[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11813-11825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             BONUS DEPRECIATION MODIFIED AND MADE PERMANENT

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 661, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4718) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
modify and make permanent bonus depreciation, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
661, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in House Report 113-517, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4718

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

     SECTION 1. BONUS DEPRECIATION MODIFIED AND MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) Made Permanent; Inclusion of Qualified Retail 
     Improvement Property.--Section 168(k)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualified property.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means 
     property--
       ``(i)(I) to which this section applies which has a recovery 
     period of 20 years or less,
       ``(II) which is computer software (as defined in section 
     167(f)(1)(B)) for which a deduction is allowable under 
     section 167(a) without regard to this subsection,
       ``(III) which is water utility property,
       ``(IV) which is qualified leasehold improvement property, 
     or
       ``(V) which is qualified retail improvement property, and
       ``(ii) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(B) Exception for alternative depreciation property.--The 
     term `qualified property' shall not include any property to 
     which the alternative depreciation system under subsection 
     (g) applies, determined--
       ``(i) without regard to paragraph (7) of subsection (g) 
     (relating to election to have system apply), and
       ``(ii) after application of section 280F(b) (relating to 
     listed property with limited business use).
       ``(C) Special rules.--
       ``(i) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of clause (ii) and 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), if property is--

       ``(I) originally placed in service by a person, and
       ``(II) sold and leased back by such person within 3 months 
     after the date such property was originally placed in 
     service,

     such property shall be treated as originally placed in 
     service not earlier than the date on which such property is 
     used under the leaseback referred to in subclause (II).
       ``(ii) Syndication.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     if--

       ``(I) property is originally placed in service by the 
     lessor of such property,
       ``(II) such property is sold by such lessor or any 
     subsequent purchaser within 3 months after the date such 
     property was originally placed in service (or, in the case of 
     multiple units of property subject to the same lease, within 
     3 months after the date the final unit is placed in service, 
     so long as the period between the time the first unit is 
     placed in service and the time the last unit is placed in 
     service does not exceed 12 months), and
       ``(III) the user of such property after the last sale 
     during such 3-month period remains the same as when such 
     property was originally placed in service,

     such property shall be treated as originally placed in 
     service not earlier than the date of such last sale.
       ``(D) Coordination with section 280f.--For purposes of 
     section 280F--
       ``(i) Automobiles.--In the case of a passenger automobile 
     (as defined in section 280F(d)(5)) which is qualified 
     property, the Secretary shall increase the limitation under 
     section 280F(a)(1)(A)(i) by $8,000.
       ``(ii) Listed property.--The deduction allowable under 
     paragraph (1) shall be taken into account in computing any 
     recapture amount under section 280F(b)(2).
       ``(iii) Inflation adjustment.-- In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2014, the $8,000 
     amount in clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal 
     to--

       ``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(II) the automobile price inflation adjustment determined 
     under section 280F(d)(7)(B)(i) for the calendar year in which 
     such taxable year begins by substituting `2013' for `1987' in 
     subclause (II) thereof.

      If any increase under the preceding sentence is not a 
     multiple of $100, such increase shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(E) Deduction allowed in computing minimum tax.--For 
     purposes of determining alternative minimum taxable income 
     under section 55, the deduction under section 167 for 
     qualified property shall be determined without regard to any 
     adjustment under section 56.''.
       (b) Expansion of Election to Accelerate Amt Credits in Lieu 
     of Bonus Depreciation.--Section 168(k)(4) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Election to accelerate amt credits in lieu of bonus 
     depreciation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a corporation elects to have this 
     paragraph apply for any taxable year--
       ``(i) paragraphs (1)(A), (2)(D)(i), and (5)(A)(i) shall not 
     apply for such taxable year,
       ``(ii) the applicable depreciation method used under this 
     section with respect to any qualified property shall be the 
     straight line method, and
       ``(iii) the limitation imposed by section 53(c) for such 
     taxable year shall be increased by the bonus depreciation 
     amount which is determined for such taxable year under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Bonus depreciation amount.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The bonus depreciation amount for any 
     taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the excess 
     (if any) of--

       ``(I) the aggregate amount of depreciation which would be 
     allowed under this section for qualified property placed in 
     service by the taxpayer during such taxable year if paragraph 
     (1) applied to all such property, over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of depreciation which would be 
     allowed under this section for qualified property placed in 
     service by the taxpayer during such taxable year if

[[Page 11814]]

     paragraph (1) did not apply to any such property.

     The aggregate amounts determined under subclauses (I) and 
     (II) shall be determined without regard to any election made 
     under subsection (b)(2)(D), (b)(3)(D), or (g)(7) and without 
     regard to subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The bonus depreciation amount for any 
     taxable year shall not exceed the lesser of--

       ``(I) 50 percent of the minimum tax credit under section 
     53(b) for the first taxable year ending after December 31, 
     2013, or
       ``(II) the minimum tax credit under section 53(b) for such 
     taxable year determined by taking into account only the 
     adjusted net minimum tax for taxable years ending before 
     January 1, 2014 (determined by treating credits as allowed on 
     a first-in, first-out basis).

       ``(iii) Aggregation rule.--All corporations which are 
     treated as a single employer under section 52(a) shall be 
     treated--

       ``(I) as 1 taxpayer for purposes of this paragraph, and
       ``(II) as having elected the application of this paragraph 
     if any such corporation so elects.

       ``(C) Credit refundable.--For purposes of section 6401(b), 
     the aggregate increase in the credits allowable under part IV 
     of subchapter A for any taxable year resulting from the 
     application of this paragraph shall be treated as allowed 
     under subpart C of such part (and not any other subpart).
       ``(D) Other rules.--
       ``(i) Election.--Any election under this paragraph may be 
     revoked only with the consent of the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Partnerships with electing partners.--In the case of 
     a corporation which is a partner in a partnership and which 
     makes an election under subparagraph (A) for the taxable 
     year, for purposes of determining such corporation's 
     distributive share of partnership items under section 702 for 
     such taxable year--

       ``(I) paragraphs (1)(A), (2)(D)(i), and (5)(A)(i) shall not 
     apply, and
       ``(II) the applicable depreciation method used under this 
     section with respect to any qualified property shall be the 
     straight line method.

