, the ploy was stopped in the Senate.
But here, House Republicans are going at it again--before even
hinting, by the way, what tax reform might look like; there is no H.R.
1 for tax reform this session--throwing to the wind the statement of
the chairman of our committee, Mr. Ryan, about trying to find common
ground on common aspects of tax reform, at the same time betraying the
GOP preaching on fiscal responsibility.
As chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan never assumed tax
extenders would be a permanent part of the Tax Code. Otherwise, he
would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years.
So what the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is proposing now
is the opposite of the approach he pursued as the chairman of the
Budget Committee.
The bill before us on section 179 addresses an important subject. It
is primarily available to small and middle-sized businesses. It will
likely be part of any tax reform. And until then, it will be renewed.
That is certain.
Republicans control this House, and they control when renewal would
occur, absent tax reform, but this provision deserves not to be left
out of a tax reform process. It should give careful and comprehensive
consideration of all the tax provisions in our Code.
So maybe the best way to expose this Republican gambit is for
editorial writers to use their pen and for others to
[[Page H1043]]
use social media, tweeting to Republicans this message: Stop your
efforts at congressional alchemy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a very active and distinguished
member of our committee.
{time} 0930
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding
me this time.
It is kind of amazing, Mr. Speaker, that today, although it won't be
reflected in the final vote count of the legislation before us, there
actually is a lot of common ground that exists in this Chamber.
I couldn't agree more with my friend and colleague from Wisconsin,
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, that our Nation is in
desperate need of comprehensive tax reform. We have an a old,
antiquated Tax Code that is not fair. It is too complicated.
It is leading us in a less competitive position in the global
economy, and it is long overdue for a thorough scrubbing and a review
so that we can simplify it, lower the rates for businesses--large and
small--and for our families back home, and lead us in a more
competitive position.
I am concerned that the approach that the majority is taking
undermines that attempt. This legislation and the legislation that was
before us yesterday and the legislation that will be coming up as soon
as we get back from the President's Day recess is probably the surest
signal that the majority in the Congress, just 6 weeks into this new
session, is punting on comprehensive tax reform because this isn't the
way to do it.
To cherry-pick certain provisions where, policywise, it may make
sense and there is great agreement behind the policy of what is being
offered, not paying for it undermines the ability for us to
comprehensively reform the Code, making the difficult decisions so we
don't leave a legacy of debt for future generations.
My name is on these bills today. I have teamed up with Representative
Tiberi from Ohio when it comes to the expensing 179 allowance. I think
it makes sense with small businesses and family farmers in Wisconsin
and throughout the country to have that cash flow, to have that
certainty built into the Code, to make sure that they can immediately
expense the investments that they are putting into their business which
can help to grow the economy and create jobs.
I have teamed up with my friend from Washington State (Mr. Reichert)
on S corp modernization, but between those bills, it is an $80 billion
cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and no effort to
find an offset or a pay-for to deal with it, and that is a missed
opportunity because this really does come down to fiscal
responsibility.
My friend from Wisconsin was once quoted as saying, ``The people
deserve a government that works for them, not one that buries them in
more debt.''
We couldn't agree more with that sentiment; yet we have got an
example of how well Pay-As-You-Go budgeting can work. During the 1990s,
when there was a spending increase offered or a tax cut offered, there
had to be an offset to pay for it, and it helped lead, along with a
growing economy, 4 years of budget surpluses when we were paying down
the national debt, rather than adding to it, but somehow, that element
of fiscal discipline and responsibility is absent in the legislation
that is before us today.
We can move forward as Chairman Camp did last year in offering his
discussion draft on comprehensive reform by making difficult decisions
within the Tax Code, finding expenditures that are inefficient and not
necessary to promote growth and job creation, and make those decisions
while we reform the entire Code.
That is the approach that we should be taking rather than
piecemealing very popular proposals, mind you, but doing it in a way
that leaves a legacy of more deficits and more debt for future
generations to grapple with but also undermines the baseline that we
need, the tools that we need to do comprehensive reform the right way.
I would encourage my colleagues--maybe they are doing it because they
know it is a message piece rather than a real, substantive proposal.
Again, we couldn't agree about the need for greater certainty, more
predictability in the Tax Code so our businesses can start making
longer-term decisions and not worrying about whether Congress is going
to get its act together at the end of the year and extend short-term
measures like this.
But the way to do that is in comprehensive reform and making the
difficult decisions that will have to be made, so we don't pile up the
debt for future generations.
Again, the policy behind this 179 S corp modernization, I think it is
in the right place. We have got to find a way to pay for it.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let's get back to the real
business of reforming a Tax Code that is long overdue.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished House
majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to thank more than just the gentleman for yielding. I want to
thank him for his work as chairman on the Committee on Ways and Means,
knowing where they are going.
We have to reform the Tax Code if we are going to grow this economy,
and our chairman we have today, that has been his life's work. There is
no one better poised and in a better position of understanding to
finally get this done, and I am excited about what the future brings.
Today, we are talking about something much different. Today, we are
talking about something that is already in the Code, something that
helps bring job growth because it is about small business, and the
worst thing about small business is to ever have uncertainty.
