[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7399-7408]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           AMERICAN RESEARCH AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2015

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 273, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 880) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to simplify and make permanent the research credit, and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 273, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, modified by the amendment printed 
in part B of House Report 114-127, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 880

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Research and 
     Competitiveness Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. RESEARCH CREDIT SIMPLIFIED AND MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 41(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the research 
     credit determined under this section for the taxable year 
     shall be an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) 20 percent of so much of the qualified research 
     expenses for the taxable year as exceeds 50 percent of the 
     average qualified research expenses for the 3 taxable years 
     preceding the taxable year for which the credit is being 
     determined,
       ``(2) 20 percent of so much of the basic research payments 
     for the taxable year as exceeds 50 percent of the average 
     basic research payments for the 3 taxable years preceding the 
     taxable year for which the credit is being determined, plus
       ``(3) 20 percent of the amounts paid or incurred by the 
     taxpayer in carrying on any trade or business of the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year (including as contributions) to an 
     energy research consortium for energy research.''.
       (b) Repeal of Termination.--Section 41 of such Code is 
     amended by striking subsection (h).
       (c) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax in Case 
     of Eligible Small Business.--Section 38(c)(4)(B) of such Code 
     is amended by redesignating clauses (ii) through (ix) as 
     clauses (iii) through (x), respectively, and by inserting 
     after clause (i) the following new clause:
       ``(ii) the credit determined under section 41 for the 
     taxable year with respect to an eligible small business (as 
     defined in paragraph (5)(C), after application of rules 
     similar to the rules of paragraph (5)(D)),''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 41(c) of such Code is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Determination of Average Research Expenses for Prior 
     Years.--
       ``(1) Special rule in case of no qualified research 
     expenditures in any of 3 preceding taxable years.--In any 
     case in which the taxpayer has no qualified research expenses 
     in any one of the 3 taxable years preceding the taxable year 
     for which the credit is being determined, the amount 
     determined under subsection (a)(1) for such taxable year 
     shall be equal to 10 percent of the qualified research 
     expenses for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Consistent treatment of expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding whether the period for 
     filing a claim for credit or refund has expired for any 
     taxable year taken into account in determining the average 
     qualified research expenses, or average basic research 
     payments, taken into account under subsection (a), the 
     qualified research expenses and basic research payments taken 
     into account in determining such averages shall be determined 
     on a basis consistent with the determination of qualified 
     research expenses and basic research payments, respectively, 
     for the credit year.
       ``(B) Prevention of distortions.--The Secretary may 
     prescribe regulations to prevent distortions in calculating a 
     taxpayer's qualified research expenses or basic research 
     payments caused by a change in accounting methods used by 
     such taxpayer between the current year and a year taken into 
     account in determining the average qualified research 
     expenses or average basic research payments taken into 
     account under subsection (a).''.
       (2) Section 41(e) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking all that precedes paragraph (6) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(e) Basic Research Payments.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `basic research payment' means, 
     with respect to any taxable year, any amount paid in cash 
     during such taxable year by a corporation to any qualified 
     organization for basic research but only if--
       ``(A) such payment is pursuant to a written agreement 
     between such corporation and such qualified organization, and
       ``(B) such basic research is to be performed by such 
     qualified organization.
       ``(2) Exception to requirement that research be performed 
     by the organization.--In the case of a qualified organization 
     described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (3), 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall not apply.'',
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively, and
       (C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) and by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
       (3) Section 41(f)(3) of such Code is amended--
       (A)(i) by striking ``, and the gross receipts'' in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) and all that follows through ``determined 
     under clause (iii)'',
       (ii) by striking clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) and 
     redesignating clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), thereof, as 
     clauses (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively,
       (iii) by striking ``and (iv)'' each place it appears in 
     subparagraph (A)(iv) (as so redesignated) and inserting ``and 
     (iii)'',
       (iv) by striking subclause (IV) of subparagraph (A)(iv) (as 
     so redesignated), by striking ``, and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (A)(iv)(III) (as so redesignated) and inserting 
     a period, and by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
     (A)(iv)(II) (as so redesignated),
       (v) by striking ``(A)(vi)'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``(A)(v)'',
       (vi) by striking ``(A)(iv)(II)'' in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) 
     and inserting ``(A)(iii)(II)'',
       (B) by striking ``, and the gross receipts of the 
     predecessor,'' in subparagraph (A)(iv)(II) (as so 
     redesignated),
       (C) by striking ``, and the gross receipts of,'' in 
     subparagraph (B),
       (D) by striking ``, or gross receipts of,'' in subparagraph 
     (B)(i)(I), and
       (E) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Adjustments for basic research payments.--In the case 
     of basic research payments, rules similar to the rules of 
     subparagraph (A) and (B) shall apply.''.
       (4) Section 41(f)(4) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and gross receipts'' and inserting ``and basic research 
     payments''.
       (5) Section 45C(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (D).
       (6) Section 45C(c)(2) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``base period research expenses'' and 
     inserting ``average qualified research expenses'', and
       (B) by striking ``base period research expenses'' in the 
     heading and inserting ``average qualified research 
     expenses''.
       (7) Section 280C(c) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``basic research expenses (as defined in 
     section 41(e)(2))'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``basic 
     research payments (as defined in section 41(e)(1))'', and
       (B) by striking ``basic research expenses'' in paragraph 
     (2)(B) and inserting ``basic research payments''.
       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2014.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 
     2014.