       ``(iii) Certain partnerships.--In the case of a partnership 
     in which more than 50 percent of the capital and profits 
     interests are owned (directly or indirectly) at all times 
     during the taxable year by 1 corporation (or by corporations 
     treated as 1 taxpayer under subparagraph (B)(iii)), each 
     partner shall compute its bonus depreciation amount under 
     clause (i) of subparagraph (B) by taking into account its 
     distributive share of the amounts determined by the 
     partnership under subclauses (I) and (II) of such clause for 
     the taxable year of the partnership ending with or within the 
     taxable year of the partner.''.
       (c) Special Rules for Trees and Vines Bearing Fruits and 
     Nuts.--Section 168(k) of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5), and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Special rules for trees and vines bearing fruits and 
     nuts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any tree or vine bearing 
     fruits or nuts which is planted, or is grafted to a plant 
     that has already been planted, by the taxpayer in the 
     ordinary course of the taxpayer's farming business (as 
     defined in section 263A(e)(4))--
       ``(i) a depreciation deduction equal to 50 percent of the 
     adjusted basis of such tree or vine shall be allowed under 
     section 167(a) for the taxable year in which such tree or 
     vine is so planted or grafted, and
       ``(ii) the adjusted basis of such tree or vine shall be 
     reduced by the amount of such deduction.
       ``(B) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under 
     this subparagraph for any taxable year, this paragraph shall 
     not apply to any tree or vine planted or grafted during such 
     taxable year. An election under this subparagraph may be 
     revoked only with the consent of the Secretary.
       ``(C) Additional depreciation may be claimed only once.--If 
     this paragraph applies to any tree or vine, such tree or vine 
     shall not be treated as qualified property in the taxable 
     year in which placed in service.
       ``(D) Coordination with election to accelerate amt 
     credits.--If a corporation makes an election under paragraph 
     (4) for any taxable year, the amount under paragraph 
     (4)(B)(i)(I) for such taxable year shall be increased by the 
     amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) for such taxable 
     year.
       ``(E) Deduction allowed in computing minimum tax.--Rules 
     similar to the rules of paragraph (2)(E) shall apply for 
     purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 168(e)(8) of such Code is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (D).
       (2) Section 168(k) of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under 
     this paragraph with respect to any class of property for any 
     taxable year, this subsection shall not apply to all property 
     in such class placed in service (or, in the case of paragraph 
     (5), planted or grafted) during such taxable year. An 
     election under this paragraph may be revoked only with the 
     consent of the Secretary.''.
       (3) Section 168(l)(5) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 168(k)(2)(G)'' and inserting ``section 
     168(k)(2)(E)''.
       (4) Section 263A(c) of such Code is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Coordination with section 168(k)(5).--This section 
     shall not apply to any amount allowable as a deduction by 
     reason of section 168(k)(5) (relating to special rules for 
     trees and vines bearing fruits and nuts).''.
       (5) Section 460(c)(6)(B) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``which--'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``which has a recovery period of 7 years or less.''.
       (6) Section 168(k) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``Acquired After December 31, 2007, and Before January 1, 
     2014'' in the heading thereof.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to property placed in service after December 31, 2013.
       (2) Expansion of election to accelerate amt credits in lieu 
     of bonus depreciation.--
       (A) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     (other than so much of such amendment as relates to section 
     168(k)(4)(D)(iii) of such Code, as added by such amendment) 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.
       (B) Transitional rule.--In the case of a taxable year 
     beginning before January 1, 2014, and ending after December 
     31, 2013, the bonus depreciation amount determined under 
     section 168(k)(4) of such Code for such year shall be the sum 
     of--
       (i) such amount determined without regard to the amendments 
     made by this section and--

       (I) by taking into account only property placed in service 
     before January 1, 2014, and
       (II) by multiplying the limitation under section 
     168(k)(4)(C)(ii) of such Code (determined without regard to 
     the amendments made by this section) by a fraction the 
     numerator of which is the number of days in the taxable year 
     before January 1, 2014, and the denominator of which is the 
     number of days in the taxable year, and

       (ii) such amount determined after taking into account the 
     amendments made by this section and--

       (I) by taking into account only property placed in service 
     after December 31, 2013, and
       (II) by multiplying the limitation under section 
     168(k)(4)(B)(ii) of such Code (as amended by this section) by 
     a fraction the numerator of which is the number of days in 
     the taxable year after December 31, 2013, and the denominator 
     of which is the number of days in the taxable year.

       (3) Special rules for certain trees and vines.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (c)(2) shall apply to trees and 
     vines planted or grafted after December 31, 2013.

     SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on H.R. 4718.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our current Tax Code is a wet blanket on this economy. It puts our 
businesses, their workers, and their products at a severe disadvantage. 
In this current climate, businesses aren't growing and hardworking 
Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer hours.
  Adding insult to injury, the United States is the only country that 
allows important pieces of its Tax Code to expire. The result: 
businesses and their workers are left constantly guessing whether 
certain policies will be around next year, hurting their ability to 
plan for the future.
  The National Association of Manufacturers told Congress that the 
``expiration of bonus depreciation at the end of 2013 has had a 
chilling effect on the

[[Page 11815]]

economy.'' This statement is clearly supported by the fact that for the 
first 3 months of 2014 total capital investment across the country fell 
by almost 12 percent, a major factor in why the entire U.S. economy 
contracted by nearly 3 percent.
  A survey of NAM members found that nearly a third of business owners 
would not make any investments this year without bonus depreciation and 
section 79 expensing, which the House voted on a bipartisan basis to 
make permanent in May.
  The legislation we have before us today would provide a permanent 50 
percent bonus depreciation deduction and make the deduction available 
to more farmers and business owners across the country.
  In Congress, we always find a way to make things more complicated, 
but today we can enact a simple, bipartisan provision that provides an 
immediate incentive for businesses to invest and hire new workers. 
Bonus depreciation has received longstanding bipartisan support and has 
been renewed on a short-term basis 9 out of the last 12 years. After so 
many years of this policy being in place, it is time for us to agree 
that we should make it permanent so businesses can do what they do 
best: invest in the economy and hire new workers.
  The effects of making bonus depreciation permanent are real. Analysis 
done by the Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation 
would grow the economy by 1 percent, which would add $182 billion to 
the economy; would increase capital stock by over 3 percent; would 
increase wages by about 1 percent, or $500 for an individual making 
$50,000 a year; and would create 212,000 jobs.
  Growing a healthier economy, creating jobs, and helping Americans see 
bigger paychecks is exactly what this country needs.
  Making 50 percent bonus depreciation permanent is supported by 
associations representing a variety of industries: farmers, 
telecommunications, manufacturers, energy, construction, retailers, and 
technology. Over 100 groups have voiced their support for bonus 
depreciation stating that it ``will provide an immediate incentive for 
businesses to make additional capital investments, thereby boosting the 
U.S. economy and job creation.''
  This provision has gained strong bipartisan support in the past, as 
have many of the permanent tax policies the House has voted on this 
year. By making longstanding features of the Tax Code permanent, we can 
facilitate a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code. Such an overhaul 
in turn will create an America that works with a strong, vibrant 
economy. Today's vote will bring the immediate economic relief so many 
businesses and hardworking taxpayers are asking for.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in making a stronger, healthier 
economy by passing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Budget 
Act of 1974. If you look at section 311, it is entitled, ``Enforcement 
of Budget Aggregates.''
  The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, violates that section of the Budget 
Act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth 
in the Republican budget that was passed on this House floor with much 
fanfare on May 15. The bill before us does not keep the revenues at 
those levels.
  I would like, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this point of order, to 
point out that on May 15 of this year Chairman Ryan, chairman of the 
Budget Committee, filed a statement in the Congressional Record 
reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the 
remainder of the budget window.

                              {time}  0915

  And this is what he said when he filed that. This is, Mr. Speaker, in 
the Record of May 15, page H4428. This is what Mr. Ryan said:
  ``This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget 
Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach 
the budget resolution's aggregate levels.''
  This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, clearly 
violates that provision of the statute of section 311(a) of the Budget 
Act because it increases the deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion 
above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this House. It 
is a clear breach of the rule.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be sustained and that 
the House Republicans have to live up to their own budget resolution 
which, as I say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the gentleman's position 
has absolutely no merit after the failures of this administration to 
grow the economy and create jobs. We have an economy that is 
contracting. We have more kids living at home than ever before. We have 
real wages declining.
  After the failure of the policies of this administration to get the 
economy moving----
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAMP. I do not yield.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will suspend.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to direct his comments to the 
point of order?
  Mr. CAMP. I do.
  After the failures of the policies of this administration, the House 
has spoken, and the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order, the 
gentleman from Michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues 
raised in the point of order.
  I would ask the gentleman about section 311(a) of the Budget Act, 
which is what this point of order is based on. Let's talk about the 
point of order.
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee voted for the House 
Budget Act. He voted for it, and now he is bringing to the floor of the 
House a provision that violates the same Budget Act that that budget 
was passed pursuant to.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order 
because what we have here is a situation where Republicans came to this 
House floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the 
floor today with another bill that violates the Budget Act's section 
311(a).
  So I would like a ruling on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Maryland makes a point of order against 
consideration of the bill. Any such point of order is untimely at this 
point. The gentleman from Maryland is free to engage in debate on the 
bill.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Is the point of order as a result of the fact that 
the Republicans apparently passed a rule that waives section 311(a) of 
the Budget Act?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The legislation before the House is already 
under consideration. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is not 
timely. The gentleman's point of order would have had to have been made 
before the legislation was being considered.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Did the Republican rule--the rule that was brought to 
the floor of the House--include a provision that waived section 311(a) 
of the Budget Act?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may consult House Resolution 
661 for the answer to that question.

