[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11658-11664]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5016, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND 
    GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR 
   CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4718, BONUS DEPRECIATION MODIFIED AND MADE 
                               PERMANENT

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 661

       Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 5016) making appropriations for financial 
     services and general government for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2015, 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 Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 
     clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived except for section 627.
        (b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4718) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and make 
     permanent bonus depreciation. 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, modified by the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, 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

[[Page 11659]]

     on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). 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 my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), 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 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 Wednesday the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration on two measures: H.R. 5016, the 
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and H.R. 
4718, that would permanently extend the bonus depreciation.
  The resolution provides a modified open rule for consideration of 
H.R. 5016 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor 
and offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules on 
this important piece of legislation.
  The resolution also provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 
4718, and provides for 60 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, a little over 2 months ago, I was pleased to present the 
House the rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills. 
This rule will provide for the consideration of the eighth 
appropriations bill by the House.
  In the Appropriations Committee, we have already reported out 10 of 
the 12 required appropriations bills and are moving closer to finishing 
the two remaining bills. Contrast this with the other body, where they 
have yet to pass even a single appropriations measure.
  Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Appropriations bill maintains the 
fiscal discipline agreed to as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2013 that this country desperately needs. While the President requested 
an additional $1.7 billion over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels, this 
bill actually funds these programs at $566 million less than last 
year's level.
  In addition, this bill maintains a number of important funding 
restrictions over the IRS. Given their unconscionable targeting of 
conservative organizations and their deliberate stonewalling of 
legitimate inquiries by the Ways and Means and Oversight and Government 
Reform Committees, these funding prohibitions are necessary and 
appropriate.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for consideration 
of H.R. 4718, which permanently extends bonus depreciation. During this 
extended time of sluggish economic growth, it is important for the 
Congress to pass legislation that will encourage our job creators to do 
just that--create jobs.
  An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that permanent 
bonus depreciation would actually grow the economy by 1 percent, adding 
$182 billion to the economy; increase the capital stock by over 3 
percent; increase wages by about 1 percent; and create 212,000 new 
jobs.

                              {time}  1245

  Since its creation in 2002, this credit has routinely been extended 
on a bipartisan basis. It is important that we do so again today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for making good on his 
commitment to ensure orderly and timely consideration of appropriations 
bills. I also want to commend Chairman Camp for examining the Tax Code, 
ensuring we can provide the tax certainty that so many businesses need 
in order to make investment decisions that benefit us all.
  I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. And with 
that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are breaking a record yet again for the most 
closed Congress ever. The majority has broken their own record for the 
most closed Congress in history. Again and again, they have wasted 
time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract 
us from the problems at hand. And that certainly is true today.
  The American people are hoping that Congress will create jobs, expand 
educational opportunities, and support working families, but instead, 
we insist on spending millions of dollars on investigating made-up 
scandals and adding billions and billions to the deficit.
  Today we have one rule for two bills: first, the bonus depreciation 
bill, and, second, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, two 
bills with nothing in common except to highlight the majority's 
insistence of choosing policy over people.
  Now, H.R. 4718 would make bonus depreciation permanent. This is a 
policy that maybe you have never heard of, but it is a policy that used 
to be bipartisan and still would be on a 1- or 2-year basis, like the 
Senate has proposed. It is designed as a temporary measure, and I 
emphasize ``temporary'' because if it isn't temporary, it is not 
effective.
  Bonus depreciation gives businesses an extra large immediate tax 
deduction for a portion of the cost of investments in equipment. 
Instead of spending more of the deduction over future years, it 
incentivizes purchasing equipment now in order to provide an immediate 
boost to the economy, instead of in the future when the incentive may 
not be available.
  And that is how it has always temporarily worked. But if we make it 
permanent, then the taxpayers are simply subsidizing the cost of the 
equipment that businesses would need to purchase anyway.
  My good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is as good a businessman 
as he is a Congressman--and that is saying a lot--said yesterday that 
in 2003, his small business went out and bought $100,000 worth of 
computers specifically because he could take advantage of the bonus 
depreciation, which was in place and was a very smart thing for him to 
have done. And that is exactly how bonus depreciation is supposed to 
work.
  Mr. Cole knew computers would be cheaper at that time than in a year 
or two, when the tax credit would have expired. So he spent the money 
on equipment. And that surely helped the economy, and I am sure it 
created some jobs.
  But why would Mr. Cole buy the computers immediately if he knew the 
tax credit would be there forever? He wouldn't, I don't believe. We 
will talk about that later.
  This tool was put in place between 2002 and 2005, at 30 percent and 
then at 50 percent. It was reenacted in 2008 and then extended four 
times, often as part of a larger stimulus package, most recently at 50 
percent. That expired at the end of 2013.
  Now, when enacted as a temporary measure, there has been bipartisan 
support. However, the bill we have before us intends to make it 
permanent, completely negating the purpose of the bonus depreciation as 
a temporary measure.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into the 
change, and they said, ``Its temporary nature is critical to its 
effectiveness'' and that bonus depreciation ``was enacted for a 
specific, short-term purpose.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now insert the Congressional Research 
Service's report, ``Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary 
Issues,'' from March 24, 2014, into the Record.

