[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17462-17466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SUPPORTING AMERICA'S CHARITIES ACT

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 5806) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and 
make permanent certain expiring provisions related to charitable 
contributions.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5806

       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 ``Supporting America's 
     Charities Act''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   MODIFIED AND MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) Made Permanent.--
       (1) Individuals.--Section 170(b)(1)(E) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking clause (vi).
       (2) Corporations.--Section 170(b)(2)(B) of such Code 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 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 amendment.--Section 170(b)(2)(A) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B) applies'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (B) or (C) applies''.
       (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, 2013.

     SEC. 3. 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

[[Page 17463]]

     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 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 December 31, 2013, 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 beginning after December 
     31, 2013.

     SEC. 4. RULE ALLOWING CERTAIN TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM 
                   INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENTS 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, 2013.

     SEC. 5. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) Paygo Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this Act 
     shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 
     of 2010.
       (b) Senate Paygo Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this 
     Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves here today to once again address a 
group of tax provisions that need to be made permanent, this time for 
the sake of those who give to and ultimately benefit from charitable 
organizations.
  Every day, selfless Americans nationwide decide to donate in support 
of an array of causes, be it finding a cure for cancer, helping 
underprivileged children succeed in school, or simply providing a meal 
and shelter that, for some, is hard to come by.
  Countless Americans dedicate their lives to these causes and serving 
their friends and neighbors in need. The three charitable policies in 
this legislation can provide tremendous support for those good works. 
However, because these policies are only temporary, they are not nearly 
as effective as they can or should be. It is well past time that 
Congress takes the necessary action to support America's charities and 
those that benefit from their work and make these policies permanent.
  What our charities do in America is beyond the power of government to 
give.
  Now, we were close to reaching a bipartisan deal with the Senate that 
would have made them permanent, but the President decided to play 
politics and issue a veto threat. Just 2 days before Thanksgiving, the 
President announced that he considers a policy that encourages 
donations to food banks to be a giveaway to big corporations. I would 
like to see the President travel to see the West Midland Family Center 
food pantry in my district and tell them that they are a corporate 
giveaway.
  The Supporting America's Charities Act, H.R. 5806, fixes what the 
administration and some Senators decided not to. This legislation will 
ultimately increase charitable giving by making these policies 
permanent and enabling charities to better serve those in need.
  These bipartisan proposals previously passed the House in July of 
this year as part of the America Gives More Act and continue to 
experience unrivaled support from organizations nationwide. In fact, 
more than 1,000 charitable organizations--1,032, to be exact--have 
written every Member of Congress in support of the permanent tax 
incentives.
  Take, for example, a joint letter authored in July by five of 
America's leading charitable organizations. In discussing their 
unanimous support for the America Gives More Act, they said:
  ``The charitable giving incentives being considered by the House have 
encouraged individuals and small businesses to actively support the 
development and sustainability of our society. They have spurred 
contributions, for example, to build health centers, develop counseling 
programs for at-risk youth, provide nutrition assistance to hungry 
children, conserve land, and offer art therapy for people with 
developmental disabilities.''

