[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7051-7058]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4438, AMERICAN RESEARCH AND 
                      COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 569 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 569

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4438) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify and make 
     permanent the research credit. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order

[[Page 7052]]

against H. Res. 569 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all 
points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a 
waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question as the statutory means of disposing of 
the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of 
order not only out of concern for unfunded mandates, but to highlight 
the failure of Republican House leadership to protect the long-term 
unemployed, low-income citizens, and others who have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own.
  I raise this point of order because the bill before us would add $156 
billion to the deficit to provide permanent tax breaks for businesses 
while doing nothing for the 2.6 million Americans living with the 
constant nightmare of having no job, no food, no money, no lights, no 
gas, no college tuition money, and no unemployment check.
  H.R. 4438 is 15 times the cost of helping the 2.6 million Americans 
who are looking for jobs that have been shipped overseas, jobs that 
have been downsized or outsourced, or jobs that simply do not exist. 
Please tell me, Mr. Speaker: What are they supposed to do?
  H.R. 4438 would give $156 billion in tax breaks for businesses but do 
nothing for the 72,000 additional Americans who lose benefits each and 
every week. An estimated 74,000 Illinoisans lost benefits on December 
28, 2013, with 38,000 of these citizens living in Cook County alone. 
Forty-two thousand Illinoisans exhausted their benefits in the first 3 
months of 2014. H.R. 4438 completely fails these Americans, many of 
whom stood on the Capitol steps yesterday pleading with Republican 
leadership to do the right thing. But the heartless response has been 
and continues to be refusal to help hardworking Americans struggling to 
provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for their families.
  Now is not the time to cut, deny, or delay unemployment benefits. 
Failure to continue emergency unemployment benefits threatens the 
continuation of our economic recovery, costing over 200,000 greatly-
needed jobs. The expiration has already drained almost $5 billion from 
our national economy in the first quarter of this year. In Illinois 
alone, this loss of Federal aid means the loss in purchasing power of 
$23 million each week--money that could be used to support local 
businesses, buy gasoline, pay utility bills, provide copayments at 
doctors' offices, clinics, hospitals; purchase groceries, and pay 
children's graduation fees. Every $1 in unemployment insurance 
generates $1.63 in economic activity. I say let us practice good 
economy, let's be reasonable, and let's have a heart. In my State of 
Illinois, the unemployment rate remains 8.6 percent, and in much of my 
district it is more than 20 percent. Finding a job is not easy, but 
people are still trying.
  Government leaders have a responsibility to protect our citizens and 
our country, especially during times of national crisis. Instead of 
helping Americans who already are hardest hit by the economic crisis--
including older Americans, low-income Americans, veterans, and members 
of minority groups--Republicans prioritize $156 billion in unpaid-for 
business tax breaks and tell the American people that it is all about 
fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, extending unemployment assistance is a true 
demonstration of leadership and our national commitment to all 
Americans, not just the most secure. Refusal to help these citizens is 
an unacceptable, abject, and mean-spirited approach to leadership.
  I urge that we reject this rule and the underlying bill by voting 
``no'' on this motion until the Republican leadership puts people first 
and provides unemployment insurance to the 2.6 million Americans 
struggling to keep their lights on and gas in their automobiles, to pay 
rent and mortgages, and to feed their families. I urge that we vote 
``no'' on this rule and to the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of 
order in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is should we now 
proceed and consider House Resolution 569. While the resolution waives 
all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on 
Rules is not aware of any violation. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the point 
of order is merely a dilatory tactic.
  In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation states that ``the bill 
contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.''
  This legislation makes permanent a simplified research credit that 
will help open the door for economic growth and give businesses the 
certainty they need to thrive. This measure has been routinely extended 
and supported by both parties for many years. In order to allow the 
House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge members to 
vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 4438, a bill that would 
permanently extend and enhance the research and development tax credit.
  The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4438 
and provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In 
addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, dozens of so-called temporary tax extensions expired at 
the end of 2013. Some of them, like the one we will consider under this 
rule, have long been bipartisan and long been renewed annually.
  As a small business owner myself, one of the things that a business 
craves is certainty, certainty that you can plan around. Providing a 
certain tax structure is important to businesses.
  Take, for example, the R&D tax credit for which this resolution 
provides consideration. The R&D tax credit has been repeatedly extended 
since 1981. If it doesn't make you think it is permanent, I don't know 
what does.
  Too often, we here in Washington tell businesses ``trust us,'' that 
we can promise to extend X, Y, or Z tax provisions indefinitely. But 
they can't take that to the bank. They can't take our word that we will 
be able to deliver on