So this Congress wants to be a new American Congress. They don't want
to have uncertainty for small businesses. They are taking up an issue
much earlier so you can plan for the future, so you can make that hire
and grow.
Now, why do I care so much about this? Many of you don't know, but I
started my first business when I was 19. I got a little luck of winning
a lottery. I was saving my money in summer. I took my money out of the
stock market, and I took a big risk and took my time out of college.
It is not easy opening a small business. I even built the counter of
my business in my dad's garage, trying to save money, but the values I
learned in that small business are the same values that every small
business owner in America learns: you are the first one to work, you
are the last one to leave, and you are the last one to be paid.
The last thing a small business needs is more uncertainty from their
government of changing the Tax Code or even whether it is going to go
forward.
Today is a day not to debate. Today is a day to invest in America's
small businesses. As I have said a few times on this floor, these are
things that should unite us, not divide us; but in this new American
Congress, I think we have something different, Mr. Speaker, in the idea
of putting veto threats from this administration.
Just moments after we passed another bipartisan bill on the floor to
help the food banks, the charitable giving, for those are the most
vulnerable across our Nation, this administration offered a veto threat
on helping small businesses. I take those seriously.
As the majority leader, I want to understand. I want to work with
anyone that wants to work with us, so I read the veto threat to
understand where could we make something better, where had something
gone wrong, because this was already in law.
Mr. Speaker, the administration's veto threat, on the President's
reasons why: first, he says that the House didn't pass a bill last
Congress that he wanted; and, second, he said Congress might pass bills
in the future that he doesn't like. How does that create any jobs in
America?
Mr. Speaker, that sounds more like a schoolyard argument than a
debate on the floor of the House. I think it is time the people grow
up, understand where jobs are created, understand what uncertainty does
across America,
[[Page H1044]]
not in my district, but in every district that is represented here
today.
As someone who is a former small business owner, knows the
challenges, knows what he has to do to hire someone, I ask that we look
in a new American Congress to put people before politics and pass this
bill, so we can grow America's economy.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I shall
consume.
I say to the majority leader: this isn't about small business. We
favor 179. This is about monkey business, monkeying with procedure,
doing the opposite of what the chairman did when he was chairman of the
Budget Committee, of trying to rig the system. I wish the majority
leader would have cited the entire Statement of Administration Policy.
I assume he read it all.
Here is what it said on behalf of the President:
``If this same, unprecedented approach of making certain traditional
tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other
traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to
deficits over the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit
reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013.
``The Administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress
on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families,
including pro-growth business tax reform. However, H.R. 636 represents
the wrong approach.''
That is what the President is talking about, and it is really sad
when the majority leader comes here and misrepresents what the
administration has said.
We want to work together. We want to find common ground. The answer
today is, from the Republicans: Forget about common ground, common
elements; stop working together; we'll do it our way; don't worry about
tax reform now, we'll worry about that later.
That is what really this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a member of the Ways
and Means Committee, the author of this legislation, be allowed to
manage the time for our side of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman for his leadership in the area of tax reform and
entitlement reform.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not monkey business. This is serious
business, kind of deja vu all over again. We have now been at trying to
do comprehensive tax reform for 5 years, and we should continue to try
to do it, but our constituents shouldn't be held hostage for the lack
of the ability for us to get it across the finish line. This is
bipartisan.
Let me remind my friend from Michigan that the provisions in these
bills that I am sponsoring today were part of a package that was being
negotiated to be made permanent by a bicameral, bipartisan group of
legislators in December, Democrat leadership and Republican leadership,
before the President stepped in and said ``no.''
He said ``no'' to constituents of mine like Claggett & Sons, a
general contractor. I will tell you what the controller of Claggett &
Sons said about section 179. This is what he said:
It is an important part of our decisionmaking process when
evaluating equipment purchases.
He went on to say that making the increased expensing levels
permanent, as this bill does, will be beneficial for capital purchases
planning for small businesses.
Let me tell you, when you look at section 179 in particular, Mr.
Speaker, we had section 179 at this level, supported by Democrats and
Republicans alike, for 2014. On December 11, 2014, we gave our
constituents 20 days to take advantage of this provision, as we have
done now 12 times on a temporary basis since 2003.
Claggett & Sons couldn't take advantage of it. My friends have heard
about my constituents, farmers Tom and Judy Price, about buying a
combine, waiting to see when we would make this permanent or reextend
it.
{time} 0945
We gave them 20 days to make that decision--20 days. That is no way
to run a railroad, none at all, Mr. Speaker.
I understand the points that the other side has made. I want tax
reform in a comprehensive way as bad as anybody. The two aren't
mutually exclusive here in terms of, we can do this, give our small
business owners and farmers the type of certainty they need that will
help our economy grow, that will help their businesses grow, rather
than do what we have done for 12 years now--over 12 years--making these
temporary provisions, extending them for a year or two at the end of
the year. That is just no way to do this.
So, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of small business owners like
Claggett & Sons and farmers like Tom and Judy Price, I urge us to move
the ball forward. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can do
this, and we can move on to try to find common ground on comprehensive
tax reform.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I say to my friend from Ohio, you are running this railroad. If you
want to wait until December, that is your decision. It wasn't ours.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Committee on Small
Business.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Tiberi for
yielding me this time.