[[Page 11660]]



                 [From Congressional Research Service, 
                             Mar. 24, 2014]

           Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues

      (By Jane G. Gravelle, Senior Specialist in Economic Policy)


                                Summary

       The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 (S. 1859), which would extend 
     expiring tax provisions for a year, includes bonus 
     depreciation. The temporary provisions enacted in the past 
     for only a year or two and extended multiple times are 
     generally referred to collectively as the ``extenders.'' One 
     reason advanced for these temporary provisions is that time 
     is needed to evaluate them. Most of these provisions, 
     however, have been extended multiple times, and some suggest 
     that these provisions are actually permanent but are extended 
     a year or two at a time because permanent provisions would 
     significantly increase the costs in the budget horizon. 
     Historically, bonus depreciation has not been a traditional 
     ``extender.''
       Bonus depreciation allows half of equipment investment to 
     be deducted immediately rather than depreciated over a period 
     of time. Bonus depreciation was enacted for a specific, 
     short-term purpose: to provide an economic stimulus during 
     the recession. Most stimulus provisions have expired. Bonus 
     depreciation has been in place six years (2008-2013), 
     contrasted with an earlier use of bonus depreciation in place 
     for three years. Is bonus depreciation temporary or 
     permanent? The analysis of bonus depreciation differs for a 
     temporary stimulus provision, compared to a permanent 
     provision that can affect the size and allocation of the 
     capital stock.
       A temporary investment subsidy was expected to be more 
     effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus, 
     encouraging firms to invest while the benefit was in place. 
     Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. Yet, 
     research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very 
     effective, and probably less effective than the tax cuts or 
     spending increases that have now lapsed.
       If bonus depreciation is made permanent, it increases 
     accelerated depreciation for equipment, contributing to 
     lower, and in some cases more negative, effective tax rates. 
     In contrast, prominent tax reform proposals would reduce 
     accelerated depreciation. Making bonus depreciation a 
     permanent provision would significantly increase its 
     budgetary cost.
       Compared to a statutory corporate tax rate of 35%, bonus 
     depreciation lowers the effective tax rate for equipment from 
     an estimated 26% rate to a 15% rate. Buildings are taxed 
     approximately at the statutory rate. Total tax rates would be 
     slightly higher because of stockholder taxes. Because nominal 
     interest is deducted, however, effective tax rates with debt 
     finance can be negative. For equity assets taxed at an 
     effective rate of 35%, the effective tax rate on debt-
     financed investment is a negative 5%. The rate on equipment 
     without bonus depreciation is minus 19%; with bonus 
     depreciation it is minus 37%.
       If bonus depreciation is permanent, estimates of U.S. 
     effective tax rates reflecting concerns that the U.S. rate is 
     higher than that of other countries overstate the effective 
     U.S. corporate tax rate; U.S. effective tax rates on 
     equipment would be significantly lower than the OECD average.
       Moving to permanent bonus depreciation is inconsistent with 
     tax reform proposals made by the Wyden-Coats bill, the Senate 
     Finance Committee Staff discussion draft, and Chairman Camp's 
     proposal. All of these proposals would reduce the current 
     accelerated depreciation for equipment.
       The usual extenders cost a fraction of the cost of 
     permanent provisions in a 10-year budget window, but bonus 
     depreciation is a smaller fraction because it is a timing 
     provision. A one-year extension costs $5 billion for FY2014-
     FY2024, less than 2% of the cost of $263 billion for a 
     permanent provision.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. What the majority is fond of saying is that this bill 
would bring in $10 billion in revenue. And I heard it over and over 
again at the Rules Committee last night, that we are going to have $10 
billion in revenue. But what they fail to say is that over 10 years, it 
is going to cost us $287 billion, nearly $300 billion, which could buy 
us a lot of high-speed rail, a lot of bridge infrastructure, a lot of 