     SEC. 3 BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on 
     either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of 
     the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 880, the American 
Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?

[[Page 7400]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really simple. We have had the research and 
development tax credit in law since 1981. It has periodic expirations 
in it. Every time the law expires, we renew the law. Why? Because we 
think this is a good policy, and on a bipartisan basis our votes have 
always reflected that.
  We believe that since we renew this specifically 1 year at a time, it 
does not do very well in giving businesses the time to plan and the 
ability to consider long-term investments. They need certainty. One of 
the problems plaguing this economy is the lack of certainty. So what 
this bill does is it makes it permanent. This is something that we 
think ought to be a permanent feature of our Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments you are going to hear is, well, 
this has to be paid for. I want people to understand what that means 
when people say that. They are saying that to keep taxes where they 
are, we need to go raise them on other people. To put it another way, 
the minority is telling us they want a permanent extension of tax 
credits from the stimulus bill which was temporary, but they are saying 
if we make permanent provisions that have bipartisan support that are 
extended on an annual basis, if we make them permanent, all of a sudden 
we have to go raise taxes on some other hard-working Americans just to 
keep these taxes in place.
  I think that is incorrect. We don't think it jibes with reality. More 
importantly, we think it is very important, to help unleash job 
creation, to keep research and development jobs in America, that we 
make the research and development tax credit permanent.