One of two Americans gets up each day and heads to a small business.
That is where they work. Small firms are critical to America's success.
They create seven out of every 10 new job opportunities and provide the
means for millions of our neighbors to put a roof over their head and
food on their table and to get ahead in life.
The bill before us today would help those small businesses and the
working families that rely on them by providing much-needed certainty.
It would make permanent several tax policies that end up being
retroactively applied anyway at the end of every year, but not without
scrambling at the eleventh hour. We have all seen this happen year
after year after year. Let's give these small businesses all over the
country the certainty that they need.
These provisions will help small businesses purchase equipment and
technology to grow and create more jobs; and, after all, that is what
we on both sides of the aisle say we are after is creating more jobs in
this economy. Right now businesses are oftentimes operating in the
dark. They don't know whether they will be able to utilize these
progrowth tax provisions or not. That lack of certainty discourages
growth, and it discourages job creation. Passing this bill will make it
easier for small businesses to plan for the future, knowing that
Washington won't pull the rug from under them.
As chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I strongly
support this measure and any measure that removes barriers to small
business job creation. This bill provides relief to our Nation's small
businesses and will result in more opportunities to working families
all over this country.
I would like to thank my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, for his
leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the
bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Levin for this
opportunity to speak.
There has been some talk as to whether or not the Democrats have
finally recognized the importance of the deficit and the debt and that
since we are going to pass these bills anyway, because there is a
negative feeling that we are not going to have tax reform, I assume,
that we might as well give some confidence to our small business people
that they will have this tax incentive.
Well, that is a way of thinking, but it would appear to me that if we
can forgo going through the regular procedure in order to give, at this
stage of
[[Page H1045]]
our political calendar, the incentive now, I have heard no reason--and
I hope I will--as to why we cannot close the loopholes that exist in
the Tax Code now.
It seems to me that it goes without dispute that we have trillions of
dollars--certainly hundreds of billions of dollars--in the Tax Code
that Republicans and Democrats believe shouldn't be there. While we are
anxious to reduce the corporate tax so that we are not embarrassingly
the highest in the entire world, we also know that there are so many
corporations that don't pay any taxes at all. How can we ignore that?
If we can say that we are going to go into debt for a trillion
dollars by extensions, why can't we say we are going to pay for it by
closing the loopholes? It is clear to me, if we want to make certain
steps in advance of a comprehensive tax reform, that we just can't pick
that part that business wants as an incentive and at the same time not
look at the part that business really is taking advantage of loopholes
that the Congress has provided.
So we cannot charge the corporations with being un-American because
they are not paying taxes. It is our responsibility to have a Tax Code,
as FOX would say, that is fair and balanced.
But this whole idea of not extending the things that people need,
such as education, the homeless, the infrastructure, all of the things
that can make America greater, to select out the low-hanging fruit for
tax reform and leave the hard work as to how we are going to raise the
money to pay for it for later does not make any legislative sense. So
that if we are being charged with being too fiscally responsible
because we are concerned as to what this is doing to our national debt,
then help us to raise the funds that are there that are not difficult
to recognize.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. RANGEL. We do recognize that we have to close these loopholes.
And I might say that it appears as though the corporations and the
businesses that receive these obscene tax benefits are the ones that
actually contribute the most to the parties that legislate. I am not
saying there is a connection, but there is a perception that those
people that give high congressional campaign funds are the ones that
receive high tax benefits. Certainly it goes without saying that those
who are not doing well as relates to fairness and equity in the tax
system are those people who don't hire the accountants and the
lobbyists.
So let's be fair and balanced and say that if you are going to extend
our government to this liability fiscally, then we can raise some money
at the same time by closing the tax loopholes.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who represents a number of newly created
small businesses with the energy boom.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this important
legislation for yielding the time.
I just have to respond to the most recent speaker, who I believe is
sincere in his concerns, but we are not talking today about
corporations and loopholes. We are not talking about education and
homelessness. Those are important things that we want to work with them
on. We are talking today about small business.
I found it sort of disturbing that the ranking member said that today
is not about small business; it is about monkeying around with
procedures. Are we so wed to our procedures that that is more important
than small businesses?
I also have to say that, for me, in my town halls, in my Coffee with
Cramer sessions, my regular town halls--I had more town halls than any
Member of Congress last year--the number one issue that is raised not
by corporations but by small family business men and women, largely
farmers and ranchers, is the issue of 179 expensing and the uncertainty
that is created by mid-December extensions to the previous year. Maybe
if they are lucky, the farmer gets to buy a new combine for Christmas.