highway work. But what we are now doing is a permanent subsidy to make 
tax cuts to every business that wants to buy equipment.
  Now, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scored this at $287 
billion over 10 years. We are not making that up. The majority is 
cobbling together a piecemeal approach, and it will not work. We would 
love to have tax reform, we cry out for tax reform, but this isn't it.
  To cap it all off, this is another closed rule. And let me say what 
that means. Even if a Member wanted to offer an amendment to pay for 
the nearly $300 billion cost of this bill--which is the rules under 
which we operate, you know, PAYGO--they wouldn't be allowed.
  There are so many better things to spend that $300 billion on, the 
things that we really need in this country. But the closed rule ensures 
that it would stifle the debate and hijack the process. And, more than 
that, we know the Senate will not take this up.
  So, once again, we are doing a bill that might make some people feel 
good but not if they think about it a little bit. Because even the 
businesses who are going to be prospering from the tax decrease are 
going to be responsible for the loss of $300 billion.
  So with the second bill, which is H.R. 5016, the Financial Services 
Appropriations, the majority is cherry-picking which agencies to fund 
and which to strangle for purely political purposes. They will continue 
chasing down the all-but-defunct IRS conspiracy rabbit, getting funding 
for the IRS but making it so that $2 billion worth of the tax revenue 
will not be collected because they have cut the budget of the IRS so 
much. So add that $2 billion to the $300 billion that we are voting on 
today for depreciation, and add that onto the deficit, too, since it is 
not paid for.
  In addition, as the majority crisscrosses the country touting states' 
rights, they have also put forward legislation that obstructs, once 
again, the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting funding for 
constitutionally protected medical care. The majority insists on 
ensuring that women are second-class citizens, and they continue to 
chip away at our constitutional rights.
  Furthermore, this bill continues to prevent multi-State policies 
under the Affordable Care Act from providing coverage for abortions 
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, except in the most 
desperate of circumstances.
  We need to say over and over again that, of the women in this country 
who are using birth control, 58 percent--more than half of them--are 
using it for medical reasons. And they are being deprived. Mr. Speaker, 
58 percent of the women in this country who are using prescription 
contraception are using it because they have medical issues, and it is 
expensive. But we will not let them get any help because we simply 
don't believe in providing health care for women.
  Government workers deserve the same benefits and the same access to 
comprehensive health care as those in the private sector enjoy. It is, 
in fact, dangerous for the majority to target abortion care and require 
its exclusion from health insurance plans that include other important 
and necessary reproductive health services. Women expect and deserve 
the best health care and coverage that fits their needs.
  And let's remember that 58 percent of the women who use oral 
contraceptives use them for medical purposes, not just for birth 
control.
  I would like to be able to say that women should expect their 
government to be able to put their health and safety above election-
year politics, but this is what we have come to expect here. Women 
deserve better. But I am afraid in the House, women's rights, again, 
continue to be undermined. Time and again, we have prioritized in this 
House--some of us--politics over people.
  Let me mention the veterans, for example. Listen to this. This is 
really important to know. While those veterans who have served and 
sacrificed for our country are waiting months in line for medical care, 
the House majority will spend more money investigating and trying to 
debunk a nonexistent Benghazi scandal than helping our veterans get the 
care they need. That is right. The committee investigating Benghazi has 
a much larger budget than the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If that is 
not a political statement, I don't know what is.
  And I need to point out that just yesterday, transcripts from the 
Armed Services Committee about Benghazi proved that everything that 
could have been done was done.
  And I know that when I last did the rule on the floor on the special 
Benghazi committee that I received a call from the mother of one of the