[[Page 11816]]


  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am looking at that, and it does indicate to me that 
the House Republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that 
requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their 
own budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry. The gentleman was free to make those points during debate 
either on the rule or during the consideration of the legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just would point out, Mr. Speaker, that here is 
exactly what happened. The rule----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will suspend.
  The gentleman from Maryland is not recognized.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Van Hollen raises such an important point. What is being done 
here is totally inconsistent, and I will come to that a bit later, but 
what is really important today about this bill is not what is being 
done here, but what is not being done here.
  Mr. Van Hollen points out how inconsistent this bill is. But no 
matter how inconsistent, it is going nowhere. And it should go nowhere.
  Essentially, what it does is to make permanent what has always been 
considered temporary. Bonus depreciation, which has been temporarily 
enacted during the previous two recessions to help assist the economy 
during the short term--that is what it has been--allows companies to 
write off investments more quickly than normal, providing them an 
incentive to make capital investments now rather than later. And that 
incentive actually disappears when the provision is made permanent. 
That is why CRS has said its temporary nature ``is critical to its 
effectiveness.''
  Secondly, it is unpaid for. Talk about consistency, talk about a 
budget bill that talks about the importance of deficit reduction, and 
here you have the Republicans proposing a bill that would add $287 
billion in debt. That would bring the total of the bills that the 
Republicans have brought forth here to over $500 billion.
  When all is said and done, House Republicans will have added more 
than $1 trillion to the deficit by permanently extending a select group 
of corporate tax cuts.
  But let me just say I must confess I am amazed at the inconsistency 
of this position. It was 5 months ago in the chairman's and the 
Republican Ways and Means draft that they proposed to eliminate this 
provision entirely. Bonus depreciation was gone. And now they come 
forth and they say, Let's make it permanent.
  That gives inconsistency a bad name. It is appalling. It is really 
also dangerous. And let me indicate why.
  The more than $500 billion in tax spending that the House Republicans 
will have approved today is the equivalent of what we spent last year 
on all nondefense domestic discretionary spending, which Republicans 
have cut so deeply in recent years that it is at its lowest level on 
record as a percentage of GDP. That includes spending for such vital 
domestic priorities as health research, food safety, and veterans' 
health.
  Left unaddressed in this approach with the Republicans are key 
domestic priorities such as the New Markets Tax Credit, the Work 
Opportunity Tax Credit, and the renewable energy tax credits.
  So here we are.
  Unfortunately, this bill is going nowhere. There likely will be an 
extension of bonus depreciation in an extender package, if we ever get 
to it, but for a short period of time, costing a fraction of this bill.
  So what is really important today is not a bill that is going 
nowhere--and should go nowhere--but for what is not being done.
  I just want to list what is not being done.
  We have immigration reform. A Senate bill is not being brought up by 
the House Republicans. On unemployment insurance, a Senate bill 
providing help for those looking for work is not brought up here.
  The employment nondiscrimination bill, the Senate bill is not brought 
up here. Paycheck fairness is not bring brought up. A minimum wage bill 
is not brought up.
  We have the Ex-Im Bank caught in the contest and the conflicts within 
the Republican Conference. We also have a highway bill we are going to 
get next week with another patch because of the inability of the House 
Republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill. And 
voting rights reform, you have a bill sponsored by a senior Republican 
in this House, and it has not seen the light of day.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish by saying how appalling it is 
that the Republicans come forth and say, Let's make it permanent, 
unpaid for, costing $287 billion, when in the proposal that they put 
forth, this provision would have been eliminated.
  That is 180 degrees in a split second. It just shows, I think, the 
hypocrisy of bringing this bill up, made especially hypocritical when 
there has been this utter failure to address all of these other 
legislative proposals, many of which have passed the Senate.
  So we are going through the motions here today. It is really a sad 
moment for this institution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Tiberi) control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Chairman Camp, for your leadership on this 
important issue and your leadership on the tax-writing committee. If we 
would have had similar leadership in the Senate and at the White House, 
we would have a different discussion today, and that would be one on 
comprehensive tax reform.
  Unfortunately, we are not having that discussion because there hasn't 
been leadership. In fact, there has been zero leadership from this 
White House. And after 5\1/2\ years of this President being in the 
White House, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for this 
economy. Taxes are higher. We have more regulations. We have an economy 
that is sputtering along. In fact, the facts are that the first quarter 
of this year, our economy retracted.
  This bill is a jobs bill. It is that simple. It is a jobs bill. We 
have had bonus depreciation since 2002. This isn't new. It has been in 
the Tax Code under temporary law since 2002, and extended many times--
many times, retroactively. It expired, ladies and gentlemen, in 
December.
  I was talking to a CFO of a large American manufacturer this week, 
and he said to me, You understand that when you retroactively do this, 
it doesn't help our economy.

                              {time}  0930

  When you only do it, in essence, for 1 year, which is the narrative 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle are acquiescing to, in 
that this is a fruitless waste of time because we should just accept 
the Senate bill that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee at the 
end of the year, which will retroactively extend bonus depreciation 
back to January of this year for another year--next year, 2015--that 
doesn't do a whole lot to grow our economy.
  It is better than a sharp stick in the eye, 1 year; yet, if you talk 
to a CFO, like I did this week and as I have over and over and over 
again, a business plan is for several years.
  When a business owner who is a manufacturer buys a piece of machinery 
to make a widget, it costs a lot of money. This expense is 50 percent 
of that, Mr. Speaker.
  Guess what? You can make more widgets, and you can hire a new 
employee. The new employee makes

[[Page 11817]]