But it is about more than even the farmer or the snow removal
business person that needs to buy a new snow blower or the lawn care
businessman that needs to buy a new mower. It is about more than the
implement dealers. It is about more than even the Case IH plant or John
Deere plant or the Melroe Bobcat plants in North Dakota. Those are
important. But it is also about the mechanic that works at the
implement dealership, who is one paycheck away from not being able to
feed his family. It is about the restaurant owner, the cafe owner in a
small town who feeds breakfast and lunch and dinner and, yes,
occasionally mid-morning coffee over the shaking of dice to that
farmer, to that implement dealer, to that mechanic that benefits from
the dynamics--the dynamics--of an economy that, yes, provides this, not
a loophole, this appropriate deduction in the year in which a piece of
equipment is purchased. It makes all the difference in the world not to
corporate America, but to middle class families, hardworking farmers
and ranchers and mechanics and snow removers and landscapers and all
kinds of middle class working people in America.
Let's do the right thing. Let's make this incremental step toward
comprehensive tax reform and do the thing that I know we all know is
the right thing to do. Let's pass this bill. Let's pass it in the
Senate. Let's get it on the President's desk and appeal to him for
common sense.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who heads up one of our subcommittees as
ranking member.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding to me.
I want to speak specifically to what the previous gentleman has just
stated. I had not intended to speak because I am going to offer the
motion to recommit on our side, but the gentleman appeared in his
commentary to belittle the notion of procedure.
Procedure in this institution is sacrosanct based upon the rules that
we adopt in the earliest moments of the new Congress. I was struck by
the notion that we should just cast aside and denigrate procedure. That
is how the institution operates, based upon procedure, established
precedent, and settled law.
To suggest that somehow we could just offend procedure, we remind
ourselves of what has happened to this institution during the last two
decades when virtually all the Members on both sides got elected by
running against the institution. They could never step away from the
campaign rhetoric to get on with actual governance of the institution.
Procedure in this institution means that we adhere to a prescribed set
of rules and orders and, yes, goodwill.
Now, again, I had not even intended to get up and talk about this
issue, arcane as it might seem, but it underlies the whole notion of a
representative democracy and a duly elected legislative institution.
Procedure, the basic tenet of which is, oftentimes: Shall the
institution simply concur with a motion to proceed? That is the
antecedent of the term, ``procedure.'' That is how the body works.
Today, fundamentally what is being proposed here and what we object
to in no small measure is the violation of the whole notion of
procedure.
{time} 1000
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we come today in the midst of a debate
at a time when there are wide areas of agreement in this Congress about
things that we should do to help improve the country. We all
acknowledge the importance of tax reform. Many people in this Chamber,
on both sides of the aisle, have a lot of time and energy invested in
it. And in the other Chamber, they are establishing working groups to
explore the challenges. The administration has set reform proposals in
its budget that could be a basis of discussion in moving forward. Our
past chairman produced a substantial draft and was, sadly, maligned
for, in fact, achieving his objective of a significant reform that was
revenue-neutral.
And what we are seeing today is another in a series of bills that
have
[[Page H1046]]
nothing to do with really achieving that objective. In fact, they run
contrary to past reform efforts.
Yesterday in committee, we marked up something that has broad
agreement in terms of helping deal with problems of deductibility for
sales tax in States that don't have income tax. This was an area that
was dealt with by the gentleman from Michigan, then-Chairman Camp, in
his reform bill. Our current chairman has called for a different
treatment. We understand there are challenges dealing with it. But all
of a sudden, we are just moving that forward too, and that is on the
conveyor belt that is moving forward.
I think it makes a mockery of the process that it takes to reform the
tax process, wherein we have so far already approved over $300 billion
that, if approved, would add to the deficit. Now, mercifully, I don't
think they are going to be enacted anytime soon, but it sets us back
for the long-term objective and confuses what we could be doing.
I find this at stark variation with how we deal with another area
that used to be a bipartisan area of consensus, and that is providing
funding for infrastructure to rebuild and renew the country.
It was interesting, we have a highway trust fund where the current
fix runs out this spring. The highway trust fund will be literally
going broke by early June. Some States have already listed the projects
they have as suspended or canceled due to this uncertainty. And more
will act as it becomes clearer that we are in a pickle, and Congress
has not yet moved forward.
Last summer, when Congress struggled to pass the 23rd short-term
extension to our transportation program, now-Chairman Ryan said that it
is important that we follow ``a House budget rule that requires general
fund transfers to the trust fund to be fully offset. It should not
become a recurring practice for taxpayers to bail out the highway and
transit programs because Congress and the President are unable to make
the changes necessary to avoid future trust fund insolvency.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Kind of a different approach.
Here, we roll through, add to the deficit, make tax reform more
complicated, and the Republican-controlled Congress has yet, in the
entire 50 months that it has been in charge, to have even a hearing on
a proposal that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-
CIO, truckers, AAA, transit, local government, environmentalists, and
mirrors something that Ronald Reagan did 33 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have to go through this exercise. And we
will do it, and we are going to see that there is kind of a two-track
system.
If you are on the conveyor belt for things that they want to move, it
will go forward--consequences to the deficit be damned--even if it
makes more difficult long-term tax reform and repudiates things that
have had bipartisan interest in the past.
In the meantime, things that have broad support, that have profound
effects on the economy right now and impact people from coast to coast,
lie dormant, and we are manufacturing another crisis.
Oh, and before that, we are going to have an artificial crisis with
disability funding because of a switch in the rules for those that
don't get this favored treatment.