[[Page 11661]]

Navy SEALs that died, saying that she really wished the Congress would 
stop dragging their family back through that horror. They know what 
happened.
  Instead of working on the real problems--and we have got them--they 
are finding time to sue the President for doing his job, to hold vote 
after vote to repeal ObamaCare. And let's remember the shutdown of the 
government that took $24 billion in that short time out of this 
economy.
  So we come here to make things better. And with these actions and 
with this behavior, we make things worse.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As usual, my friend is a sharp and acute debater and makes points 
over a broad number of issues.
  I do want to say, for the record, I am not such a great businessman, 
but I have a great business partner who has been my partner for 25 
years. She is the managing partner. She made the call. And I have been 
very fortunate to be friends and partners with her for many, many 
years.
  I think she probably moved as quickly as she did because she didn't 
think the government would have the good sense to keep this open. But 
the fact is, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have done bonus 
depreciation. When my friends were in the majority, they continued to 
routinely extend it themselves.
  And after more than a decade, it has become, frankly, pretty much a 
permanent feature of our Tax Code. Now it is not so permanent that you 
can absolutely rely on it in the business sense. But I still accept the 
argument, after something that has been repeatedly confirmed by both 
sides, and both sides have repeatedly extended it and made it 
effectively permanent, we ought to go ahead and provide business with 
that certainty. Again, we will have a debate on that, and that is 
appropriate.
  The second point I want to discuss, where I do differ with my friend 
a little bit: look, we always quibble no matter who is in the majority 
over how open the process is and how much the minority is allowed to 
participate in it. When we do that, we usually need to remember, if we 
are in the minority, what our record was when we were in the majority.
  I want to remind my friends on the other side that throughout the 
111th Congress, the final 2 years of their time in the majority, the 
House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the 
definition of a closed process. On the contrary, under Republican 
control, the House has returned to the consideration of appropriations 
bills under an open process, with 22 open rules.
  Again, I was on the Appropriations Committee when my friends took the 
opportunity that every Member enjoys, to come down and participate in 
the appropriations process, away from everyone--their side and our side 
alike.
  Additionally, the Congress has allowed under our control more than 
1,000 amendments to be offered on the House floor, including a total of 
488 amendments offered by Democrats and another 137 bipartisan 
amendments. Forty percent of all submitted amendments have been made in 
order. Compare that to our friends, who made only 17 percent in order 
under their majority regime in the 111th Congress.
  So when you actually compare the record of the Republican majority to 
the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis would show that 
Republicans are running a far more open and transparent House. I think 
that is something that my friends need to recall when they raise this 
particular critique.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my good friend from New York for yielding 
and for her work on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, A Congress controlled by Members trying to reduce the 
Federal footprint at every turn ought to be the first to reject two 
amendments in the Financial Services appropriation, which fly in the 
face of their own core philosophy.
  First is the abortion amendment that would keep the District of 
Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income 
women.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, 17 States that are represented in this House spend their 
own local funds in this way, and we are determined to fight until the 
district's low-income women have the same reproductive health rights as 
the women who live in those 17 States.
  There is a second bill--a second amendment that targets the District 
of Columbia and its marijuana decriminalization law at the same time 
that the States are rapidly moving in the same direction.
  Eighteen of them, before the District even got there, have 
decriminalized marijuana. Two States have legalized marijuana, 23 
States have legalized medical marijuana, and a recent Pew Research poll 
found that more than half of the American people support marijuana 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment that targets the District of Columbia is 
authored by Representative Andy Harris of Maryland. Maryland is one of 
the States that has decriminalized marijuana.
  Now, he couldn't convince his own State, where the voters are 
accountable to him, not to decriminalize marijuana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the generosity of the ranking member.
  He wants to come to this floor and try to convince this body, where 
not a single Member is accountable to the residents of the District of 
Columbia, that it should not allow the District to decriminalize its 
marijuana laws. I don't know why the Members from those 18 States have 
decriminalized, but let me tell you why they were decriminalized in the 
District of Columbia. They were decriminalized for racial justice 
reasons. We discovered, through a scientific study, that African 
Americans were eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana 
possession than Whites, even though Whites and Blacks in the District 
of Columbia and in the United States of America use marijuana at the 
same rate.
  Forty years ago, this Congress passed the Home Rule Act leaving local 
matters to the District of Columbia, just like your local matters are 
left home. We demand the same respect for local control for the 
District of Columbia residents who are full American citizens, like 
everybody else who represents people on this floor.
  We demand that our American citizens have the same respect for their 
local control that on this floor, that every day, you demand for your 
own residents.
  I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the District 
of Columbia. She does a tremendous job representing her community, and 
she is an articulate and able Member of this body. It is true. We do 
have an unusual degree of authority as Congress over the Capital of the 
United States. That is a constitutional issue and an article I, section 
8 issue.
  Being the Capital brings great privileges and benefits to Washington, 
but it also, unquestionably, at times, brings some difficulties and 
some strains as well; so we all--whoever is in the majority--try to 
manage that as best they can.
  In terms of the abortion issue, the language in this bill that 
applies to D.C., as I understand it, has been pretty routine under both 
Democrats and Republicans over the years, and so that is my 
understanding of that issue.
  On the marijuana issue, the Federal prohibition here has existed for 
many years and was actually proposed in the President's budget. The 
amendment that was offered and adopted in the