        Permission to Postpone Proceedings on Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 880 may be subject to 
postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the author of H.R. 
880 and a Ways and Means Committee member, manage and control the 
remaining time for the majority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to start by clarifying one thing. My friend 
from Wisconsin talked about what it means when you say ``paid for.'' 
What it means when you say ``paid for'' is you pay for the bill. There 
is a certain cost associated with any legislation that we do, and if we 
don't pay for it, then it is added on to our deficits. So when we raise 
concerns about whether or not this tax bill or any other bill that 
comes to the floor for debate is paid for, the concerns that we are 
raising are in direct correlation to the fact that it needs to be paid 
for, not it needs to be added to the deficit or it needs to be added to 
our national debt.
  There is no debate on the issue of the merits of the R&D credit. A 
majority of my Democratic colleagues and I, too, believe in and support 
the R&D credit. It has proven to facilitate advancements in new 
technologies, sparked new innovations, and creates good-paying jobs for 
hard-working Americans, and it benefits hard-working American families. 
And it is critical to helping U.S. companies innovate and compete in a 
global marketplace.
  However, what we do object to is the approach by which this is being 
done. As I said, it is unpaid for, and it is outside of tax reform.
  Last year, the previous chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
Chairman Camp, unveiled a tax reform proposal that made the R&D credit 
permanent; but the cost of the provision was paid for. He did it 
responsibly. It was responsibly offset. This bill, like all the other 
individual tax bills we have considered thus far this year, does not 
pay for any of them; it does just the opposite. It continues a helter-
skelter approach toward tax extenders without any regard for paying the 
hundreds of billions of dollars it costs to make them permanent. 
Moreover, it poisons the bipartisan process that is going to be 
critical if we are, in fact, going to get tax reform done.
  This political exercise that we are doing today shows the misplaced 
priorities of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Not only 
did they recently vote to raise taxes and cut programs for millions of 
hardworking American families in their budget resolution, they are also 
leaving behind important provisions to help them, like the expansion of 
the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the American 
opportunity tax credit.
  When it comes to corporations and the wealthy, cost doesn't seem to 
be a problem. Yet programs vital to the well-being of hard-working 
families and communities are significantly cut or done away with.
  What is particularly glaring is that we can't even pass a long-term 
transportation bill, which is, by far, more important to our national 
security, our economic growth, and our competitiveness. The reason we 
can't pass it is because the majority is unable to find a way to pay 
for it.
  Yet here we are taking up a bill that costs $181 billion. Add that to 
the other unpaid-for tax cut bills that this body has already passed 
this year, and we will have added $586 billion to the deficit. That is 
almost half a trillion dollars. That is over half a trillion dollars.
  And what do we have to show for it? The President has already said 
that he is going to veto this bill, so what is the point? Why are we 
wasting the time and expense of debating this? It is going to be vetoed 
anyway.
  What we should be doing is working together to pass legislation that 
is vital to every congressional district's long-term transportation 
bill and comprehensive tax reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to work with the majority on these 
important things. Today's bill just takes us further away from that 
goal. Therefore, I ask that we vote ``no'' on this bill and make sure 
we vote for America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When it comes to research and development initiatives, America is 
rapidly falling behind our global competitors. Unless the U.S. remains 
the world's leading innovator, our economy will suffer while middle 
class families and talented college graduates will see jobs and 
opportunities lost to foreign countries. Making permanent the tax 
incentive for companies to invest in research and development right 
here in the United States will ensure lifesaving technologies, state-
of-the-art computer systems, and breakthroughs in manufacturing 
products.
  While America once led the world in R&D incentives, the U.S. has now 
dropped to--get this--27th among our global competitors. America's 
share of global research and development, while it is still big, has 
dropped from 39 percent, before the turn of this new century, to 31 
percent.
  So look at China. By contrast, China's R&D spending has increased 
fourfold. It is poised to surpass that of America by 2022.
  Permanency provides certainty to U.S. innovators. It makes the 
Federal budget scorekeeping far more honest, and it removes the 
asterisk from this temporary provision so that progrowth tax reform can 
advance.
  This year, we have added a new provision that will allow eligible 
small businesses to count the credit against the AMT, the alternative 
minimum tax. This is an important provision to enable America's newest 
innovators to develop even more cutting-edge, market-dominating 
technologies.
  I am proud to have worked on this important tax incentive with my 
friend

[[Page 7401]]

John Larson, a Democrat from Connecticut. The House passed this 
provision with a strong bipartisan vote last year.
  While the economy is improving, there are millions of Americans still 
looking for full-time work and millions more middle class families 
whose paychecks have been stagnant for years. If we want a permanently 
strong economy, we need a permanent research and development tax 
credit.
  The time for excuses is over. Stand with innovation in America or 
stand with China and other countries with the R&D being shipped to the 
rest of the world. I say we stand with America, our innovators, our 
college graduates, and our businesses.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), former chair of the committee and 
a strong proponent of responsible tax policy.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the eloquent words of my 
friend from Texas about the importance of research and development, and 
I can't think of any member on our committee that could not agree with 
him more.