[[Page 7053]]

promises that we make. The only thing they can rely on is the law 
itself. If our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty 
into the business environment that inhibits economic growth.
  We all know that encouraging research and development makes good 
economic sense. Ernst & Young did a study that found that the R&D 
credit increases wages in both the short and long term. Additionally, 
the legislation we will consider also increases research-oriented 
employment in both the short and the long term.
  Many of my friends on the other side talk about raising the minimum 
wage and about increasing jobs. Those are certainly worthy matters to 
discuss. Permanent extension of the R&D tax credit does just that. That 
is why both sides have routinely extended this tax credit in good times 
and in bad. It is time to make it part of the permanent Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, others have criticized this legislation because it only 
deals with a small portion of the expired tax provisions. However, to 
them I would say two things:
  First, just as we have had to examine and pare back the discretionary 
side of the budget, we need to examine the tax side of the budget. 
There are over 200 tax expenditures, or spending on the tax side of the 
ledger, that, if all extended, will cost us more than $12 trillion over 
the next 10 years. We need to take a serious look at which credit 
should be extended.
  And secondly, this provision is the first of many that will be 
considered by this House. While the Senate has been content to move in 
a ``comprehensive manner'' on issues like immigration and even tax 
extenders, the House has taken a more deliberate approach.
  The Ways and Means Committee has marked up seven different extenders 
affecting a variety of industries that I hope the House will consider 
in the coming weeks. This will allow us to have a vehicle to take to 
conference with the Senate to provide individuals and businesses with 
the certainty that they so desperately crave.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Camp for beginning this 
process in earnest and look forward to consideration of additional 
measures at the appropriate time. Many of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle have supported the extension of the R&D credit because 
they have seen the value of making this provision permanent.
  I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  While I support research and development incentives and consider 
encouraging American businesses to research, innovate, build, and make 
it in America some of Congress' most important duties, I rise today in 
opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.
  Four months ago, my friends on the other side of the aisle allowed 
emergency unemployment insurance for more than 1.3 million Americans to 
expire.
  During the farm bill negotiations, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle insisted on cutting $8.6 billion from nutrition assistance 
programs.
  Last week, Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee insisted on 
removing a $12 million provision that would help foster children who 
are victims of sex trafficking. I find that ironic because this happens 
to be Foster Care Month.
  They also fought tooth and nail to derail disaster assistance to the 
victims of Hurricane Sandy, and almost succeeded.
  Furthermore, they have triggered a government shutdown and 
sequestration cuts that have drastically cut nondefense discretionary 
spending by $294 billion.
  And the reason offered for all these austerity measures still 
hamstringing recovery? Why can't the Republicans pass a bill to create 
jobs by improving our crumbling infrastructure? Well, deficit 
reduction, I guess, is the answer.
  Yet, this bill, a favorite of Big Business without question, will add 
$156 billion to the deficit.
  Tax policy in general, and then extenders package specifically, is 
about prioritizing the needs of our country.
  Dozens of temporary tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013 
and several others scheduled to expire at the end of this year have 
been skipped over.
  They have passed up the chance to renew the work opportunity tax 
credit, which helps veterans get work, and the new markets tax credit, 
which helps vitalize communities.
  They have chosen to ignore renewable energy tax credits and tax 
credits to help working parents pay for child care.
  They have decided that it is not important to extend deductions for 
teachers' out-of-pocket expenses, qualified tuition and related 
expenses, mortgage insurance premiums, and State and local sales tax, a 
deduction which is critical for our constituents in Florida.