There is a reason that we have got this gulf in terms of our
inability to work together. There is a reason because there is a gap
between those income disparities, failing to deal with policies that
would narrow them rather than widen them. And I hope that we can get
past this today and at some point get back to basics on things that
will make us stronger, that can bring us together, and make our
families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I will use all that
time. I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman.
I am intrigued by this debate and the so-called admonishment from the
minority as to how this jeopardizes tax reform and how it is not being
bipartisan.
Let me see if I can bring some clarity to this debate. I interpret
what was just said as, if you don't agree with our higher taxes, if you
don't--before negotiating tax reform--agree to our terms of the debate,
then you are not being bipartisan.
Look, when we were in the minority, we made similar arguments as
well, which were: surrender your beliefs, surrender your principles,
agree with us, and then we can be bipartisan. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night. That is not how
negotiations occur. That is not how you find common ground. Finding
common ground isn't surrendering your ground and agreeing to the other
ground. Finding common ground is saying, where do my principles and
your principles intersect, overlay, and what can we do?
Just so you understand, Mr. Speaker, here is what this is about: the
premise that the minority is offering is, these tax provisions that we
all agree on, that we think are good, that we think help the economy,
but that have, in law, expiration dates when they expire and those
taxes go up, we don't think that is good.
And the minority is saying: If these things expire and go up, we
don't want that to happen. So we will work with you and make sure that
they don't expire on a year-by-year basis. And we are fine. But if you
dare try to make these things that we all agree on, that need to stay
in the Tax Code, permanent, you are not paying for it. It is a budget-
buster. You are being irresponsible. You are jeopardizing tax reform.
Process, process, process.
Here is the problem. What we are trying to do here, we are trying to
grow the economy. We are trying to get people back to work. We are
trying to increase take-home pay. We are trying to honor and respect
the hardworking taxpayers who sent us here in the first place.
So what we don't want to do is tell all those small business men and
women in America, wait until December, and then we will let you know
what your Tax Code is going to look like. What we want to tell the
small business men and women in America is: Washington is out of your
way. You can go plan, and you can grow, and you can invest, and you can
hire. That is what we are trying to achieve here.
And this idea that not raising taxes is somehow a big, giant tax cut
is an idea and a premise that we don't agree with. What we are being
told here is, if we don't agree with that, then we are jeopardizing tax
reform. Baloney.
The irony of this issue is compounded by the fact that the minority
is telling us already--in their statements from the White House, in
their budgets--that there are temporary provisions in the Tax Code that
they like that aren't bipartisan, that they are saying make them
permanent and don't pay for them. So they are cherry-picking, selective
memory. It is an argument, quite frankly, that I don't think holds
water because what we are doing here today, we are bringing certainty
to the Tax Code. We are helping job creators and taxpayers and
families. And we are doing it in a way that we think is honest, we
think is fair, and we think advances tax reform.
The way to find common ground is not to ask the other side to
surrender their beliefs, surrender their principles, and agree with the
other side, and then you can get along. That is not how you find common
ground. That is not bipartisanship. That is surrender. Nobody is asking
anybody to surrender, at least we are not.
So what I would argue to my colleagues is, support this. Just show
the small business men and women in your district that you are there
for them, that you don't want to keep doing this to them, which is
projecting all this uncertainty.
The other point I would make--and my friend from Oregon, who really
is my friend; he is a sincere legislator who does his job very well,
cares very dearly about his district--the argument he makes about tax
cuts expiring doesn't jibe with the spending argument he is making.
Let me give you a case in point. Trade Adjustment Assistance, the
farm bill, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, all of these are
spending programs that have expiration dates, just
[[Page H1047]]
like provisions in the Tax Code that have expiration dates. And when
these things on the spending side of the ledger book expire and
Congress extends them, it doesn't cost. It is not measured in the
baseline as costing anything.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. TIBERI. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. But God forbid if something in the Tax Code
expires, you had better raise taxes on somebody else if you want to
keep that provision.
So just understand the argument that is being brought to the floor
here. They are saying, in order to keep taxes the same for charities
and small businesses, you have got to raise taxes on some other
hardworking taxpayer out there. That is the argument that is coming
here. And if you don't agree with that, then you are not being
bipartisan, and you are not facilitating tax reform. We just don't
agree with that.
So we are bringing our ideas to the floor. We are bringing our
proposals to the table. And in the interest of growing the economy and
finding common ground, this is what we are doing.
We encourage the other side of the aisle to bring their ideas to the
floor, to bring their ideas to the committee, to bring their ideas into
the public sphere so we can see where they line up and what we can do
and where common ground might exist.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are not suggesting you surrender your ground for 1
minute, not for 1 second. What we are saying is, let's search for
common ground, and don't you come here and cut out pieces of it, piece
by piece. That is what we are suggesting.
In terms of a 1-year basis, we are saying, do things comprehensively
like your predecessor did.
This isn't a matter just of process, process, process. It is a matter
of policy, policy, policy. That is what this is all about.
You come forth, and you then talk about wage inequality. What have
you brought up here that relates to that? We are trying to get a vote,
for example, on minimum wage. You won't even allow us a vote. Give us a
vote.