money, pays taxes to the city of Columbus, pays taxes to the State of 
Ohio, pays taxes to the Federal Government--more tax revenue, a job, 
more jobs.
  That is why hundreds of businesses and organizations are for this 
piece of legislation, which has been around--unpaid for--for 10 years.
  I mean, think of the logic here, ladies and gentlemen. If we extend 
spending, we tell the American people that it doesn't cost them any 
more money. If we extend a current tax cut--so stopping a tax hike--it 
costs them more money. That is Washington, D.C., math. It makes no 
sense. That is the inconsistency.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this is about jobs; this is about 
our economy. This is bipartisan. It doesn't need to be partisan. I have 
said before that I don't want to give up my voting card to the U.S. 
Senate. Let the House speak.
  Let's have a good, old-fashioned conference committee. I don't expect 
I will get my way. I know Chairman Camp doesn't expect he will get his 
way. We will have a good, old-fashioned compromise. I know that is a 
dirty word sometimes around here.
  As my sixth grade daughter says: Isn't it supposed to work where the 
House passes a bill, and the Senate passes a bill, then you kind of 
work out the differences, and it goes to the President?
  Yes, Angelina, that is the way it is supposed to work.
  I wish the folks on the other side of the aisle would allow us to 
change this narrative of the Senate won't accept this, so let's just 
take the Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), another member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans say they would like to help, 
but they claim we just don't have enough resources for medical research 
in order to address cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, 
multiple sclerosis, and other dread diseases--diabetes, for example.
  Wildfire season is approaching, and there are not enough resources to 
begin planning to prevent those wildfires because there is not enough 
money to actually address the fires when they begin, and delay is 
occurring.
  We have hurricane season and tornadoes all over the country, but 
there is not enough money for the National Weather Service to give us 
all of the details we need.
  Only yesterday, we learned that Republicans were refusing, once 
again, to correct the bankrupt transportation fund. The best they can 
do is postpone the bankruptcy into next year--after the election--as 
our highways crumble and bridges literally fall down.
  As for the comprehensive safety inspection of our food and our drugs, 
they would like to do it, but there is just not enough money, and there 
are not enough funds available to monitor effectively infectious 
diseases or to produce vaccines to stop other diseases.
  There is not enough to adequately staff our Federal prisons. There is 
not enough to fully fund Federal law enforcement. There is certainly 
not enough to provide strong, effective foster care for the many 
children, after having been abused and neglected, who are removed from 
their homes.
  As for workforce development, so that we can be competitive with our 
friends abroad, there doesn't seem to be the resource to permit 
children from pre-K to postgrad to achieve their full God-given 
potential.
  While there are so many vital needs that we just don't seem to have 
the resources to address, these same Republicans tell us today that we 
can afford to borrow from the Chinese or the Saudis--or whoever will 
lend to us--the resources to deliver bonuses to some people. They urge 
more public debt to fund more bonuses.
  While they rightfully argue on every expenditure program that we 
should be looking for evidence-based programs--programs that actually 
work and that provide the promised outcomes--and that we ought to 
eliminate duplication and inefficiency, they have absolutely no 
interest in evidence-based tax expenditures, which is what is involved 
today. When the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they abandon 
evidence and pursue ideology.
  The evidence-based approach to this particular expenditure could not 
be clearer. What is involved here is that when any business goes out 
and obtains machinery, a vehicle, a truck, a building, they depreciate 
it over the useful lifetime of that asset--standard accounting 
principles.
  What is involved here today is Washington math. It is the Washington 
manipulation of traditional accounting rules. It is a matter of 
violating those traditional accounting rules, and we have learned from 
the economic studies that that is a very sorry, not evidence-based 
investment.
  Indeed, even as a stimulus, the analysis shows that, for every dollar 
that is invested, we get 20 cents of growth. A fellow could go bankrupt 
with that kind of economics, and that is exactly what they would have 
the country doing and not meeting its other needs while funding 
something that doesn't work.
  Both the Federal Reserve bank and Goldman Sachs--which is not exactly 
a Democratic organization--concluded this year that letting this 
special tax treatment expire that they want to make permanent and 
extend forever will not have any significant economic impact.
  Today's bill is an example of the very kind of waste and inefficiency 
line items that they always say, in campaign rallies, they can discover 
and eliminate, but which, today, they are perpetuating.
  I am for a pro-growth, pro-jobs creation set of government policies--
including tax policies--that promote competitiveness. It is 
competitiveness that involves an adequate transportation system, a 
trained workforce, the research in medicine as well as in technology to 
help us compete, but we don't have the Federal resources to hand out 
one bonus after another to corporations when we know it won't work, 
when it will not grow our economy and at the same time that the same 
people who are advocating for policies that don't work refuse to pay 
for policies that do work.
  We should reject this bill. It is not in the interest of the country. 
It may be good politics in an election year, but it is bad economic 
policy, as near every economist who has looked at the issue in an 
objective way has concluded.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and an outstanding member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that short-term tax policy is bad for 
business, bad for the economy, and bad for jobs, yet we have heard 
today from our friends on the other side of the aisle a couple of 
things.
  Number one, some have argued that we are too busy, and there are too 
many other things to be dealing with in Congress and so forth, and we 
ought to be doing other things rather than this. I guess you could make 
that argument. I don't think it is really persuasive. We can do all of 
these things, and they are not mutually exclusive.
  There is some argument that said that this proposal somehow is a 
manipulation. That is how the gentleman from Texas described it. I 
think the manipulation is having something in the Tax Code that we know 
we need to make permanent and not making it permanent, so let's 
manipulate the adverse effect out of the Tax Code. That is what we 
should be doing.
  There are some who have said that this is insignificant. I heard that 
a couple of minutes ago. This is not insignificant. According to the 
Tax Foundation, they say:

       Permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1 
     percent.

  That is not insignificant.

       It would increase capital stock by over 3 percent.

  That is not insignificant.

       It would increase wages by 1 percent, and it would create 
     over 200,000 jobs.

  That is not insignificant. That is according to the Tax Foundation.

[[Page 11818]]

  So what is the choice? The choice is to vote ``no'' and walk away 
from that type of growth, Mr. Speaker. Now, who would do that?
  You get these types of numbers, according to the Tax Foundation, by 
just pushing the green button. You get that type of growth by voting 
``yes'' and then by getting out of the way and letting the economy come 
back.
  The gentleman from Ohio is not overcharacterizing this. The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi)--who has great insight, by the way--is not 
somebody who is saying this is the panacea, and it all goes away. That 
was the hype we heard during the stimulus debate.
  Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? It was the characterization of, if 
you just spend $1 trillion, it is all going to be roses after that. 
There is hardly anybody who uses the word ``stimulus'' anymore on the 
other side of the aisle with a straight arrow. It has been completely 
eviscerated from the talking points of the White House.
  The point is we can do something significant today--not monumental, 
not colossal--but to characterize the type of growth that the Tax 
Foundation has said this will yield to as ``insignificant'' is either 
not a clear view of economic reality or it is just too dismissive and 
too much a view that we can just be saviors in this situation.
  We can do some good things today, and we can support the gentleman 
from Ohio. We can make permanent this proposal, and we can move this 
economy forward.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  To the gentleman from Illinois, I favor long-term tax reform. He 
helped produce a long-term proposal that eliminated this provision. It 
eliminated it.
  Now, you come down and say you want to make it permanent. I guess I 
can't speak directly to you.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. You make a fair point, and that is that permanency is 
something that we need to strive for. You and I would be on common 
ground with the idea of permanently fixing this provision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Will the gentleman yield 20 seconds?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I take your point that permanency is a good thing.
  Mr. LEVIN. I said ``long-term.''
  My point is you, 6 months ago, helped produce a package that 
eliminated this provision, and now, you come here, and you say you want 
it permanent. This is acrobatics. This is congressional acrobatics.
  You are just spinning in an opposite direction, and you are making 
this place a circus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this place is riddled with ironies from week to week, 
and this week is no different.
  Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee was working on a markup of 
legislation for another short-term extension of the highway trust 
fund--the transportation and infrastructure investment we desperately 
need in this country.
  We were scratching and clawing to try to find an additional $10 
billion over the next 10 months to try to keep some of these projects 
moving forward; and here, today, we have another permanent change to 
the Tax Code at a cost of $287 billion over the next 10 years and not a 
nickel of it paid for--no offset, no effort to pay for this at all; yet 
our roads are deteriorating, and our bridges are falling down.
  We are literally becoming a Third World nation when it comes to our 
infrastructure system, and I am afraid that is becoming an insult to 
Third World countries today. We are turning into a Fourth World nation 
when it comes to our infrastructure.
  Instead of having this fruitless debate on the floor yet again, 
knowing that this legislation won't be moving forward, we ought to be 
having a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee to develop consensus 
on a 6-year transportation bill that every State desperately needs in 
our country, but we are not doing that. In fact, the easiest thing to 
do during an election year, apparently, is to support tax cuts without 
paying for them.
  Every economist and virtually every business owner will tell you 
that, substantively, this doesn't make any sense either. The whole 
point of bonus depreciation is to try to spur capital investment at a 
time when the marketplace has frozen up, and it is the fear of 
uncertainty that is preventing business owners from moving forward on 
their capital purchases.