                              {time}  1345

  My friends on the other side of the aisle would allow charitable 
provisions, including the enhanced deduction for contributions of food 
inventory and provisions allowing for tax-free distributions from 
retirement accounts for charitable purposes to expire rather than renew 
them.
  This bill today and the other extenders--there were six of them that 
were marked up by the Ways and Means Committee--are the six extenders 
favored by Big Business.
  That is why these will be the first and will likely be the only of 
the extenders--and there are 50-plus of them overall--that the House 
will vote on. That is why these are the measures my friends want to 
make permanent.
  While I agree particularly that the one that is being discussed 
should be made permanent, they have no problem increasing the deficit, 
so long as it is a policy that is a priority for them and for Big 
Business.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin, actually, by agreeing on a couple of points with my 
friend from Florida.
  Sandy, if you will recall--and I know you do. I actually voted with 
you. I believe that relief should have been rendered. I am glad we did 
that, and it was done in a bipartisan fashion; so certainly, where I am 
concerned, my friend knows that I have been consistent on that point.
  I also want to agree that there are a lot of extenders in this 
package that ought to be considered. As my friend knows, I actually 
raised one of those last night in an amendment at the Rules Committee--
and it was withdrawn--simply to make the very point that he is making, 
that we shouldn't only focus on a few, but that all of these need to be 
considered, and each of them ought to have an opportunity to be looked 
at and discussed.
  I think Ways and Means owes us a pathway, if you will. I have no 
objection to what they are doing here today, but I do think we all need 
to understand what is going to be considered.
  In my view, all of these, since we have routinely extended them in 
the past, probably ought to be considered in one fashion or another. I 
suspect, frankly, they will be because, once we arrive in the 
conference committee, the Senate will probably have passed that in 
total, and there will be some sort of discussion there. Again, my 
friend's point is an important one with which I agree, in that we ought 
to look at these things.
  The reason we are beginning with this one--and with a series of five 
or six others is--number one, these are ones that both parties have 
generally agreed upon in the past. This is not a controversial measure. 
When they were in the majority in 2008 and in 2010, my friends extended 
this particular tax credit, along with many others, so we don't think 
it is controversial in the partisan sense.
  Secondly, we think these are the types of tax cuts that broadly 
contribute to growth, and that is something I know both sides want. We 
want a growing economy, we want the jobs that that generates, and 
frankly, we

[[Page 7054]]

want the additional tax revenue that a growing economy yields.
  We have made some very tough decisions over the last few years, 
sometimes on a bipartisan basis, about reducing this deficit. When this 
majority came in, the deficit was running at about $1.4 trillion a 
year. This year, it will come in at something like $540 billion.
  That is actually a very rapid decline. Along the way, some of those 
decisions have been pretty tough decisions--bipartisan, some of them. 
We, on our side, like to focus on the cuts we have made, and as my 
friend has pointed out, we have cut out literally hundreds of billions 
of dollars of discretionary spending.
  None of that has been easy--again, sometimes on a bipartisan basis. 
Eventually, it had to pass a Democratic Senate and be signed by a 
Democratic President, so in a sense, those reductions had been 
bipartisan.
  We have also generated revenue. The fiscal cliff bill, which I 
supported, preserved most of the Bush tax cuts, but it did generate 
revenue. Those things working together have helped bring the deficit 
down, but we are never going to get the deficit where I know both sides 
want it to be, if we don't have an economy that is growing and moving, 
creating jobs, innovating, is at the cutting edge, and is competitive 
with our international peers. This legislation is an attempt to do just 
that.
  It is also an attempt, in my view, by Ways and Means and by Chairman 
Camp to begin the process of looking at these tax extenders one by one. 
While all of them have some constituency in this body and while many of 
them have overwhelming bipartisan constituencies, there is no question 
that not every single one of them would pass muster if it were looked 
at individually, so I applaud Chairman Camp and his committee for what 
they are doing.
  I think we are trying to proceed in the right direction here. I don't 
have any illusions that this will be the final legislation. It will 
simply get us into conference with the Senate; and, hopefully, there 
will be more discussion there, but I think we are doing the right thing 
and are proceeding in the right way.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my friend, who is 
the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is really not about the R&D tax credit. 
I have favored it. I continue to favor it. Democrats, indeed, are in 
favor of tax incentives. Sometimes, we are criticized for that, but 
that is not the issue here.
  It is whether we make this permanent without paying for it. It is 
fiscally irresponsible to do so, and it endangers key programs that 
matter for all Americans, and that is why the veto message from the 
President.
  Why fiscally irresponsible? It is unpaid for, costing, over 10 years, 
$156 billion. As you said, the gentleman from Oklahoma, it is part of a 
package, the total of which would be $310 billion; and if you add the 
others referred to, the package could be $500 billion, more or less--a 
huge sum--unpaid for. The $310 billion that is represented by this 
package is more than one half of the projected deficit this year.
  So it is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is also hypocritical. It 
violates the Republican budget itself that requires extenders to be 
paid for, if permanent, with other revenue measures.
  Here is what the chairman of the Budget Committee said last month:

       Our debt has grown more than twice the size of our economy. 
     You can't have a prosperous society with that kind of debt.

  Mr. Brady, who, I guess, will be speaking on this, said last month:

       Americans have had it with Washington's fiscal 
     irresponsibility, and I don't blame them. While families 
     across the Nation continue to tighten their belts due to 
     rising costs and shrinking paychecks, Washington continues to 
     spend more than it takes in.

  In 2009, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said:

       The path to our economic recovery starts with fiscal 
     responsibility in Washington.

  Interestingly enough, the tax reform draft presented by the chairman 
makes R&D and some of the other extenders permanent, but without 
impacting the deficit. It is revenue neutral--it is paid for--and now, 
you come here and not pay for it.
  This doesn't even include other key extenders, like the new markets; 
like the work opportunity tax credit as you referred to, Mr. Hastings, 
on veterans; renewable energy.
  It leaves in jeopardy some key provisions that expire in 2017--the 
EITC, 27 million people affected; the child tax credit, 24 million; the 
American opportunity tax credit--education--12 million. The $310 
billion is three times the amount spent on education, job training, 
social services in a full year. Nondefense discretionary is now just 
about 3 percent of GDP, as low as it has been in decades.
  Any permanent R&D has to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal and 
unpaid for. To do it this way is fiscally irresponsible. I think it is 
hypocritical and is programmatically dangerous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. So I oppose this rule, and I hope everybody who is 
thinking of voting ``yes,'' including on the Republican side, will 
think back on what they have said before about the deficit.
  I hope we Democrats will think we are for this incentive R&D. It 
needs to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal--threatening so many of 
the programs that benefit so many Americans.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to agree with my friend about his concern on the deficit. I 
know it is genuine. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that our friends on 
the other side of the aisle are concerned about the deficit.
  I will remind them, when we took the majority in this Chamber in 
January of 2011, the deficit was about $1.4 trillion. It is about $540 
billion today. So to suggest that this majority has not been serious 
about lowering the deficit and has not made really tough decisions--
sometimes with my friends on the other side of the aisle, sometimes 
not--I think is to misstate the facts.
  We are concerned about the deficit. If renewing this R&D credit is 
irresponsible without an offset, I will point out to my friends that 
you did it in 2008 and in 2010 when you were in the majority, so I 
don't think you are being consistent here in terms of this particular 
measure.
  Finally, I want to make the point that the real key to getting out of 
this situation in the long term is threefold. First, obviously 
restraining domestic discretionary spending, we have done that, and it 
has been hard to do. Second, I think getting entitlement reform, we 
haven't done that. Hopefully, someday, we will.
  Third--and maybe most importantly--is getting the economy growing 
again, moving in a way that creates jobs first and foremost, that 
provides a higher standard of living for our people, but that, yes, 
generates extra revenue to the government. There is nothing like a 
growing economy to help shrink the deficit.
  This is a measure that both sides in the past have agreed actually 
stimulates economic growth; creates jobs; and, therefore, generates 
additional revenue. I think that we ought to approve the rule and that 
we ought to consider this thoughtful consideration of our Tax Code on a 
piece by piece, item by item basis and move ahead.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I support a permanent research and 
development credit to incentivize research for new products.
  For decades, there has never really been any question about whether 
we should incentivize research. The question has been how--how to pay 
for that incentive and how to ensure that it actually encourages more 
jobs and more economic development with desirable research that would 
not otherwise happen without the credit.