You talk about TAA. The rules apply there. And we could go into the
details in terms of whether it is authorized for a certain period of
time, and after that, then if it is permanent, it becomes part of the
baseline.
What you are trying to do today is essentially rig the system. You
want to do it with dynamic scoring. And now you essentially want to
take each of these pieces, make them permanent, unpaid for, to put them
in the baseline. You did not do that when you were chairman of the
Budget Committee.
You talk about honesty. I won't use that word because I totally
respect your honesty more than that. I think it is hypocritical.
{time} 1015
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the ranking member yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The budget resolution reflects law as it is.
The budget resolution reflects the CBO as it gives us baselines and
laws. What we are doing here are our policy preferences. What we are
doing here is what we think that law ought to be, not what it is. The
budget resolution is: here is the law, there it is.
What we are trying to do here is fix the law because we think the law
is broken. We think the law doesn't work.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, here is the problem: you took the baseline in the
budget, and you don't want to take it for this. You want to squeeze
$800 billion permanently unpaid for, change the baseline, and that
increases the deficit by that amount, and then you use that deficit to
squeeze out needs, whether it is NIH or whatever it is. Infrastructure
has been mentioned here also.
We don't have the money for that. It is hypocritical to do one thing
in one committee and another thing in another committee. It is not only
hypocritical, it is a very dangerous approach.
That is our answer. I am not suggesting you surrender for 1 minute,
but don't take pieces out of ground that we want to be common. That is
what you are doing, and that is why it is antithetical to tax reform.
That is why Dave Camp came here with a comprehensive program, and you
guys didn't like it.
You said, ``Blah, blah, blah, blah.'' That was the Speaker, and
others of you did not like it--the bank tax--so you don't want to do it
comprehensively at first. You want to do it piece by piece. That is bad
policy, it is bad for the deficit, and it is bad for the hopes for tax
reform.
If you want me to surrender time, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to other Members in the second person.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, as a Roman Catholic, I find it interesting
that Mr. Camp is a saint now that he is gone. I would like to remind my
colleagues that Mr. Camp worked for several years on comprehensive tax
reform with little help from the other side. When I say ``the other
side,'' I mean the White House. It was 4 years into his chairmanship
that he released a draft.
The new chairman has been in the job for about 42 days, so let's give
him some time to work on a comprehensive draft which he said and has
continued to say that he can do while we make some important provisions
that have been bipartisan that is about putting money in people's
pockets.
Everybody knows we have had the worst job recovery in my lifetime--
the worst. This provision has been around for a long, long time. We
know it works--liberal economists, conservative economists--expensing
works. It works for small businesses. Small businesses hire people.
By the way, many small business owners and many farmers pay their
taxes quarterly. Most of us have our taxes taken out of our paycheck
every time we have a paycheck.
Imagine the debate that we would be having on the floor today if
every American had to send in their taxes quarterly. These small
business owners and farmers are at the heart of our economy in trying
to improve our economy--improve our economy, grow our economy, and hire
more people. We are all for that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I say to the gentleman from Ohio, I favor 179, not doing
it piecemeal unpaid for this way.
By the way, this is not the worst job recovery. There has been an
increase in jobs in the last month, month after month. The problem is
it hasn't lifted the incomes of middle-income families. Let's get
together to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez), who has been working on small business--maybe you will
tell us how many years--a few.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Sixteen.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. As we
all know, small businesses are critical to sustaining our economic
growth, and it only makes sense to cater our economic policy to meet
their needs.
Congress needs to continue promoting our ultimate goal of providing
small firms with certainty and simplicity in our Tax Code. Expanding
section 179 permanently is one way to accomplish this goal.
Unfortunately, H.R. 636 neglects other important provisions in the
Tax Code benefiting small firms. What about R&D tax credit or
modernizing the depreciation schedule?
These are important tax reforms that small businesses have been
asking for, for so long, but here we are again enacting a piecemeal tax
bill that does nothing to accomplish our bipartisan goal of passing
comprehensive tax reform.
Republicans love to claim that they are fighting for small businesses
when it is convenient for them. However, today's bill doesn't provide
enough for small firms, and it certainly doesn't meet what the other
side of the aisle claims is the most important policy tenet: fiscal
responsibility.
This bill will add $77 billion to our deficit--so much for fiscal
responsibility.
While I applaud the effort and agree more can be done to help small
businesses, we must enact smart, comprehensive tax reform that truly
addresses small business needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H1048]]
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the other side is ready for
closing. We have no more speakers at this time, and I reserve the
balance of my time to close.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have debated this now for 2 days. The issue isn't whether 179 is a
useful provision. It is. It will be continued. That can be sure. It
should not be continued essentially forever unpaid for, adding to the
deficit, eroding the chances for tax reform, but this really isn't
about 179.
The purpose of bringing up this and other provisions outside of tax
reform is really essentially to rig the system. It is to play games
with the system. It is to try to change the rules so that essentially,
if you make it permanent unpaid for, it goes into the baseline; and
therefore, after that, you don't have to pay for it.