                              {time}  0945

  You take away that temporary nature of bonus depreciation and you 
ruin the whole desired effect of what you are trying to accomplish.
  But I have a feeling that the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Camp, and others in the committee, they already know 
this, and that is why, earlier this year, when they introduced their 
comprehensive tax reform discussion draft, they completely eliminated 
bonus depreciation. And not only that, they clawed back the accelerated 
depreciation, which is the basis of this as well, in order to help pay 
for a lowering of rates overall.
  I would submit, of the 14 tax bills that would permanently change the 
Code that have been reported out of the committee so far at a cost of 
close to $900 billion, none of which is being proposed, if we support 
those measures and they get enacted into law, we might as well kiss 
comprehensive tax reform good-bye, because the tools that we will need 
to be able to lower the rates and broaden the base and make our Code 
more competitive are taken away from us. If you permanently extend 
bonus depreciation, you take away an important tool when we do run into 
recessionary times when businesses may need an additional incentive to 
invest capital and get off the sidelines.
  That hasn't been the problem here. Since 2002, we have had bonus 
depreciation. We have got a track record now. You look back on it. Most 
economists will tell you it has been dubious, at best.
  The 2000s were the worst job growth decade in our Nation's history. 
When President Bush left office in 2008, he had a net negative job 
growth during those 8 years when he was in office.
  Since bonus depreciation expired at the end of last year, we have 
been averaging, every month, close to 240,000 additional private sector 
jobs being created in our economy today. That is without bonus 
depreciation being in place.
  So what we ought to be doing today is having a serious discussion of 
how we can come together as an institution and find a way to help pay 
for a 6-year infrastructure bill that will create jobs, that will start 
spurring the economic activity that we desperately need, that will lay 
the foundation for long-term economic growth with a viable 
infrastructure system that is there to sustain it, rather than having 
another debate that we know is going nowhere.
  And that is unfortunate because we do--and I agree with my friend 
from Texas, we need a pro-growth, competitive economic policy for the 
American people, one that recognizes reform the Tax Code to help our 
businesses, large and small, to be more competitive globally, but one 
that also recognizes that there are important public investments that 
we have to make as a nation in order to ensure the type of growth in 
the future.
  Part of that is the infrastructure investment that is being 
neglected, or 23 extensions merely being kicked down the road with 
short-term measures. Part of it is having a top-flight, quality 
education system and a workforce development system so that we have got 
the best educated, best trained workforce in order to compete with 
increased global competition. It is

[[Page 11819]]

broadband expansion in every inch of our territory. It is basic 
research funding. It is these type of things that, yes, we are going to 
need some resources in order to do an effective job.
  But we keep coming to the floor, week after week, calling for 
permanent changes to the Tax Code without any ability to pay for it, 
that is going to hinder our flexibility in the future to really spur 
the type of economic growth and job creation that we desperately need.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. Let's start coming 
together on a real pro-growth strategy and work on the jobs that we 
desperately need.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume, and then I will yield to Mr. Roskam.
  To the American people it must be really confusing. So we have had 
bonus depreciation, this tax policy, temporary for over 10 years, 
unpaid for; supported by many on the other side of the aisle, unpaid 
for; temporary, many times retroactive. And yet, moving that policy 
forward for 10 more years, the same way it has been paid for over 10 
years, costs money, bad policy, even though we are giving for the first 
time certainty, predictability to people who actually create jobs in 
America, who must have a business plan and must make those big 
purchases. Amazing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address two of the criticisms that I 
heard from my colleague.
  The gentleman from Michigan makes a fair point about permanency. 
Look, permanency is a great goal. Permanency in tax reform is an 
outstanding goal. In this current environment it becomes clear that the 
President of the United States has made raising marginal rates a 
precondition for tax reform. We are of the view that that doesn't help 
grow the economy. The President clings to his orthodoxy that it does, 
and so it is not likely that this is going to be--a massive tax reform 
effort is going to be completed.
  So then the alternative is, all right, well, so what do you do in the 
meantime? I think in the meantime what we do is we make this provision 
permanent. It keeps open the opportunity for us to revisit tax reform 
in the future. But we ought not to be leaving the types of numbers that 
I mentioned a minute ago.
  Just to refresh your recollection, Mr. Speaker, those numbers were, 
by voting ``yes'' on this, according to the Tax Foundation, it grows 
the economy by 1 percent, increases capital stock by over 3, increases 
wages by 1 percent, and creates over 200,000 jobs.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin made an interesting point. There 
were several assertions, but one of them I found to be very, very 
broad. He says, substantively, this doesn't make any sense. Those were 
his words. Those aren't my words. Those were his words.
  Now, think about that assertion, Mr. Speaker, in the context of 
dozens and dozens and dozens of business groups who say this does make 
sense, including, from his home State, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and 
Commerce; the Rhode Island Manufacturers Association; American Farm 
Bureau; the Associated Equipment Dealers; Illinois Manufactures', from 
my home State; and, Mr. Speaker, from the great State of Kansas, which 
is near and dear to you, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, all of which 
say that this makes sense.
  This is not dubious, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, that--
what?--dozens of economists from all over the world have said, oh, this 
is a nefarious plot and it is completely not going to do anything. That 
is ridiculous. This is good.
  The gentleman from Ohio has been working on this for months and 
months and months. And while it is not about him, he brings great 
insight to this debate. There is an opportunity, by voting ``yes,'' 
according to the Tax Foundation, to grow this economy. We should vote 
``aye.''
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let the facts be shown: in 2006 and 2007, bonus depreciation expired, 
and it was renewed when the recession really took a hold. CRS has said 
research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective. We 
will renew it, but not for 10 years, costing $287 billion made 
permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Danny K. Davis), also a member of our committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
ranking member for yielding.
  The longer I listen to this discussion and debate, it reminds me of a 
game that children play: around and around and around we go, around the 
mulberry bush, because we keep going around and around and around.
  I strongly oppose the bill that is before us that would make bonus 
depreciation permanent. Yes, I support bonus depreciation on a short-
term basis to boost the economy if there is a letdown and to provide 
some incentives to do things that we might not be doing. But I cannot 
support adding $287 billion to our deficit for a permanent corporate 
giveaway while tens of thousands of my constituents and tens of 
millions of Americans experience deep poverty, unemployment, and 
economic distress.
  H.R. 4718 is a corporate giveaway that even the Republican tax reform 
bill repealed.
  There is a tremendous need to incentivize economically distressed 
communities like many parts of Chicago, other urban as well as rural 
areas, and those incentives have lapsed. They are threatened. We are 
not sure that they are going to be coming.
  This bill continues the Republican legislative focus on the wrong 
issues, ignoring the key programs that create jobs, strengthen our 
citizens, and grow our economy.
  Just imagine what unemployment insurance does. It allows the person 
who does not have a job--the knowledge that something is going to be 
coming--to go to the grocery store and buy milk or bread.
  Or what happens when there is employment opportunities, if roads and 
bridges are being repaired? A person gets a sense of confidence that 
there might be work for them to do.
  I remember a song several years ago about ``Get a Job''; and the guy 
said that every day, when he reads the paper, he reads it through and 
through, trying to find out if there is any work for me to do, but his 
wife says, ``Get a job.''
  Individuals who have become totally upset because, no matter what 
they seem to do, there is no relief. So how could I vote for this bill 
when there are still 3.3 million long-term unemployed individuals who 
have not been aided?
  I can't go to church on Sunday or walk down the street without 
somebody asking me: When is Congress going to do something about our 
unemployment checks? Are they going to come?
  Or they ask: When are the repairs going to be made on our roads and 
bridges? When are we going to get some new sidewalks? How do you fix 
the potholes that are erupting all over our community?
  When are we going to really take care of the Medicare physician or 
doctors fix?
  When are we going to stop irrational budget cuts that strangle 
education, research, and innovation?
  When are we going to provide confidence and hope?
  When are we going to stop the process where the rich continue to get 
rich and the poor continue to get poor, and the middle class gets 
squeezed in to where we almost create two groups and two categories of 
people: those who have much and those who have little?
  So I would urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill and give confidence 
to the American people that their needs will be taken care of.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 15 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas, I would like to submit, for the Record,

[[Page 11820]]

a letter from over 100 associations that represent thousands of 
employers and job creators, of whom represent hundreds of thousands of 
employees. In the letter they say, this piece of legislation that we 
are about to vote on today helps them create jobs and increases 
productivity.