[[Page 7055]]

  Until today, Republicans who claimed to be for fiscal responsibility 
before they were against it have not been so brash as to demand that we 
finance this entire research credit on a permanent basis and similar 
legislation by borrowing more money.
  A Government Accountability Office investigation of this credit 
concluded that a few corporations snatched most of the credit and that 
``a substantial portion of credit dollars is a windfall, earned for 
spending what they would have spent anyway, instead of being used to 
support potentially beneficial new research.''
  This credit is just another type of special treatment that a few 
giant multinationals can count on to lower their already low tax rates.
  Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported the complaints of one 
giant. It said that, without this credit, its tax rate would climb 
effectively from 16 percent all the way to 18 percent.
  Another corporation complained that its rate would go from 13 percent 
to 19 percent. Most of the small businesses that I represent in my part 
of Texas would be delighted to have a rate at that level. They pay 
substantially more.

                              {time}  1400

  Multinationals can use this taxpayer subsidy to finance research that 
produces patents and copyrights and the like that are then owned by 
offshore tax haven subsidiaries that pay little or no taxes.
  One company investigated by Senator Levin in the Senate last year did 
95 percent of its research and development right here in America, but 
then it shifted $74 billion of its earnings to an Irish subsidiary.
  Apparently, the most effective multinational research anywhere in the 
world has focused on how to avoid paying for their fair share of 
financing our national security.
  These are companies that ship both jobs and profits overseas. They 
are not about making it in America. They are about taking it from 
America. And that shifts the burden to small businesses and 
individuals.
  Nor is all of this taxpayer-subsidized research beneficial to the 
public. For example, some of the research that was done for the 
electronic cigarettes, the latest fad to addict our children to 
nicotine, qualified for this tax subsidy.
  Meanwhile, the House Republican budget undermines vital private 
research that is funded through the National Institutes of Health for 
Alzheimer's, for cancer, for Parkinson's, and for other dread diseases. 
They say we cannot afford to do what is necessary in research for 
those.
  They also cut research for efforts to ensure that taxpayers get their 
money's worth from our investment in public services. Without adequate 
research, you cannot determine whether an initiative that is proposed 
justifies Federal dollars or is truly evidence-based.
  I think we should reject today's proposal in favor of a research 
credit that actually incentivizes necessary research made in America 
and which is paid for, in part, by comprehensive reform of the credit 
itself.
  As for comprehensive reform, from day one of this Congress, H.R. 1 
was reserved for the much-ballyhooed Republican comprehensive tax 
reform. And yet we are well through this Congress and it still says, 
``Reserved for Speaker.''
  That is because the Republicans couldn't agree on which tax loophole 
to close to maintain a revenue-neutral--a not borrowing more money--and 
as a result of not being able to do what they said they would do----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Because they told us January of last year they would be 
here with a simpler, fairer, lower tax rate, but they can't agree on 
how to pay for it because they are dominated by lobby groups that want 
to protect the very complexities and loopholes that plague this tax 
system--because they couldn't do that and have not done that, they are 
now back, as the gentleman says, with the first of not one or two but 