That is what this is really all about. It means you can do other
things like reducing tax rates mainly for the very wealthy, having more
room to do that, not having to worry about the money to pay for that
because you haven't used the money to pay for the extenders. That is
really what this is all about.
It wasn't done in the Rules Committee by Chairman Ryan. It should not
be done now. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are trying to adjust the
rules, to change them, so that they can proceed with their approaches.
It isn't forthright, and it isn't honest.
They are worried the dynamic scoring won't be enough, so essentially,
they are trying to do dynamic things--so-called--with the basis. All of
that really is contrary to sound policy, it is contrary to the rules,
and it is really contrary to the search for bipartisanship.
We will sit down tomorrow and talk about 179 as an important part of
tax reform. We will do that tomorrow. We haven't even started on tax
reform. Now, you essentially want to say we will cut some pieces, and
we will do that. That is not sound policy. As Mr. Neal said, it really
abrogates sound practice. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge very much that we vote ``no.'' There will be, one
way or another, enough votes if this ever got through the Senate--and
it won't--to sustain a veto. Don't play games. Let's address tax reform
and responsibility in terms of the deficits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't a game. This is reality. This is
Groundhog's Day. We have been doing this for 12 years. You go ask
somebody who is trying to run a business in America on Main Street--
they want certainty, they don't want retroactivity.
Heck, we got 10 months left in the year. They would like longer than
that. Their business cycle is longer than 10 months. Their business
cycle is years. Go ask an accountant at a business in terms of how they
have to plan. The rules are rigged against them. The rules--the
chairman talked about the rules.
I am going to underline and bold this. Imagine this: this provision
is expired, and my colleagues in the minority are concerned about
adding to the deficit because this provision that expired on December
31, we are trying to renew without raising taxes on other people.
When spending expires, the chairman mentioned a few of those
programs, and we renew them at the same level, it doesn't add to the
deficit. Think about that. Go talk to some constituents at a diner on
Main Street in any of our districts and see if they think those rules
are fair. They are paying the bill. They are paying all of the bill.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have got to get things done. We have to get
things done. The American people are counting on us to get things done.
This is as common ground as there is in our Tax Code when it comes to
trying to help job creators create jobs.
I don't know anybody who wants a minimum wage job. I know people who
want jobs that pay more than the minimum wage. I had a minimum wage job
once. I wanted to make more than that. That wasn't my goal. My goal was
to make more money than minimum wage.
Each and every one of us knows somebody who can't find a job who
wants a job. I know people who want to create more jobs and have their
businesses grow. This provision, ladies and gentlemen, we know this
provision helps people get jobs. It doesn't have to be that hard. We
can walk and chew gum.
Mr. Speaker, we can lay the groundwork for comprehensive tax reform,
but we need partners. We need partners in the Senate, and we need
partners in the White House.
The White House has said they are for C corp reform. Well, as
everybody knows, this provision is going to help a lot more than just C
corps. It is going to help small businesses that are passthrough
entities, S corps, limited liability companies, and mom-and-pop small
businesses on Main Street. We cannot wait. These people have waited
long enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need long-term certainty. This is an
important step to comprehensive tax reform--a very important one--that
we need to pass and get on our business to getting to comprehensive tax
reform.
{time} 1030
So I would plead with my friends in the minority, let's put aside
this rhetoric; let's move toward this; let's pass this bill.
We had a debate last summer that is reminiscent of debate today, and
we almost got there, ladies and gentlemen. Democrats in the Senate, the
Democrat majority leader, our chairman at the time, Dave Camp, were
negotiating the framework of what some now are being critical of that
would create permanency for policy provisions that we are debating
today.
We know Democrats are for this, under the right circumstances,
exactly how this is written. So let's put aside all those things, and
let's do work today that is good for America and good for Americans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, because I was attending the President's
cybersecurity summit in California, I was not present when the House
voted on H.R. 636, the America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015.
I support many of the goals of the tax provisions in this bill and
recognize the value of extending them permanently, but I am concerned
that H.R. 636 does not pay for them. I am a strong supporter of helping
small businesses succeed. Small businesses power the American economy,
and some of the provisions in this bill will help these small companies
remain healthy, but this one-sided approach of passing bills that offer
tax reductions without increasing revenues is unsustainable.
H.R. 636 will add $79.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years and puts
further pressure on the United States' domestic discretionary
priorities. By bringing this and similar tax extender bills to the
floor or 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.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Neal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 636 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. 6. 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. 7. 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.
[[Page H1049]]
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
(Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.
I would remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not
kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will
immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Now, I must tell you that I, having served on the Ways and Means
Committee for a long time, think that we should label tax reform as
``Chairman Ryan's tax reform by ambiguity.''
I can't figure this out. We have a set of final decisions that are
putting ours in front of the discussion and the debate. Mr. Ryan stands
and says: You are supposed to stick to your principles; you are
supposed to stick to your beliefs; you don't need bipartisanship. And
the majority leader addressed the House 10 minutes before, blaming the
President because he sticks to his beliefs and he sticks to his
principles and he adheres to some basic policy tenets.
Well, this is Friday the 13th. What an appropriate way to discuss tax
reform. But I have figured out what the problem is. They, on the
Republican side, are now afraid of doing tax reform. They must be
afraid of what they see as the luck that might come to the Democratic
Party based on tax reform.