                              {time}  1415

  While he was eloquently speaking about how important it was to our 
great Nation, I was even thinking about our trade bill if this is 
packaged in such a way that we would have our workforce with the backup 
of research and development, a trade bill that would include in it 
educational possibilities for the workforce, that would have 
infrastructure there and would have America knowing that we just 
weren't talking about success of the corporations, but for success of 
America.
  Also, the part that he mentioned--continuity--so that our 
businesspeople would know exactly what they could depend on. I just 
can't, for the life of me, see how they will know which part of the Tax 
Code or which week that we intend to bring up knowing it is going to be 
vetoed, if really in our hearts what we want is continuity. There is 
only one way to get continuity, and that is to review the Tax Code, to 
reform the Tax Code.
  If you take out all of the gems just to get a ``no'' vote against it 
politically, you are really harming bipartisanship. That is what we 
need; that is what the Tax Code needs; that is what our country needs, 
a Tax Code that eliminates all of the loopholes, and concentrate on 
those things our country needs.
  Of course, if politics is more important than policy, if all we are 
trying to do is play ``I gotcha,'' if all we want to say is we love 
research and development, but we know darn well politically it is not 
going to pass, if we are going to say that we all want reform, but now 
that we have both Houses Republican--House and the Senate--but we dare 
not talk about tax reform, well, I don't think we want to play this 
political game.
  What we do want to do--and I want to agree with the majority--
research and development is what keeps America competitive. It should 
not be played with. It should not be politicalized. It should be a part 
of the tax reform bill.
  If you can't do it when you have control of the Finance Committee in 
the Senate and refuse to do it when you are in charge of the Ways and 
Means Committee and have a President that is calling out for overall 
comprehensive fairness and equity and tax reform, it is painful to see 
how the eloquence of love for this country can be distorted by having 
votes on legislation that we know is never to become law.
  I say, as I take my seat, I am not giving up on tax reform. I hope 
that the Republicans come together and have a meaningful bill not for 
our committee, but for our conscience.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The President has threatened to veto this bill. The question is 
clear: Why is the President standing for those who would ship jobs 
overseas? Why isn't he standing with Republicans and Democrats in 
Congress in this House to keep those jobs in research here in America?
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), 
a new member of the Ways and Means Committee, who understands research 
and development in the Triangle of North Carolina.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Brady for offering 
this important piece of legislation.
  The research and development credit plays a crucial role in the 
continued economic growth of our Nation, spurring innovation and 
supporting high-skilled, high-paying jobs.
  Innovation has been a huge driver of growth in my district. Because 
of the breakthrough technologies coming out of Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina has become a leader in American innovation.
  In and around my district, I have seen how important the R&D credit 
has been to our Nation's innovative companies, like Biogen, Cisco, GSK, 
SAS, UTC, and Siemens, amongst a host of others. I urge my colleagues 
to support such companies and their employees and the families of those 
employees by making this important credit permanent.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, a growing number of foreign countries are 
increasing innovation and advancing manufacturing by providing generous 
and permanent R&D tax credits along with lower corporate tax rates.
  In fact, according to an OECD study, the U.S. ranks 22nd in research 
incentives among industrialized countries. We owe our innovators 
better, and in order to remain a leader in the increasingly global 
economy, we must continue to support and incentivize research and 
innovation here in the United States.
  Passage of this bill will provide companies and researchers with the 
certainty and support they need to keep America and my district and 
North Carolina in the forefront of global innovation and send a strong 
message that we stand behind the groundbreaking research being 
conducted by our Nation's innovators.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I just want to point out that the President is standing with those of 
us who support the R&D credit, but he wants it done responsibly. He 
wants it paid for, and he wants it part of tax reform. Just like all of 
us, we support the R&D credit. We want it paid for, and we want it part 
of tax reform.
  To suggest that voting against this is standing with China, I find 
somewhat an ironic statement made by my friend from Texas, given the 
fact that China already holds so much of the U.S. debt. All this does 
is empower them more, give them more of our debt.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is one type of innovation in which 
these Republicans are truly unexcelled--there is no competition. And 
that is the innovation in names, in naming these bills.
  They salute climate deniers and The Flat Earth Society by slashing 
funding for earth science that is strongly opposed by geophysicists and 
one academic after another. What do they call it? The ``America 
COMPETES Act.''
  On this measure, its companion, they borrow almost $200 billion from 
anyone who will lend it to us to give mostly to the largest 
corporations, largely for doing research that they would be doing, even 
if they weren't rewarded. And they call that the ``American Research 
and Competitiveness Act.'' Now, that is true innovation. They don't 
need a credit; they ought to get a prize for being contortionists when 
it comes to labeling these measures.
  This particular bill just digs us deeper and deeper into debt, while 
adding very little to our research capability. That is truly 
unfortunate, since America's future competitiveness is in jeopardy. And 
that is outlined this very day in ``Innovation Lies on Weak 
Foundation,'' a New York Times economic column.
  As Eduardo Porter notes, ``Investment in research and development has 
flatlined over the last several years as a share of the economy . . . 
other countries are now leaving the United States