of many provisions to make them permanent, and pay for it with either 
borrowed money or mandatory cuts.
  I think that is a serious mistake.
  Today's bill represents only the first installment of more tax breaks 
to come that are not paid for or are paid for with mandatory cuts. 
Surely, we don't need more research today to know that that is the 
wrong way to go, it is the irresponsible way to go, and it ought to be 
rejected.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hate to keep repeating myself, but I think I will.
  My friends passed this tax credit themselves when they were in the 
majority in 2008 and 2010. So while I appreciate this newfound concern 
about deficits on their side of the aisle, I remind them that since we 
have been in the majority, the deficit has actually declined--and 
declined pretty dramatically--from $1.4 trillion, which is what they 
handed over to us, to about $540 billion today.
  I would be the first to agree that is far too high, but the movement 
has been in the right direction.
  So to suggest that somehow this side of the aisle has been fiscally 
reckless or irresponsible, I think simply doesn't bear up to scrutiny.
  Second, I remind my friends again this has been a bipartisan tax 
measure over the years. It has been routinely renewed, whether it was a 
Democratic Congress or Republican Congress, since 1981. It is as close 
as you ever get to be permanently in the Tax Code without actually 
being there.
  But we still have that level of uncertainty that is associated every 
time that we have a discussion over the extension. We are simply 
removing, I think, that uncertainty, and we are doing what all sides 
have done regularly, which is recognize this is an important component 
of our Code and that we think it generates a great deal in terms of 
valuable research and generates economic growth and jobs.
  I would agree with my friend that we are going to have to do 
different things to actually get the deficit down to where we want to 
go.
  I serve on the Appropriations Committee, not on Ways and Means, and I 
will tell you we have really made dramatic cuts in the discretionary 
budget, some of which I think are actually too extensive. We have done 
that in an effort to try and, again, restore fiscal sanity.
  I have cooperated with my friends on things like the fiscal cliff 
that have generated revenue. So it hasn't just all been cuts.
  I do agree with my friends that Ways and Means needs to do two 
things: it is responsible for taxes and it is responsible for 
entitlements.
  We all know that entitlement spending is the largest single driver of 
the deficit, by far. I would hope our friends, on a bipartisan basis, 
would sit down and start looking at entitlements on the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  In terms of taxes, I think that is exactly what they are trying to do 
in this measure; that is, begin to look at this piece by piece and pick 
out the things that are worth keeping.
  This credit, without question, both sides for over 30 years looked at 
and said, This is worth keeping. This is valuable. It generates jobs. 
It generates growth.
  If my friends on Ways and Means want to look at this and tinker and 
change it around the edges, they are the tax experts. I trust them to 
bring us something here that is good. But remember, this bill is going 
to conference. There is a United States Senate that probably has a 
different view than us. It is going to sit down and negotiate with us. 
Then the bill has to go to the President.
  So I look on this as a step in the right direction, not as a final 
destination point, let alone as some sort of dramatic departure from 
what we have been doing around here. It is actually pretty consistent 
with what we have been doing in terms of the policy.
  What we are doing is making important correctives, turning what has 
been temporary into something that is permanent. And we are doing it 
piece by

[[Page 7056]]