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Speaker, I don't think I am alone when I say this: policies that 
prompt donations to health centers, youth counseling programs, and 
therapy for people with disabilities are not giveaways to corporate 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, just today, I was at Walter Reed Hospital visiting the 
brain trauma center there that was built for our wounded warriors. It 
was made possible through private donations and then made as a gift to 
the United States Government for those men and women who have served so 
valiantly in our military. That is the kind of giving we need to 
encourage. That is the kind of giving this legislation would encourage.
  As I said last week, the end of the year is fast approaching, and a 
new tax-filing season is just around the corner. Now is not the time 
for those who selflessly donate to wonder what tax surprises are 
waiting for them, no more than it is the time for charitable 
organizations to grow uncertain about their futures.
  There is no goodwill like that of an American, and as Representatives 
of this great Nation, we should do everything in our power to encourage 
individuals to give more and help charitable organizations expand their 
reach nationwide.
  Mr. Speaker, as the giving spirit of the holiday season is around us, 
I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle and both Houses of 
Congress to look at the policies--not the politics--look at the 
policies here and support those who give and support those who are in 
need by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 5806.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 17464]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make clear at the outset that this isn't a debate 
about the excellent work of charities or foundations or their vital 
role in our society. This House has already taken action to provide for 
the three provisions included in this bill for this year's tax returns 
as part of the broad extender bill that passed last week.
  When the chairman talks about no surprises, we have already passed 
through the House and what will become law is an extender bill that 
makes it clear for this tax season that these provisions are in effect. 
There is no doubt about that. Everyone who voted in favor of the 
package has already ensured that taxpayers can benefit from these 
provisions this year.
  Look, this isn't about politics. Frankly, as the lead sponsor 
originally of one of these bills, I find objectionable any reference to 
politics. I sponsored that bill regarding food contributions because of 
my belief that many people wanted to contribute to help supply 
nutrition.
  When the President issued his Statement of Administration Policy, 
there was no politics at all, zero. He had made that clear in July. I 
think it is incredible--let me leave it at that--that anyone would say 
that politics has anything to do with this issue. As I said, these 
provisions are already going to be available for taxpayers in this tax 
season.
  What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is fiscal responsibility and fiscal 
priorities. What this bill does is take three provisions out of the 
many in the extender bill--three--leaving aside whether it is R&D, 
leaving aside whether it is the education provision, leaving aside 
whether it is the child tax credit that would expire in terms of its 
improvements in a couple of years, what this does is to take just these 
three, important as they are, and say that we are going to make those 
permanent without paying one dime for them, not one dime, adding $11 
billion to the debt.
  I must say--and we have had some back and forth on this--whatever one 
thought of Chairman Camp's comprehensive bill--and we had some 
questions about it, but never questioning the fact that it took some 
hard work and I think some courage to put these provisions into the 
context of comprehensive tax reform, and so it is counterintuitive in a 
way to just pick these three up and to make them permanent unpaid for.
  Let me just read the Statement of Administration Policy if I might. I 
just hope it sets to rest any claim that this is about politics because 
as an original sponsor of one of these bills, I can just emphasize what 
propelled me to propose it to all the food pantries I went to and to 
all of the church groups I went to who were providing food, to the 
businesspeople I talked with who were essentially donating food, to 
their credit, that they couldn't sell and to doing so in a way that it 
was timely and so that the foods were very easily edible and readily 
so.
  With that spirit--and I hope talking about the spirit of the season--
this administration policy, I hope with that spirit it will be 
received. I quote from it:

       The administration supports measures that enhance 
     nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and 
     other community organizations in their many roles, including 
     as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine 
     for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that 
     encourages land protections for current and future 
     generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster 
     solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The 
     President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would 
     enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many 
     individuals.
       However, the administration strongly opposes passage of 
     H.R. 5806, which would permanently extend three current 
     provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain 
     donations. As the administration stated when strongly 
     opposing similar legislation this past July, 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 10 years, wiping out most of 
     the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 2012. Earlier this year, House Republicans 
     themselves passed a budget resolution that required 
     offsetting any tax extenders that were made permanent with 
     other revenue measures.
       As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a 
     double standard by adding to the deficit to continue tax 
     breaks, while insisting on offsetting the proposed extension 
     of emergency unemployment benefits and the discretionary 
     funding increases for defense and nondefense priorities such 
     as research and development in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
     2013. House Republicans are also making clear their 
     priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent 
     without offsets even as the House Republican budget 
     resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working 
     families and students by letting important improvements to 
     the EITC, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, 
     and education tax credits expire.
       The administration wants to work with the Congress to make 
     progress on measures that strengthen America's charitable 
     sector.

  I want to repeat that.