[[Page 7402]]

behind . . . government budgets for basic research, the biggest source 
of financing for scientific inquiry . . . fell in 2013 to substantially 
below its level 10 years earlier.''
  Indeed, the Republican budget makes significant cuts to research, 
including hundreds fewer research grants that the President sought at 
both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science 
Foundation. I think we need more than another Ice Bucket Challenge to 
fund research for cures for cancer and diabetes, ALS, AIDS, and the 
like. We need the resources to tackle problems that are touching every 
family in this country.
  Unfortunately, this R&D credit that is being made permanent without 
reform has required American taxpayers to subsidize the development of 
electronic cigarettes and other products to addict our children to 
nicotine, instead of using those dollars to fight those dreaded 
diseases to which nicotine contributes.
  Corporate research generally is focused more and more on the next 
quarter's reports to Wall Street to which excessive corporate 
compensation is tied, instead of focusing on basic research. Porter 
concludes in the same article that this particular bill is ``unlikely 
to help much.'' And he notes the conclusion of the Congressional 
Research Service, an objective source, that this regularly renewed 
credit ``delivered, at most, a modest stimulus to domestic business R&D 
investment from 2000-2010.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I support a permanent research and development credit to 
incentivize more research. The question is: How do we pay for it, and 
how do we ensure that it actually encourages more jobs, leads to more 
research and more economic development, instead of just giving a reward 
to those who are already doing something in this area to advance their 
product?
  Nothing, of course, prevents multinationals from taking the credit 
and then putting the patent or the copyright in some foreign tax haven 
and avoiding paying their American taxes, another reform that is 
necessary.
  We should reject this proposal in favor of a strong research credit 
that actually incentivizes necessary research here in America and which 
is paid for, in part, by comprehensive reform of this very credit. 
Surely, we don't need any more research today to know that today's 
bills are the wrong way to go for America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), one of our leaders of the Ways 
and Means Committee, who understands you can't keep making excuses 
about bringing R&D to America; you have to act.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this legislation and on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, America has long been a place where an idea 
that is thought up in a garage or in the backyard can become the next 
revolution in manufacturing or the next lifesaving technology.
  We need a Tax Code that promotes innovation, that promotes 
entrepreneurship, that promotes growth. We need a Tax Code that allows 
the inventors and the dreamers with a good idea to be able to go out 
there and succeed.
  This is critical legislation that comes at a very critical time. 
Modernizing and making the research and development tax credit 
permanent will ensure that the United States remains competitive in the 
global marketplace.
  It has been around since 1981; it has been renewed 16 times, but when 
you renew a credit for 1 year, for 2 years, or you make it retroactive, 
that doesn't work very well for some companies that are allocating 
their capital for 5 or 10 years on the horizon that want to invest in 
research and development.
  In Minnesota, we are the home to 400 medical device companies. 
Research and development is their lifeblood, and these manufacturers 
use research and development to invent new devices, new techniques, new 
procedures. These companies are also a very essential component to our 
economy in Minnesota and also around the United States.
  We should be making America the number one destination to create and 
grow a business. Making the research and development credit permanent 
will provide our Nation's innovators that incentive and that certainty 
that they need to develop the next big idea and help America win the 
future.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of our 
Ways and Means Committee, from a district filled with innovators, all 
of whom would benefit from doing this policy the right way.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  I was listening to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas, who is 
managing the bill for our Republican friends, and I was struck for a 
moment when he talked about the disadvantage vis-a-vis China, how--in a 
few years--we are going to slip behind China in R&D development.
  He talked about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be made 
available if we were able to redouble our efforts in research and 
development and the concerns about the overall slippage of the United 
States into the middle of the pack when it comes to research.
  I was struck by those words. For a moment, I thought he was talking 
about the United States infrastructure because we don't have to wait 
for 3 or 4 or 5 years to slip behind China; we are already being 
overshown by their efforts. We are investing less than 2 percent of our 
gross domestic product in infrastructure; the Chinese are investing 8 
percent or more.
  The United States once had the finest infrastructure in the world--
not anymore. Those international ratings that my good friend from Texas 
talked about are very much the case for our infrastructure. We have 
dropped from 1st to 5th to 16th to 27th.
  I want to know where the alarm for my Republican friends is about our 
falling behind while America falls apart.