piece. Because, again, not all of these extenders, quite frankly, 
should be extended, but we ought to look at them one at a time and make 
that decision. I really think that is all we are about, Madam Speaker.
  With that, I would again hope that we pass the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the American people will be 
better served if we addressed our broken immigration system, which has 
become a huge drag on our country's economic growth.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
and Immigration Modernization Act, so the House can finally vote on 
something that will move this country forward.
  To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida.
  Today, we are debating research and development in the United States. 
However, what we are actually doing is creating more funding for 
research and development while ignoring hundreds of thousands of the 
best and brightest researchers in our Nation--students who will come 
out of our research universities and immediately get sent home to 
another country. They will build economies overseas while we fall 
behind here in the United States. This is because of our broken 
immigration system.
  Yesterday, I offered a very relevant amendment in the Rules Committee 
to complete the underlying bill. This amendment would pay for the tax 
credits and pass comprehensive immigration reform at the same time. By 
doing this, we would massively improve research and development in this 
country, unleashing the talents of our students, turning them into job-
creating workers right here in the United States, which will support 
our U.S. economy.
  Everyone agrees that we must support innovation through research and 
development. However, we must make sure that our businesses have the 
researchers to do that job.
  Last month, we saw the annual H-1B visa cap reached in only 5 days.
  Again, our outdated immigration laws put American innovation on hold. 
Imagine how the U.S. economy would grow and how many Americans jobs 
would be created if we didn't send away more than half of the Ph.D.'s 
graduating with STEM degrees right here in our U.S. universities simply 
because they were foreign born.
  This amendment is the best way to pay for these tax credits and to 
expand research and development by creating jobs, raising revenue, and 
supercharging our local U.S. economy.
  We must pass comprehensive immigration reform to continue leading the 
world in research. Because of a failure to consider this valid--and 
valuable--offset, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to disagree with my good friend from Florida on one thing, and 
I think it is probably just a phrase, but I want to put an important 
corrective in the Record.
  My friend said we could finally vote on something that would be 
worthwhile. I would actually suggest that we voted on a number of 
things that have been worthwhile.
  Frankly, this would have been in December, but the Ryan-Murray budget 
agreement, I think, was very worthwhile. I think that the omnibus 
spending bill that finally put us back into some semblance of regular 
order in the appropriations process was worthwhile.
  I think the farm bill that was passed as both a safety net program 
for many of our needy families in our country, as well as an important 
economic tool that my friend Mr. Lucas got through on a bipartisan 
basis, was, again, very worthwhile.
  I think the flood insurance bill that this Congress has passed on a 
bipartisan basis was, again, very worthwhile.
  I think the fact that we have dealt with the doc fix, as there has 
actually been in Ways and Means an agreement as to what we should do--
not an agreement on how to fund it, but we bought a year's worth of 
time so our health care providers that do such a great job helping and 
seniors and our needy people on both Medicare and Medicaid are going to 
be continued to be reimbursed--I think that is a good job.
  I think this Congress doing the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research 
bill, taking money out of political conventions and putting it toward 
pediatric research, that is a pretty good job.
  I think the fact that a couple of appropriations bills have actually 
crossed this floor on a bipartisan basis and are ready to go to 
conference earlier than any time since 1974 is a pretty good job.
  So while we disagree--and I wouldn't say this is the most productive 
Congress in modern American history--to suggest that it is not doing 
its job and moving along legislation expeditiously is something I do 
have at least a different view on.
  I want to agree with my friend from California on H-1B visas. I 
actually think he is correct about that. As I understand it, there has 
been action on that issue in the Judiciary Committee. It actually 
passed out of committee. When it comes to the floor is sort of not in 
my lane, but I do hope we do deal with that.
  And no question, the whole immigration issue that my friend brings up 
is an important one. I appreciate him doing that. I thanked him for 
doing that last night. I thank him for doing it again today.
  I don't think this is probably the vehicle for a comprehensive bill. 
I think it would probably meet more resistance. But talking about it 
and pointing out the importance of dealing with some of these issues I 
think is extremely helpful.
  It doesn't change the basic fact, though, Madam Speaker. What we are 
dealing with here is pretty simple, but pretty important, though. Let's 
do something that in the past we have agreed on on a bipartisan basis. 
Let's focus on research and development so America is always at the 
cutting edge of technology and job creation and give our entrepreneurs 
and our businesses this very important tool and a sense of certainty 
that it is going to be there.
  Again, this is something we have been doing since 1981. It is not 
new. It has been bipartisan. I think making it permanent, letting 
businesses know that we can actually work together, is the right thing 
to do.
  Then we ought to proceed, as the Ways and Means Committee is 
proceeding, systematically and look at all these other extenders, some 
of which will make it, some of which won't. We will undoubtedly have a 
vigorous debate about that.
  It won't always be a partisan debate. I suspect on some of these 
things I will be with my friends on their side of the aisle and vice 
versa because things like the Indian Lands Tax Credit I don't consider 
partisan. It gets very good Democratic and Republican support all the 
time.
  So, again, let's work together. I think that is what Ways and Means 
is trying to do. They are advancing a product systematically and 
appropriately.
  I think we have the right rule for it. I think we have a good piece 
of legislation. I suspect and certainly hope there will be a strong 
bipartisan vote on the underlying legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to take my good friend's point where I made 
the statement that we would have an opportunity to finally vote on 
something worthwhile and take that ``finally'' out and replace it with 
``something more worthwhile'' than some of the things that he pointed 
out that I certainly agree with, in many particulars, were certainly 
measures that were important to us.
  I can't resist adding to Mr. Cardenas' appeal with reference to