       The administration wants to work with the Congress to make 
     progress on measures that strengthen America's charitable 
     sector. However, H.R. 5806 represents the wrong approach.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 5806, his senior 
     advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what the 
gentleman from Michigan said. I have listened to the statement that he 
read. I have actually read the statement of the administration's 
position myself. I see nothing in that that gives any Member a reason 
to vote ``no.''
  Let me just say Feeding America estimates that H.R. 5806, this bill 
we are debating tonight, would create 100 million new meals a year. 
Frankly, I would say to my friend from Michigan: if you are hungry, you 
can't wait. Let's do this now.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to reading a statement of 
administration position that the President has repeatedly said, ``Send 
me bipartisan measures that we can work on together,'' there is no more 
bipartisan issue than helping America's charities help the needy, help 
those who are hungry, and help those without housing.
  In Michigan, our home State, we have a pilot program with a cereal 
manufacturer that is capturing excess breakfast products. Over 20,000 
pounds of food per week are donated. If the tax law was changed, H.R. 
5806, seven times that amount would be donated by the company, by the 
private sector, filling a need that the government is not meeting. A 
lot of hungry kids don't always get meals outside of school, so they 
take this cereal home in their backpacks for weekends.
  There is no reason to wait. Let's do this now. Look, we passed a 1-
year measure on all these other things. That only gives us 2 weeks. For 
a lot of these charitable provisions, they need a longer window. They 
need more certainty to put these programs in place and to put the 
distribution systems in place to get the food and the resources to 
people in need.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership in 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  I had some prepared remarks that I want to give relative to the 
conservation easement part of this legislation because it is a hugely 
important issue to the people in southeastern Pennsylvania and many, 
many other States as well because through conservation easement 
transactions, tens of thousands of acres are preserved throughout the 
course of a year in a metropolitan region like Philadelphia and other 
places around the country that preserves the habitat, the watersheds, 
preserves the natural resources of that area, allows farmers to keep 
farming, allows people to hold on to the great open space that creates 
the vistas and the quality of life that people want to have in their 
communities.
  I had my prepared remarks ready to go to talk about why that is 
important once again to try to pass legislation to allow for at least 
some period of time to allow for those transactions to go

[[Page 17465]]

forward because of the tax deductibility that would be present in the 
Tax Code.
  But in listening to our colleague from Michigan a few minutes ago, to 
somehow throw out the proposal that since we passed this already a few 
weeks ago in a 1-year extension--that 1 year being 2014, the year we 
are already in, also the year that is going to expire in 21 days--to 
say somehow at this point in time of this legislative session, that is 
okay, that is how we will take care of conservation easements in the 
future, we will pass the 1-year extension as we did in the House, send 
it to the Senate, it will go ultimately to the President, look at the 
great job we did for conservation easements here in the United States, 
we gave them 21 more days' worth of decisionmaking time to determine 
whether or not they want to move forward with a transaction that will 
conserve open space and farmland around our country, that is pitiful in 
all due respect to all of our colleagues here in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, we have legislation that has hundreds of cosponsors, 
Republican and Democrat here in the House. We have that same kind of 
bipartisan support in the Senate.
  We have charities all around the United States calling in to Congress 
asking that this legislation be passed. Regardless of whether they are 
a group involved in conservation easements or in other charitable 
pursuits like food banks or the IRA issue, they want us to do something 
that we finally can agree to do and get it done by the end of the year.