                              {time}  1430

  We are going to pass before the year is out the research and 
development credit. I hope we do it the right way, but we will do it.
  What we haven't done in the 55 months since the Republicans took 
control of the House of Representatives is we have not had a single 
hearing on how we are going to finance our crumbling infrastructure--
not one. In the meantime, we are told that this is off the table, that 
the gas tax is off the table. We are going to do some smoke and mirrors 
or something. We just passed the 33rd short-term extension of the 
surface transportation bill.
  What country became great in having built its infrastructure 9 months 
at a time?
  While my Republican friends refuse to even consider the gas tax that 
Ronald Reagan championed--in fact, urged and Congress more than doubled 
under his watch--in the last 6 months, we have had Georgia, Utah, South 
Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Iowa all raise their gas taxes, hoping 
that the Federal Government will meet its obligations and be a partner 
in rebuilding and in renewing America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Where is the sense of urgency for the cost to 
families who are having $300 a year or more in damage to their cars? 
The fact that we are not being able to move product because we are 
stuck in traffic? Then our ports, our airports, our roads, our rail--we 
just had an example of its instability--where is the urgency?
  I would, respectfully, suggest that we reject this wrongheaded 
approach and deal with real tax reform and the R&D tax credit. But in 
the meantime, maybe the Ways and Means Committee could find a week that 
we could spend working together to rebuild and renew America.

[[Page 7403]]