[[Page 11662]]

committee--and there was a very spirited debate about this by Dr. 
Harris--does add new language to prohibit local funds for recreational 
use of marijuana. The intent is to prevent D.C. from legalizing 
marijuana for recreational use.
  D.C. has enacted a law which makes possession of small amounts of 
marijuana a civil offense, carrying a $25 fine, and that goes into 
effect later this month.
  In November, D.C. may have a ballot initiative to legalize possession 
of small amounts. I suspect this will be an ongoing discussion and 
concern between the Congress and the community.
  Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman 
for yielding.
  First, let me set straight that the District of Columbia gets not one 
single benefit that any other Member who pays taxes--except we pay 
taxes without representation--not one single benefit that is any 
different from what other members get.
  Secondly, on marijuana decriminalization, I respect the differences 
we have there, and the States are experimenting now. The District has 
only decriminalized marijuana, and recently, a member of the council 
introduced an amendment--which I bet you the other 18 States have not 
done--to educate our young people about marijuana, so that they don't 
go off and try it.
  Nobody is for smoking marijuana--I wish we hadn't smoked all those 
cigarettes, there would be millions of people alive if we hadn't--but 
we really don't want to see people go to jail for possessing marijuana, 
and we don't want to live in a city where the only people who get 
arrested for possessing marijuana are people who look like me.
  This is a city full of college students. They don't get arrested. 
Those who get arrested are African Americans because the police patrol 
those areas more sternly than others. We are asking for racial justice, 
but above all, we are asking for local control.
  I want to say one thing about your citing of the Constitution. You 
are absolutely right. The Constitution gives the Congress control, but 
Congress passed, 40 years ago, the Home Rule Act, and that Home Rule 
Act was Congress' understanding that there ought to be no Members of 
this House who don't have total control over their own local money and 
over their own local affairs.
  We ask for the same respect, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the points 
that she made. I would just say that, again, this is going to be an 
ongoing source of tension--it has been.
  To clarify, when I said the Capital benefits, I meant to imply in no 
way that citizens here don't have the same obligations, same 
responsibilities, and bear the same burdens. I happen to have two 
wonderful military bases in my facility. We think we are privileged to 
host them. We derive considerable benefit and employment from their 
presence.
  I will note, just as the gentlewoman suggests, we pay taxes, too. We 
are American citizens, and those weren't put there for our benefit. 
They were put there for the purposes of defending the country, but we 
are happy to have them.
  I suggest there is probably a lot of that same pride in this 
community for hosting the Capital of the United States, so that was my 
intent in that remark.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if my friend has any more requests for 
time?
  Mr. COLE. I do not.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. We are going to call for the previous question, Mr. 
Speaker, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the legislation that would treat 
wildfires like similar major natural disasters and ensure that money 
intended for managing public lands is actually used for that purpose.