Let me say this today, right now. Every Democrat in this institution
favors 179 and favors expensing for small businesses. If anything, we
would extend the principle beyond its current form so that we might
include even more individuals.
But like garlic to the vampire, the permanent unpaid-for extension of
these tax bills harms bipartisan tax reform because it goes out of its
way to violate not just procedure, but something that is elusive and
hard to put our arms around in this institution, and it is called the
principle of goodwill--which, by the way, used to exist, particularly
on the Ways and Means Committee. It was the hardest committee to get
on. There was deep thinking that you had to adhere to at virtually
every tax measure. People spent careers trying to get on and, once they
got on, spent careers trying to perfect legislation that might come to
the aid of the American family. But not in this instance.
I heard my friend, Mr. Tiberi--and he is my friend--say a few moments
ago, he addressed the issue of the framework. Democrats do not object
to the framework that David Camp used--or as Mr. Tiberi called him,
Saint David Camp--to do fundamental tax reform. We strongly endorse the
principle offered by Chairman Camp of framework and procedure. He
included Democrats right through the whole discussion. And then when it
failed--and incidentally, as I told you it would. When it failed, Mr.
Camp said: Well, we have to do the extenders.
So there is a bit of amnesia at work here today. They were in charge
when we had to do the extenders in, what we might call in New England
with Super Bowl champions, the 2-minute warning. That is precisely what
happened. We had to do this at the very end after the referee came in
and said: If we don't get this done quickly--and, by the way, another
group that they disdain, the IRS, because the IRS said, for the 2-
minute warning, what? They simply said to us: You will not be able to
prepare tax reforms for April if we do not get this done right now. So
succumbing to what had been a very good framework, we had to do tax
extenders because the Republican Party rejected David Camp's tax reform
proposal.
Now, our proposal here is essentially the same. And Mr. Tiberi is
correct when he says everybody here favors 179. What we object to is
you are going to borrow the money to end up paying for it because you
violate the principles that in one moment you adhere to and in the next
moment you relinquish.
We might think, on this side, tomorrow is Valentine's Day. There
could have been some goodwill established here today. There could have
been some common ground as we go forward on tax reform.
I saw how Mr. Rostenkowski did it when I joined the committee; I saw
how Mr. Rangel did it. And do you know what? I saw how Mr. Archer and
Mr. Camp did it. They were institutionalists by nature. They would not
have done what is being done today. All four of those individuals would
have said: Well, first of all, to make it work and to make it great, it
has to be bipartisan in nature as you relate to tax reform.
When you hear about tax reform in '86, one of the things that comes
to mind immediately is the fact that it was done with President Ronald
Reagan and Speaker Thomas O'Neill.
Let me say something, Mr. Speaker. As upset as I am today by the
manner in which this is being offered, I want to say to our Republican
colleagues, Happy Valentine's Day.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIBERI. I thank the gentleman from New England and oppose his
motion.
I don't want to deflate anybody's honor today. Let me just clarify
what I said about Mr. Camp and his draft.
What I said is--because the gentleman is right. He was fully engaged
in a very comprehensive way, as were others on the committee with
Chairman Camp and me and others. But Mr. Camp had one partner in the
Senate that he was working with, a very important one; unfortunately,
got sent to China, and at that point all opportunities with the other
very important body kind of evaporated. And remember, 4 years--
actually, his start was when he was actually ranking member, he started
putting together a comprehensive draft. I think that is important to
note.
I really appreciate the gentleman's attempt today because, remember,
last year, last summer, the gentleman correctly observed that this was
a waste of time because we are just going to do this retroactively at
the end of the year. We could have broken that cycle last year. It took
Chairman Camp and Majority Leader Reid in December to almost do it.
They almost got there. They almost broke the cycle.
We can still break that cycle. We can still stop this vicious cycle
of 1 year here, 2 years there, retroactive here, and provide certainty
and get to the business of comprehensive tax reform. We can do all
that, but we have to pass this bill first and make it permanent.
I oppose the motion. This is simple: permanency versus 1 year.
Happy Valentine's Day.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 173,
nays 241, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 81]
YEAS--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
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
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
[[Page H1050]]
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.
Kaptur
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
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
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--18
Brown (FL)
Cartwright
DeLauro
Duckworth
Eshoo
Franks (AZ)
Gosar
Hinojosa
Honda
Lee
Lofgren
Mulvaney
Pearce
Price (NC)
Roe (TN)
Ruiz
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
{time} 1106
Messrs. BOST, MULLIN, FLEISCHMANN, WESTMORELAND, and HUIZENGA of
Michigan changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 272,
noes 142, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 82]
AYES--272
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (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
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
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 (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawrence
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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
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
NOES--142
Adams
Bass
Becerra
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
[[Page H1051]]
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
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Brown (FL)
Cartwright
Costa
DeLauro
Duckworth
Eshoo
Gosar
Hinojosa
Honda
Lee
Lofgren
Mulvaney
Pearce
Price (NC)
Roe (TN)
Ruiz
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
{time} 1113
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________