                                                     July 9, 2014.
       To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     undersigned associations--and the companies we represent--
     appreciate the efforts of the House Ways and Means Committee 
     to make permanent important tax provisions that expired at 
     the end of 2013. In particular, we support swift action on 
     legislation (H.R. 4718) to permanently extend bonus 
     depreciation, creating a pro-investment tax climate that will 
     spur much needed economic growth and jobs and provide a 
     bridge to broader tax reform.
       Continued uncertainty about bonus depreciation is 
     discouraging investment in the United States and, in some 
     cases, keeping companies totally on the sidelines. This 
     impacts both companies that make investments and companies 
     that manufacture capital equipment.
       In contrast, since 2008, members of our associations have 
     responded positively to the availability of 50 percent 
     expensing, including an important part of the legislation 
     allowing companies to utilize Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) 
     credits in lieu of 50 percent expensing.
       Many of our companies have been recognized for this 
     commitment to domestic investment that creates jobs and 
     increases productivity. Renewing bonus depreciation and the 
     comparable AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation will 
     provide an immediate incentive for businesses to make 
     additional capital investments, thereby boosting the U.S. 
     economy and job creation.
       Thank you in advance for supporting this important 
     legislation when it comes to the House floor for a vote later 
     this week. Our associations and member companies will 
     continue to support comprehensive tax reform, but until an 
     agreement becomes effective, extending bonus depreciation is 
     essential to maintaining the nation's economic momentum. In 
     order to plan with certainty, companies must know as soon as 
     possible what the tax rules for capital investment and job 
     creation in America will be in 2014 and beyond.
           Sincerely,
       Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Aerospace 
     Industries Association; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
     Refrigeration Institute; Airlines for America; American Boat 
     Builders & Repairers Association; American Composites 
     Manufacturers Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe 
     Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American 
     Foundry Society; American Lighting Association; American 
     Petroleum Institute; American Trucking Associations; AMT--The 
     Association For Manufacturing Technology; Arizona 
     Manufacturers Council; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce; 
     Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated Industries of 
     Arkansas; Associated Industries of Florida; Associated 
     Industries of Missouri; Association of American Railroads.
       Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Association of 
     Washington Business; Auto Care Association; Biotechnology 
     Industry Organization; Book Manufacturers' Institute, Inc.; 
     California Manufacturers & Technology Association; Chemical 
     Coaters Association International; Colorado Association of 
     Commerce & Industry; Corn Refiners Association; Council of 
     Industry of Southeastern New York; CTIA--The Wireless 
     Association; Forging Industry Association; Fuel Cell and 
     Hydrogen Energy Association; General Aviation Manufacturers 
     Association; Georgia Association of Manufacturers; Greater 
     North Dakota Chamber; Illinois Manufacturers' Association; 
     INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry; Indiana 
     Manufacturers Association.
       Industrial Energy Consumers of America; Industrial 
     Fasteners Institute; Industrial Heating Equipment 
     Association; Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries; 
     Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute; International Sign 
     Association; Iowa Association of Business and Industry; IPC--
     Association Connecting Electronics Industries; ISSA--The 
     Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association; ITTA--The Voice of 
     Mid-Size Telecommunications Carriers; Kansas Chamber of 
     Commerce; Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association; Medical 
     Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA); Metals Service 
     Center Institute; Mississippi Manufacturers Association; 
     Missouri Association of Manufacturers; Motor & Equipment 
     Manufacturers Association; National Air Transportation 
     Association; National Association of Electrical Distributors; 
     National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers; 
     National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM); 
     National Automatic Merchandising Association; National 
     Business Aviation Association; National Cable & 
     Telecommunications Association; National Council for Advanced 
     Manufacturing; National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
     (NEMA); National Marine Manufacturers Association; National 
     Mining Association; National Propane Gas Association; 
     National Roofing Contractors Association; National Stone, 
     Sand & Gravel Association; National Tooling and Machining 
     Association; National Waste & Recycling Association; Nebraska 
     Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Nevada Manufacturers 
     Association; New Jersey Business & Industry Association; Non-
     Ferrous Founders' Society; North American Die Casting 
     Association; North Carolina Chamber.
       NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing 
     and Convening Technologies; NTCA--The Rural Broadband 
     Association; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; Portland 
     Cement Association; Precision Machined Products Association; 
     Precision Metalforming Association; Resilient Floor Covering 
     Institute; Rhode Island Manufacturers Association; San 
     Antonio Manufacturers Association; Secondary Materials and 
     Recycled Textiles Association (SMART); South Carolina Chamber 
     of Commerce; Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association; 
     Specialty Equipment Market Association; Specialty Graphics 
     Imaging Association.
       SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association; Steel 
     Manufacturers Association; Texas Association of 
     Manufacturers; Textile Rental Services Association; The 
     Hardwood Federation; The State Chamber of Oklahoma; U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce; United States Telecom Association; USA 
     Rice Federation; Valley Industrial Association; Window and 
     Door Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers & 
     Commerce; Woodworking Machinery Industry Association; World 
     Alliance for Decentralized Energy.

  Mr. TIBERI. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to make 50 percent 
bonus depreciation permanent because it grows the economy and creates 
jobs. Short of comprehensive tax reform, a permanent extension of bonus 
depreciation is our best option to grow the economy, create jobs, and 
lift wages.
  This bill is important to Kansas manufacturers and to Kansas farmers 
and ranchers. The Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus 
depreciation would grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 million 
to the economy, increase wages, and create over 210,000 jobs. The Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates that this legislation will increase 
economic growth and could reduce the debt by as much as $10 billion.
  But, most importantly, today's bill moves our Tax Code in the right 
direction. It is broad-based in that it does not pick winners and 
losers and does not favor one type of investment over another. Simply, 
it favors investment in the types of capital that create jobs and put 
more money in people's pockets.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today with this faulty effort for one reason 
and one reason only: the failure of fundamental tax reform.
  Now, a good-faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal, 
but it really didn't go anywhere.
  I would note in this institution, known for its emotions, that the 
response of the Democratic minority to the Camp draft proposal was 
fairly muted, thinking that this might be a worthwhile start to an 
ongoing conversation that would be bipartisan and bicameral.
  A good start, we had. The model that we embraced over 3 years really 
worked quite well. Without the glare of publicity, we actually had an 
adult conversation back and forth between the parties, the 
stakeholders, and heard from virtually everybody you could hear from.
  Well, when the proposal was offered publicly, the response on the 
Republican side was one of histrionics--Well, you can't do this. And 
you can't do that. Well, let's not try this. And let's not do that--
even though an academic exercise had been undertaken that was 
worthwhile. So tax reform was killed in the crib before there was even 
an opportunity to have a conversation.
  Now, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) said that everybody on this 
side is afraid to use the word ``stimulus.''

[[Page 11821]]

  Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. I am going to use it, and I 
am going to use it in the motion to recommit.
  Stimulus has worked in America's economic history, when America 
actually did big things. Mr. Lincoln found time during the midst of the 
Civil War to do the Transcontinental Railroad. Mr. Roosevelt did the 
Panama Canal. Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Reagan did the Big Dig in Boston. 
These are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done, and not to shy 
away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy 
that has dubious economic consequences.
  Now, let me say this as well. And I intend, in the motion to 
recommit, to speak to it.
  Remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two 
parties? Remember when there was a healthy give-and-take, where we 
actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the Ways and 
Means room, still the most desired committee to sit on in the Congress?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NEAL. The point that I make on this is very simple. We started 
out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. This is not the way to do 
tax reform. We need to go back to the drawing table and draft a 
proposal that the American people will come to see as competitive and 
will highlight the role that optimism has always played in American 
public life.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and the Health Subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Tiberi and 
Chairman Camp for bringing this very important jobs bill to the floor.
  The truth is, America's economy is really hurting. This is the 
slowest recovery, most disappointing recovery in half a century. We are 
missing about 5 million jobs from our economy. We have a lot of small 
businesses struggling. The average family of four in America is missing 
over $1,000 a month from their paycheck, their budget because of this 
disappointing recovery.
  So what is missing? Well, it is not government spending. That is 
above where it was in 2008. It is not family spending. That is above 
what it was. What we are missing is business investment. When 
businesses along Main Street buy new buildings, new equipment, and new 
software to make themselves more competitive, that is when jobs occur. 
And that is what is missing out of the economy.
  What this bill does is make it more affordable for our local 
businesses to immediately write off, deduct from their taxes a portion 
of what they buy in equipment and software and technology. That makes 
it more affordable, it allows them to do more of it, and that creates 
jobs along Main Street. And that is what this bill is all about, 
creating not government jobs, not temporary jobs, not stimulus jobs. 
This is about creating jobs along Main Street by letting our local 
businesses invest.
  It has always been a bipartisan bill. This is an area that 
Republicans and Democrats agree on. Unfortunately, it is an election 
year. We are going to hear all of the arguments against it. But the 
truth is, our local businesses are struggling. They need this tax 
relief. And our economy needs the jobs because we are not going to get 
back to a balanced budget until we have more people working and more 
jobs created and more revenue coming in the door.
  I commend our leadership for bringing this very important business 
bill, jobs bill, to the floor. And I urge Republicans and Democrats to 
come together to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to read the Statement of Administration Policy:

       The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     4718, which would permanently extend ``bonus depreciation'' 
     rules that allow corporations to speed up deductions for 
     certain investments and, thereby, delay tax payments. This 
     provision was enacted in 2009 to provide short-term stimulus 
     to the economy, and it was never intended to be a permanent 
     corporate giveaway. Moreover, H.R. 4718 includes no offsets 
     and would add $287 billion to the deficit over the next 10 
     years, wiping out more than one-third of the deficit 
     reduction achieved by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 
     2013.
       The deficit increase in H.R. 4718 is more than 20 times the 
     cost of the proposed extension of emergency unemployment 
     benefits, which Republicans are insisting be offset, and more 
     than triple the discretionary funding increases for defense 
     and nondefense priorities enacted in the Bipartisan Budget 
     Act of 2013, which were offset. House Republicans also are 
     making clear their priorities by rushing to make business tax 
     cuts permanent without offsets, even as the House Republican 
     budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million 
     working families and students by letting important 
     improvements to the earned income tax credit, child tax 
     credit, and education tax credits expire.
       The administration wants to work with the Congress to make 
     progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help 
     middle class families, including pro-growth business tax 
     reform. However, making costly business tax cuts permanent 
     without offsets represents the wrong approach.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 4718, his senior 
     advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. I yield myself such time as I may consume for my closing.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice is very clear. As the gentleman from 
Massachusetts--who is a friend of mine and who I agree with on a lot--
said we should be here to talk about comprehensive tax reform and not 
temporary tax policy.
  In my years here in this United States Congress and my years, more 
importantly, on the Ways and Means Committee, there hasn't been a 
chairman that has been more bipartisan, more inclusive, and made a 
stronger effort to comprehensively reform our Tax Code than Chairman 
Dave Camp. If he would have had a partner in the White House and a 
partner in the Senate to move the ball along as far as he did, quite 
frankly, in a very bipartisan way, we wouldn't be here today.
  But here are the facts: for the past 5\1/2\ years, Barack Obama has 
been the President of the United States of America. Here is a fact: the 
first quarter of this year, our economy retracted 2.9 percent.
  This bill is a jobs bill. Simple enough. And, in fact, during my time 
on the Ways and Means Committee--putting Chairman Camp aside--without 
Chairman Camp, with other chairmen, we haven't had any bipartisanship. 
We haven't had tax bills. We didn't have an effort to comprehensively, 
in a bipartisan way, have a Tax Code rewritten. It has only been 
Chairman Camp.
  So we can talk about theory and academics. But here we are today, 
with one choice in an economy that is not near where any of us want it 
to be after 5\1/2\ years of Barack Obama as President.
  We have a piece of legislation that we know creates jobs that for 10 
out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. For 10 out of the last 
12 years, it hasn't been paid for. And there is no benefit to job 
creators for long-term certainty. None. Zero.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have already submitted for the Record a list 
of hundreds of associations that represent thousands and thousands of 
employers around the country who create jobs for hundreds of thousands 
of employees who say this is one of the best job-creating tools they 
have.
  I know people who want a job. They would rather have a job than 
unemployment insurance. They want a job really badly.
  Something my dad said to me a long time ago when he lost his 
manufacturing job of 25 years: ``The most important thing is a job.'' 
And that is how simple this is, ladies and gentlemen. That is how 
simple this is.
  In 5\1/2\ years, we have higher taxes, more regulations. This is 
about jobs. This is what job creators want. Let's give them what they 
want. Let's go to the Senate. Let's have a conference committee. Let's 
work it out the good old-fashioned way.
  I know the gentleman from Massachusetts and I, if we got locked in a 
room, we could work it out the good old-fashioned way. Let's do it.
  I urge my colleagues, let's not make this partisan. Let's make this 
bipartisan, as it should be, as it has been, and go work with the 
Senate to get this done and help Americans get a job.

[[Page 11822]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. NEAL. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4718 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 3, line 22, strike ``or''.
       Page 3, line 24, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       Page 3, after line 24, insert the following:

       ``(VI) which is qualified restaurant property, and''.

       Page 4, line 2, strike the period and insert ``, and''.
       Page 4, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(iii) which is placed in service by the taxpayer before 
     January 1, 2016.''.
       Page 13, line 20, strike the quotation marks and final 
     period.
       Page 13, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the succeeding provisions accordingly):
       ``(F) Termination.--This paragraph shall not apply to any 
     tree or vine planted or grafted after December 31, 2015.''.
       (d) Special Rule for Inverted Domestic Corporations.--
     Section 168(k) of such Code, as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Special rule for inverted domestic corporations.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer which is, or 
     is a member of an expanded affiliated group which includes, 
     an inverted domestic corporation, paragraphs (1), (4), and 
     (5) shall not apply.
       ``(B) Inverted domestic corporation.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (6), the term `inverted domestic corporation' means 
     any foreign corporation--
       ``(i) which, pursuant to a plan or a series of related 
     transactions, completes after May 8, 2014, the direct or 
     indirect acquisition of--

       ``(I) substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation, or
       ``(II) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially 
     all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a 
     domestic partnership, and

       ``(ii) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) 
     of which, after such acquisition, is held--

       ``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation, or
       ``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership, or

       ``(iii) the management and control of the expanded 
     affiliated group of which, after such acquisition, occurs 
     (directly or indirectly) primarily within the United States, 
     and such expanded affiliated group has significant domestic 
     business activities.
       ``(C) Exception for corporations with substantial business 
     activities in foreign country of organization.--A foreign 
     corporation shall not be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation for purposes of this paragraph if after the 
     acquisition the expanded affiliated group which includes the 
     entity has substantial business activities in the foreign 
     country in which or under the law of which the entity is 
     created or organized when compared to the total business 
     activities of such expanded affiliated group. For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, the term `substantial business 
     activities' shall have the meaning given such term under 
     section 7874 regulations in effect on May 8, 2014, except 
     that the Secretary may issue regulations increasing the 
     threshold percent in any of the tests under such regulations 
     for determining if business activities constitute substantial 
     business activities for purposes of this subparagraph.
       ``(D) Management and control.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations for purposes of determining cases in which the 
     management and control of an expanded affiliated group is to 
     be treated as occurring, directly or indirectly, primarily 
     within the United States. The regulations prescribed under 
     the preceding sentence shall apply to periods after May 8, 
     2014.
       ``(ii) Executive officers and senior management.--Such 
     regulations shall provide that the management and control of 
     an expanded affiliated group shall be treated as occurring, 
     directly or indirectly, primarily within the United States if 
     substantially all of the executive officers and senior 
     management of the expanded affiliated group who exercise day-
     to-day responsibility for making decisions involving 
     strategic, financial, and operational policies of the 
     expanded affiliated group are based or primarily located 
     within the United States. Individuals who in fact exercise 
     such day-to-day responsibilities shall be treated as 
     executive officers and senior management regardless of their 
     title.
       ``(E) Significant domestic business activities.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (B)(iii), an expanded affiliated 
     group has significant domestic business activities if at 
     least 25 percent of--
       ``(i) the employees of the group are based in the United 
     States,
       ``(ii) the employee compensation incurred by the group is 
     incurred with respect to employees based in the United 
     States,
       ``(iii) the assets of the group are located in the United 
     States, or
       ``(iv) the income of the group is derived in the United 
     States,
     determined in the same manner as such determinations are made 
     for purposes of determining substantial business activities 
     under regulations referred to in subparagraph (C) as in 
     effect on May 8, 2014, but applied by treating all references 
     in such regulations to `foreign country' and `relevant 
     foreign country' as references to `the United States'. The 
     Secretary may issue regulations decreasing the threshold 
     percent in any of the tests under such regulations for 
     determining if business activities constitute significant 
     domestic business activities for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(F) Expanded affiliated group.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `expanded affiliated group' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 7874(c).''.