  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), a new member of the Ways and Means 
Committee who comes from a research-driven State.
  Mr. DOLD. I want to thank my good friend from Texas for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just address my good friend from Oregon to 
say, as someone on this side of the aisle, I, too, sense an urgency on 
transportation and infrastructure. I know that we need to step up and 
do something about it so that we can have a robust economy, so that we 
can be moving our goods and services around. I do look forward to our 
working on tax reform, but, today, we are talking about research and 
development.
  As we talk about certainty, certainly we need certainty with regard 
to our transportation and infrastructure system, but we need certainty 
when it comes to research and development. Businesses all across our 
country, as they are looking to try to create that next new product, as 
they are looking to innovate, as they are looking to create that next 
new thing in order to improve the lives of individuals and to enhance 
our Nation, they need to have that certainty to be able to look around 
the corner.
  We are moving forward on research and development a step at a time. 
We are reauthorizing it a year at a time. Sometimes we are doing it 
retroactively, which means that those businesses don't have the ability 
to plan and oftentimes don't. They are happy to take the tax relief, 
but they are not really willing to plan and invest in it, oftentimes 
having, year after year, programs in which they are investing billions 
of dollars, creating thousands of jobs.
  Innovation, Mr. Speaker, is something that we should all be united 
behind. We want to innovate here in the United States. We want to 
create things here in the United States. We do not want to have a 
research and development situation which really fosters innovation 
outside of the United States. Yes, we have slipped behind, and 
Republicans and Democrats alike want to make sure that the United 
States is leading the charge. We need to be globally competitive. We 
are not in a domestic economy--we are in a global economy. If we want 
to be globally competitive, we cannot be ranked 22nd when it comes to 
research incentives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I come from a northern district in Illinois. 
We are the fourth-largest manufacturing district in the Nation. Yes, we 
rely on that infrastructure because we need to know how our raw 
materials come in, how our finished product goes out, and how we move 
people around. We also realize that those manufacturers rely on that 
research and development tax credit in order to innovate, in order to 
create that next new thing, that next new innovation. If we don't do it 
in the United States, they will be doing it elsewhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I just got back from Israel. One of the things that 
struck me as I swung by one of their companies is that they had a sign 
out front that read: ``Where Innovation Never Stops.''
  We either choose to innovate here, or they will do it elsewhere. This 
is a bipartisan initiative, and I ask my colleagues to support this 
initiative.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I just want to point out that my friend who just spoke said that he, 
too, believes in transportation, that we should be working on 
transportation and tax reform, but that, today, we are talking about 
the R&D credit.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority party sets the agenda. The reason we are 
not talking about transportation or tax reform is that they don't want 
to talk about it. They set the agenda. They are the ones who decided 
that today we were going to do this irresponsible tax bill rather than 
look at comprehensive tax reform or look at transportation funding for 
our crumbling infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), my colleague and friend and the chair of the 
Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's make sure we get something straight. I don't think 
there is a Member here on the floor who doesn't agree that we want to 
invest in research and development so that we keep that innovation here 
at home and create jobs that pay well here at home. We all want to 
incentivize that job creation. We all want to make sure that the 
economy grows in the future. That is not what is at issue here. What is 
at issue is that this bill sends exactly the wrong message about our 
commitment to invest not just in our future but in our children and in 
what we call the middle class and the American Dream.
  See, there is a cost involved in doing research and development tax 
credits. That is a tax break. We are willing to give companies a tax 
break that the families who are up in this gallery won't get. When they 
file their taxes, they won't get to write off some of their costs for 
doing certain things because they are not companies, and they are not 
doing research and development.
  We, as a community, as a country, are saying it is valuable to give a 
country a tax break to do that research that gives us the next 
invention. Great, but there is a cost. How much? $180 billion. It ain't 
free. We have got to pay for it. So it is not an issue of not 
supporting research and development; it is wanting to be responsible 
and wanting to be honest with the American people in saying let's pay 
for it. Democrats are saying we can pay for it. Let's close those tax 
breaks that are essentially tax loopholes that everyone in America 
would agree are not fair. Use the money you save from closing tax 
loopholes to pay for something we all want, which is research and 
development tax credits.
  Now, this isn't free. If we don't pay for it, what happens? Guess 
what? You don't want to pay for it? You know this is going to cost 
three times more than what we spend on our veterans. So we are going to 
say, Veterans, you shouldn't get any services because we had to do this 
research and development tax credit, and we didn't pay for it.
  Perhaps you want to tell that to all of those folks who are looking 
for the cure for cancer or for the cure for diabetes. Guess what? We 
are spending about three times as much with this research and 
development tax credit--unpaid for--than what we pay for all of that 
medical research we do through the National Institutes of Health. This 
is not free.
  Student loans. How many folks have to worry about paying for their 
student loans for their kids to go to college? Guess what? The cost of 
this bill is about what it would cost to continue the programs that we 
have in place for our kids who go on to college so we can keep the cost 
of student loans low. You want to eliminate that so people have to pay 
a lot more--market rate interest rates--for those student loans? Guess 
what? That is what we would have to do.
  There are consequences. If we are going to get away from deficit 
spending, you have got to pay for things. If you think it is a 
priority, then let's pay for it, but don't act like you can do these 
things for free. They cost money. All we are saying is let's pay for 
what we all agree is important--a research and development tax credit 
for companies that will do that research here in America. Let's not try 
to hoodwink the American public. This is not free. It is the right 
thing to do. Just about every American family would say, Guess what? 
Maybe I have to pay a few more dollars in taxes, but I am keeping that 
American company here, investing in innovation here, creating jobs in 
America.
  Priorities. Let's make the tough choices. Let's vote against this and 
vote for a bill that actually pays for the cost of something we want to 
do with the research and development tax credit.