                              {time}  1745

  I don't think that is too much to ask for Congress to do. Here we 
have the bill right in front of us that, on a wide bipartisan basis, is 
supported in the House and the Senate. We can pass it to make it a 
permanent part of the Tax Code so these groups can plan in the future 
and these individuals can plan in the future for how they want to help 
their charities in their communities. It is right before us, and yet we 
still have opposition to basically coming together to do what we all 
want to do to begin with. We need to really look ourselves in the 
mirror here over the next 24 hours and really think about why we are 
here in Congress.
  I would hope, regardless of your party affiliation, you have a 
wonderful opportunity to help the charities in your community by 
passing this legislation to make a permanent change in the Tax Code, 
and that is something we can all reflect on in the 113th Congress as 
one time, one place, one bill we could come together on and help our 
communities and help our charities. So I ask all of our colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Danny K. Davis), another member of our committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the 
gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
  Let me be clear, I yield to no one in terms of my support for 
programs and activities to help those who are in need. I ardently 
support Federal tax policies that support charities.
  I have hundreds of charities and foundations in my congressional 
district, and even more throughout the State of Illinois. They all 
provide tremendous support to individuals in great need. But I don't 
believe that this bill is necessary at this moment in order to provide 
those services.
  I am disappointed and cannot support this irresponsible bill that 
adds to the deficit. The Republican leadership talks a great deal about 
fiscal prudence and even requires in their budget resolution that any 
tax extender made permanent be offset with other revenue measures.
  Republican leadership easily could have paid for this bill by closing 
a tax loophole or two. Republican leadership easily could have brought 
up this bill under a rule that allowed an offset to be added. Instead, 
they have chosen to add to the deficit in a political ploy.
  So I say again, Mr. Speaker, and I pledge to my constituents and to 
the charitable organizations to work in a bipartisan way to advance 
charitable benefits. However, I cannot support this irresponsible bill. 
The President has issued a veto threat, and I support the President.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this 
issue and so many others during his esteemed career here in the 
people's House. He will be greatly missed as he retires at the end of 
this Congress.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 5806, the Supporting America's 
Charities Act. This bill reflects the good work that has been done in 
the Ways and Means Committee during the 113th Congress. It makes 
permanent important provisions that would continue to allow taxpayers 
to make contributions from their IRAs to charities, contributions to 
food inventory, and contributions of conservation easements on a tax-
preferred basis.
  In the case of these three important provisions, greater permanency 
will assist taxpayers with their tax planning while helping to advance 
their charitable goals. Charitable deductions are designed to encourage 
charitable giving by lowering the cost to privately support charitable 
organizations. It also recognizes the amounts of income voluntarily 
given to charity should be treated differently from most other income 
spent or otherwise used for personal benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I hope that the 
Senate does the same.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The way we have acted here, taxpayers will be able to use the IRA 
rollover for this tax season. That is for sure. People who want to make 
donations, however they do it, relating to nutrition and food will be 
able to do that for this tax year.
  So the issue is not whether we care much about those provisions. As I 
said, as someone who has worked so hard in terms of nutrition policy, 
food donations, who has been to so many pantries, who has been to 
Forgotten Harvest, worked with them, and Gleaners in southeast 
Michigan, I know how important it is that these contributions continue. 
They will under the action of this Congress.
  That is not the question. The question is whether this institution 
will take three provisions out of the extenders bill that we passed and 
make them permanent, unpaid for--unpaid for--permanent and unpaid for, 
increasing the deficit by $11 billion without giving the same 
consideration to every other single provision in the extender bill, 
whether it is education or research and development and so many other 
provisions that also have some urgency to them.
  No, I don't think anybody should worry here about voting ``no'' and 
having challenge by anybody to their dedication to tax policies that 
give people incentive to give to charities, to foundations, or to 
nutrition programs, or their dedication in terms of conservation.
  What the majority has decided to do is to take, as I said, out of the 
extender bill three provisions, knowing that the President would veto 
them, I guess trying to score points against the President instead of 
scoring points for those whose programs are in question here.
  So that is what this is all about. I want to close by just urging 
everyone who votes ``no'' here, you can say with total honesty that you 
have voted for legislation that makes sure for this tax season, like 
for all other extenders, that people will be able in this case to give 
contributions, to deduct them, to roll over their IRAs, whatever. It 
will be up to the citizen to make that decision. We are providing that 
opportunity for citizens.
  Anyone who tries to undermine the deep dedication of anyone on this 
side or the President of the United States to the importance of charity 
I think is doing a real disservice to the Nation and to themselves--and 
to themselves. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 17466]]