  Mr. NEAL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my comments to the other 
side.
  Mr. Tiberi, who is indeed my friend and a terrific guy, said that 
there is no partner at the White House. When we undertook this very 
significant proposal on tax reform, it wasn't the White House; it was 
the Speaker of our House--the Speaker of this House--who said, ``Blah, 
blah, blah.''
  Now, I want to tell you that I am not bilingual, Mr. Speaker, but 
when you tell me blah, blah, blah, I get it. It ain't going anywhere. 
To blame the White House when the Speaker of the House poured cold 
water on it is outrageous.
  Now, we heard of several companies that have been proceeding with 
inversions. For those of you paying attention to this, it simply means 
that a company moves offshore, they declare that they are no longer a 
corporate citizen of America, but instead, they will reincorporate to a 
foreign address for the express purpose of avoiding American corporate 
income taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposal that we have here is pretty simple. As they 
line up, the dam is breaking. I hear in the next few weeks that up to 
47 companies--as the Congressional Research Service has pointed out--
are lining up to leave. They include manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and 
financial services sectors.
  We should be doing fundamental tax reform as Mr. Camp laid out the 
proposal, but the issue of inversions and depreciation before us today, 
while seemingly unconnected, are intimately connected.
  Mr. Speaker, given the Republican opposition to Chairman Camp's 
proposal, we cannot move forward on a House bill that reforms our Tax 
Code in a current or meaningful way at the moment, but we can address a 
very fundamental issue right here this morning without changing the 
nature of this legislation.
  We can, in fact, address the issue by linking inversion to the 
purpose of

[[Page 11823]]

bonus depreciation, and through that, we can suggest that any company 
that moves offshore cannot take advantage of corporate inversion and 
bonus depreciation simultaneously. That is what we are proposing today.
  Now, I have a history with bonus depreciation. Remember Nancy 
Johnson, a Republican Member; and Phil English, a Republican Member? I 
supported with them the use of bonus depreciation--as Mr. Roskam wanted 
to hear me say, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus.
  On a short-term basis, bonus depreciation makes some sense, but not 
to make it permanent at the cost of $867 billion.
  Friends, to do bonus depreciation separate from fundamental tax 
reform is economic nonsense. We need a comprehensive look at the Code 
and remind ourselves that bonus depreciation is but the following: a 
tool in the toolbox to make economic repairs.
  Now, this proposal that our Republican friends have today with this 
cost attached to it is the least defensible of all of the extender 
proposals that they have offered.
  Our own Congressional Research Service says that you do bonus 
depreciation for a short-term purpose to provide an economic stimulus 
during a recession. It is ``a temporary investment subsidy that is 
expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term 
stimulus . . . Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness.''
  Now, this is important to remember here today. Chairman Camp repealed 
bonus depreciation, period. Now, we are bringing it back to be made 
permanent on a Friday morning, with no thoughtful or deliberative 
discussion other than the Speaker of the House saying, ``Blah, blah, 
blah, blah, blah.''
  What I am suggesting here today is that we cannot afford to spend 
$825 billion on this hit-or-miss chance that we are taking to do 
fundamental tax reform in this way.
  Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the nub of what we are proposing. 
What this motion to recommit does is it keeps bonus depreciation as 
always intended, a temporary tool in our toolbox in an economic 
downturn.
  This motion is a commonsense piece of legislation that extends bonus 
depreciation for 2 years--2 years--in a thoughtful and deliberative 
way, then we go back to fundamental tax reform, and then we take it up 
in a much more integrated way.
  Now, lastly, if you voted yesterday for the DeLauro amendment, you 
need to be consistent today and vote for this motion to recommit which 
addresses the DeLauro amendment and puts behind us this conversation of 
ad hoc tax reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in 
opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Well, I am pleased to hear that my colleague on the other 
side actually agrees with me that we need bonus depreciation because 
this motion to recommit extends that policy for 2 years.
  The reason why I oppose this motion to recommit is because, again, 
this is temporary tax policy. We are the only nation in the world that 
allows important tax provisions to expire. We are alone on that. Nobody 
else does that. That is why it is so important that we make this policy 
permanent.
  Let me just say that the economy is contracting 2.9 percent in the 
last quarter. It is not growing. We are going the wrong direction. We 
have people whose real incomes are declining. People are out of work. 
More kids are living at home than ever before. We need to do something 
permanent to get this economy growing.
  Look, families are struggling in America. Let's do something pro-
growth, something permanent. Certainly, we agree on the policy. You 
just don't want to do it for as long as we do.
  We would like to make this permanent. We have done it for 10 years, 
and for all practical purposes, with the uncertainty, we have agreed 
that the policy should be permanent. When you do it for that long, it 
should be.
  Let me just say, look, temporary policy never works. We have more 
than 100 associations and businesses representing millions of workers 
that have come forward and said: Please make this policy permanent, we 
support what you are doing, and we need it, so that we can have the 
certainty that we need to make investments.
  Look, the Tax Foundation has said that if we do this, if we make this 
permanent, we will grow the economy by 1 percent, that we will add $182 
billion to the economy, we will increase stock, we will increase wages 
by 1 percent, which is $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year.
  Let's give America a raise. Let's vote for this bill. Let's vote 
against this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just also say a lot of Americans know that the 
country is going in the wrong direction, but what they are really 
concerned about is they don't see us doing anything to make it better.
  We can restore the American Dream and not have it be some remnant of 
the past if we support permanent tax policy.
  Reject the temporary nature of this. Vote ``no'' on the motion to 
recommit, and vote for final passage on the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191, 
nays 229, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               YEAS--191

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--229

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis

[[Page 11824]]


     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Carney
     DesJarlais
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Kingston
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Nunnelee
     Pompeo
     Richmond
     Schiff

                              {time}  1049

  Messrs. STEWART and MULVANEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida and Messrs. PETERS of California and FARR 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 160, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 404]

                               AYES--258

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--160

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Carney
     DesJarlais
     Doyle
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Kingston
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Nunnelee
     Pompeo
     Richmond
     Schiff

                              {time}  1057

  Mr. NEAL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the 
following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: 
rollcall vote 403: on Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 
4923--I would have voted

[[Page 11825]]

``nay''; rollcall vote 404: on Passage of H.R. 4923--I would have voted 
``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, today, the eleventh day of July 2014, I 
was unable to cast a vote on rollcall Nos. 403 & 404 due to a personal 
matter.
  Had I been present, I would have voted against rollcall No. 403 and 
in favor of the underlying legislation of rollcall No. 404, H.R. 4718, 
Making Bonus Depreciation Permanent, introduced by Representative Pat 
Tiberi of Ohio.

                          ____________________