  It is time to make commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal on wildfires, I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank my good friend for yielding that time.
  Mr. Speaker, sometime in the end of July or, at the latest, very 
early August, the inadequate budget for forest firefighting for the 
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service will be exhausted--
that's right, exhausted.
  We are going to be at a point where there will be fires raging across 
the West. We are looking at record drought, record dry fuels, and you 
will be able, probably, to smell or see the smoke across a lot of the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be doing everything we can to prepare for this 
and prevent this in the future, and that is the crux of this argument. 
We are not going to stop fighting fires. They can't because the forests 
will burn and people will die. No, we are going to stop it, but they 
will borrow from and decimate every other account in their budgets.
  Forty percent of the Forest Service budget goes to fighting fires on 
an annual basis, which means every year we repeat this little Groundhog 
Day thing. They have to suspend the programs that would prevent future 
forest fires--that is fuel reduction programs, forest health programs.
  They have to cut into the recreation budget and all of the other 
activities and things that they must do--cut into their timber 
management program, everything gets decimated--and the money just goes 
to fight fires.
  We have the rarest of rare things here: a bicameral, bipartisan bill 
that is supported by the President of the United States. What else in 
this town is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the President?
  Mr. Speaker, this should be a no-brainer. I have asked for hearings 
in the committee on the coming catastrophe this summer. No hearings 
have been held. We have legislation with 100 cosponsors--no action, no 
hearing, and no action on that bill.
  We need this funding this month, and that way, the Forest Service 
won't have to decimate the programs that would prevent or mitigate 
future forest fires. So, come on, guys, let's wake up, smell the smoke, 
and do what is right and needs to be done--an adequate budget to fight 
the catastrophic forest fires across the Western United States.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, San Diego and the entire State 
of California are facing a prolonged drought that is placing us at 
increased risk for wildfires. We are currently in the midst of what is 
expected to be one of the longest and hardest wildfire seasons in 
recent memory.
  That is why I also agree that we have to take action immediately to 
ensure adequate funding for wildfires by bringing to the floor H.R. 
3992, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014.
  It is a bipartisan bill with dozens of sponsors from both sides of 
the aisle. It is fiscally responsible and has broad support from 
Washington and beyond.
  Mr. Speaker, in May, San Diego saw an early start to fire season, 
when nearly a dozen wildfires erupted over a 5-day period, burning 
27,000 acres and destroying 65 homes. Every day, communities in the 
region are at risk of wildfires.
  This is an elongated fire season. We are not used to seeing these 
kinds of events in San Diego until September or October. That means 
that the cost to contain fires and the damage they cause will increase, 
and it makes it vital that we provide sufficient funds for officials to 
respond to them.
  So we need to make the existing disaster contingency fund open to 
cover part of the cost of wildfire response. I have seen the impact of 
catastrophic wildfires firsthand. It is clear to me that wildfires 
should be treated the same as other natural disasters like hurricanes 
or tornadoes or Superstorm Sandy.