  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say briefly, actions speak louder than 
words. While technically, yes, we are going to make sure that for the 
last couple of weeks, as my colleague from Pennsylvania so eloquently 
stated, these tax policies will be in place, we need more than that. I 
mean, whether it is food inventory or conservation easements, these are 
long-term policies that we are asking people to get involved in.
  Let's talk about southeast Michigan. The gentleman raised it. We know 
who is doing a lot of the work in Detroit--a lot of foundations are. 
They are setting up plans and processes to help rebuild that city. They 
need more than 2 weeks of policy. They need permanent policy. These are 
simple, bipartisan measures, whether it is food inventory, charitable 
IRAs, or conservation easements.
  Look, we know that the watershed of New York City was protected by 
conservation easements. They couldn't do that in 2 weeks. The things 
that we can do with conservation will last decades into the future. 
They need the intergenerational long-term policy to put these kinds of 
plans in place.
  Even as I mentioned earlier with regard to food inventories and 
charitable IRAs, those aren't decisions you make on a whim. Whether you 
are going to turn your IRA over to charity is a decision that you may 
be looking at the next 20 years of your retirement, do you have the 
ability to do that or not. It is not something you can do based on just 
a couple of weeks.
  Look, we are the only nation in the world that lets these things 
expire. I mean, what the gentleman hasn't said is these items were 
expired for all of 2014. We are going to put them in place for the 
final 2 weeks, and retroactively we are going to say you are going to 
be able to make a conservation easement contribution? Well, you can't, 
and you are not probably going to do it in the next 2 weeks because 
immediately when the clock hits 2015, you are not going to have the tax 
policy.
  Look, I would ask people, don't just vote in lockstep. Really examine 
your conscience and whether at this time of year, with the great needs 
this Nation is facing and has faced really for the last decade, what 
can we do to make a difference now? Why do we need to wait?
  As the gentleman has said, look, we have tried to make these things 
permanent. That hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in a comprehensive tax 
overhaul; it hasn't worked in trying to make a lot of these extensions 
permanent in an agreement between the House and Senate. But these are 
important, and these will make a difference where government doesn't 
go.
  It is our foundations and our charities that actually innovate in 
this area and find out what works. As we know, government isn't the 
most innovative in this area. That is why these are important to do 
now.
  I think especially in this season of giving we shouldn't just vote 
because our leaders tell us to or because we have gotten some letter 
from the administration. We should really look carefully at how we can 
make a difference, how we can make a difference by this vote that we 
are going to take and what that will mean for people's lives and the 
countless families who depend on selfless Americans to make it from day 
to day. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5806, a bill 
that seeks to extend three tax provisions that I strongly support.
  Despite my interest in seeing the tax provisions before us extended 
permanently, I am concerned that doing so in a package without so many 
other important tax provisions might jeopardize our ability to achieve 
comprehensive reform of our tax code next Congress. Across the district 
I represent, my constituents support changing the tax code to make it 
fair and simple. This will be a difficult process that will require 
significant work and compromise. Accordingly, I am opposing the bill 
before us today, but I will seek a permanent extension of these 
provisions through broader tax reform next Congress.
  I am committed to policies that support our social safety net, 
particularly as our constituents continue to recover from the effects 
of the economic downturn. But by passing individual extensions, we are 
leaving important provisions on the table that will benefit our middle-
class families. What they need is comprehensive tax reform that levels 
the playing field and allows everyone to have a fair opportunity to 
succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree of frustration 
that I voted no on H.R. 5806. I strongly support some of the individual 
provisions; indeed, I am the leading Democratic cosponsor of the 
provisions relating to charitable contributions from individual 
retirement accounts.
  I have been a leading supporter of land trusts, working closely with 
them to fix challenges raised by application of the estate tax for 
instance, and broadly supporting their work across the country to 
protect and preserve our nation's heritage and open spaces. I have 
worked hard to improve resources for Oregon's food banks and to end 
hunger both at home and abroad.
  Today, we are abandoning any semblance that this Congress is going to 
work on major accomplishments before we adjourn.
  With this and similar tax extender votes, Congress appears to have 
given up on deficit reduction, despite my colleagues otherwise 
voracious appetite for it--an appetite that led to House Republicans 
attempting to cut nutrition assistance to poor Americans by $39 billion 
last year. Section five of this bill, in fact, specifically strikes the 
Republican's own PAY-GO rules. Budget-busting proposals are roaring 
through here with no semblance of honoring the Republicans' own budget 
rules or their budget resolution.
  With this and similar tax extender votes, Congress appears also to 
have given up on tax reform because we are not going to be able to have 
meaningful tax reform if we are just willy-nilly going to rush all 
these provisions through.
  My colleague, Chairman Camp, worked for years to produce a deficit-
neutral tax reform, which had much to commend it, and I commend him for 
his hard work. All of these provisions of tax extenders were addressed 
in his tax reform, but they were dealt with differently. Not all were 
extended permanently. Some were modified and some were repealed, as 
part of a deliberative process to evaluate their impact and to not 
break the bank. This vote--like similar unpaid for permanent tax 
extender votes--abandons that effort.
  This bill is not going to be enacted into law as the President's veto 
threat makes clear, and Congress will pick up where it left off--and 
frankly, where Mr. Camp left off--as we work with our colleagues in the 
other body and our constituents to move forward on the things that we 
are all committed to in a way that is fiscally responsible, is 
bipartisan and thoughtful, to get the outcomes we all share.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 5806.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________