[[Page 7057]]

H.R. 15 and point out that 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies were 
founded by an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. Twenty-eight 
percent of all companies founded in the United States, in just the year 
2011, had immigrant founders.
  Seventy-six percent of the patents at the top 10 U.S. patent-
producing universities had at least one foreign-born inventor. 
Immigrant-owned businesses generated more than $775 billion in revenue 
for the economy in 2011.
  I could go on and on. I shall not. It is important, I believe, that 
if not this vehicle, some vehicle become the one that allows us to deal 
with things like the H-1B visa. For example, when we put the cap on it 
in the last tranche, we achieved that cap in 5 days.
  Availability of H-1B numbers is a growing problem for the U.S. STEM 
competitiveness again. It is something that we need to deal with, must 
deal with.
  Now, I turn, finally, to the research credit measure that we are 
dealing with. It is an important provision that should be extended. 
Since its enactment in mid-1981, as has been pointed out by my 
colleagues, Congress has extended the provision 15 times and 
significantly modified it five times.
  However, it is not just what we do that matters; it is how we do it 
that also matters. This will be the 57th closed rule, which means most 
Members will not even get a chance to make changes to the bill.
  This bill violates the revenue floor of the Ryan budget that 
Republicans passed only 3 weeks ago, meaning the Rules Committee will 
have to give yet another special waiver.
  Republicans have waived their own CutGo rule 15 times since taking 
over the House. Republicans insist that comprehensive tax reform be 
deficit neutral, but won't hold these permanent changes to the same 
standard. In fact, they are using these measures to hide the cost of 
comprehensive tax reform.
  They aren't just moving the goalposts. They are changing the game as 
it is being played.
  Madam Speaker, there is something inconsistent between what my 
friends say and what they do, and I find that very disturbing. Hiding 
behind a mantra of austerity only when it is convenient is, in my view, 
irresponsible and opportunistic, at best.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule.
  I am very pleased at this time to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida. It is always a 
pleasure to appear with him.
  I do want to make a point that, with respect to all tax provisions, 
they almost always do come to this floor under a closed rule because, 
quite frankly, they have to be scored, i.e., we have to figure out how 
much the amendments cost and what have you.
  So it is very seldom we have an open rule on anything that deals with 
tax policy, and I think we are following customary procedure here.
  I also, again, want to make the basic point that this is legislation 
that, honestly, I think, over the years, most of the time, both sides 
of the aisle have agreed upon.
  There is no objection to research and tax credits. Both sides have 
decided it is good policy, that it helps American companies be 
competitive. It helps us stay at the head of the pack, in terms of 
innovation and technical development in this country.
  This is probably one of the least controversial provisions in the Tax 
Code, so I think moving it and making it permanent, removing all 
uncertainty and confusion, is probably, well, in my view, certainly a 
good thing for our economy. I hope, after the rule vote, that we can 
come together on that.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to 
move the process forward. This approach is important because it allows 
the House to consider individual tax provisions on their own merits and 
not hidden by a larger deal.
  This credit is good for economic growth. It both creates jobs and 
increases wages. It is important that we not lose sight of that in the 
midst of this debate, so I would urge my colleagues to support this 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 569 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 15.

     
                                  ____
        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule

[[Page 7058]]

     [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens 
     the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 
     21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of 
     the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________