[[Page 11663]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we change the law in this way on which 
there is an agreement, so that natural disasters include wildfires and 
allow our States and localities to access the necessary funds, without 
forcing us to choose between disaster relief and disaster prevention, 
which is a silly budget policy, but the one we are following today.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
amend the rule, so we can bring up H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster 
Funding Act of 2014. We can bring it to the floor for a vote today.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the last two speakers, 
in terms of the substance of their argument. I happen to be a cosponsor 
of that legislation, which is proposed by my good friend, Mr. Simpson, 
and I think they are discussing a very real and very important issue, 
and this is an issue where there is considerable bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I probably will end up opposing the manner in which you 
are going to try and bring this to the floor, but I do think it needs 
to come to the floor. There is an orderly process to do that. There are 
discussions underway to continue to work on it; but, again, my friend 
makes a very good point.
  I have tried consistently during my tenure here, no matter who is in 
control, to recognize that, when we have disasters, that people who are 
dealing with them need immediate help, and you need to vote accordingly 
and try and make that occur.

                              {time}  1315

  I sit on the Interior Subcommittee where we wrestle with this funding 
issue that both of my friends brought up, and they are precisely right. 
Since you can't predict a fire, you can't produce the amount, we end up 
treating fires differently than every other kind of disaster and we 
savage the normal budget process and actually drain a lot of accounts, 
accounts that in some cases would help us prevent future fires by 
helping us get rid of hazard fuel buildup in forests and things of that 
nature.
  Again, I think my friends make a good point. I think we are going to 
continue to work on this in a bipartisan manner. I hope we will get 
there.
  I will note for the Record that when we were actually considering the 
Republican budget, we were engaged on that committee, which I sit on as 
a representative from Appropriations, in discussions with one of our 
Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle about bringing an 
amendment and actually writing it in the budget. We had Republicans 
prepared at that point to vote for that amendment in sufficient 
numbers. The White House, I was told, was actually in favor of doing 
that. For whatever reason, the decision was made not to do that. Again, 
I cast no aspersions here, but I think we probably missed a more 
appropriate opportunity of actually cementing it down.
  But I will say this: both of my friends have my commitment to 
continue to try and work with them and find an appropriate vehicle and 
appropriate time to get this done. I appreciate very, very much the 
fact that you came to the floor and brought it up and reminded us of 
how significant an issue this is. This is something we should be able 
to work across the aisle and accomplish. I thank my friend.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is prepared to close, I 
will close.
  Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority continues to choose politics over people, 
create problems instead of solving them, and insist on silencing debate 
in the Chamber. It is time to consider the real problems facing the 
country, and with summer comes the destructive fire season that affects 
so many of my colleagues' districts.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and move to 
consider the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to make the commonsense 
changes in the Federal wildfire budget.
  Mr. 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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that one of the basic 
functions of Congress is to actually fund the government. This rule 
would continue that process for consideration of appropriations bills 
for fiscal year 2015. In addition, it would allow for consideration of 
legislation that makes bonuses depreciation permanent, a provision that 
has existed as part of our Tax Code under both Democrats and 
Republicans since 2002.
  I have enjoyed the debate. As always, I appreciate exchanging views 
with my good friend from New York, by way of Kentucky, two States 
blessed, and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 661 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     3992) to provide for wildfire suppression operations, 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 among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Agriculture, and the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3992.
                                  ____


        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]

[[Page 11664]]

     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 [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. Mr. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________