[[Page 7404]]


  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the 
United States House of Representatives.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of speakers on this floor. What 
is the cost not to invest in the future? There are 4 out of 10 
graduates out of college today who can't find a job. How do you pay for 
that?
  You look towards the future. I will tell you many in this country 
have followed the innovators in our history. Mr. Speaker, one happened 
to be Steven Jobs. Steven Jobs said that innovation distinguishes 
between a leader and a follower.
  That is true with people, and it is also true with countries. America 
leads because we take the principles of our past, and we apply them to 
a changing future. We are the pioneers who always look to the next 
frontier, ready to challenge what others believe is impossible. 
Innovation is key to our leadership and is essential to our economic 
prosperity in an increasingly competitive 21st century. What Washington 
needs to understand is that the greatest innovations don't come from 
Washington--they come from the people.
  It reminds me of what was going on in the early 1900s in this 
country. Washington wanted to figure out the invention of flight, so 
the wisdom of government said, ``Let's just pay Samuel Langley to 
discover how to fly,'' but we all knew what came true. We watched two 
brothers who owned a bicycle store take to the skies from a small field 
in Kitty Hawk, transforming what we know of today.
  The R&D tax credit harnesses that American spirit. It makes space for 
the American people to lead us into the future. When Ronald Reagan 
first signed the R&D tax credit into law, he knew it would grow our 
economy and make America strong because it put our faith in the 
country's greatest assets--its people and the future.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are voting to make this tax credit permanent. 
I think that is very good policy. I also think it shows what our values 
are. It shows that it is everyday heroes who can lead us into the 
future of tomorrow. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and 
I urge my colleagues to give the American people the tools to move 
America forward.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Thompson 
and the ranking member, Mr. Levin, and members of the committee for 
bringing clarity to this debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have always believed that innovation is what 
keeps America number one. I think that that is a view that is shared by 
all of us in the Congress. Our commitment on our side of the aisle, I 
know, is to science and to research and development, which create jobs, 
launch entire new industries, and give the miraculous power to cure.
  For Americans to continue to lead in the 21st century, for us to meet 
the challenges of our time, for us to secure a strong and sustainable 
future for America's families and the next generation, we must commit 
to fueling the engines of innovation.
  When President Kennedy challenged Americans to reach for the Moon, he 
reminded us that America must lead in innovation:

       The vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we are 
     first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership 
     in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, 
     our obligations to ourselves as well as to others, all 
     require us to make this effort.

  However, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 
these days, the United States has dropped to 10th place in national R&D 
investment as a percentage of the GDP.
  As their report makes clear:

       Unless basic research becomes a higher government priority 
     than it has been in recent decades, the potential for 
     fundamental scientific breakthroughs and future technological 
     advances will be severely constrained.

  Instead of meeting this urgent need and challenge, Republicans are 
coming to the floor of this House today with not one but two bills that 
do violence to that aspiration.

                              {time}  1445

  First of all, we have the so-called Republican R&D bill, a completely 
unpaid-for, permanent, and deficit-exploding tax extension. Democrats 
support the R&D tax credit, and we will be offering a motion to 
recommit for a 2-year extension to give Congress--Democrats and 
Republicans--time to work together to pass comprehensive tax reform 
that closes loopholes and pays for making this tax credit permanent.
  With this bill alone, Republicans will explode the deficit by $182 
billion. This is just a part of a larger package of permanent, 
completely unpaid-for Republican tax measures this year that will add 
almost $600 billion to the deficit--over half a trillion dollars added 
to the deficit--including this bill, their bill to hand $269 billion to 
the 5,400 richest families in America. 5,400 families, and their estate 
tax bill would be getting the benefit of $269 billion paid for by the 
middle class in our country, depriving us of investments in our 
children's future.
  The fact is that House Republicans have spent this entire Congress 
blowing up the deficit with unpaid-for tax giveaways overwhelmingly 
tilted toward wealthy special interests. My colleagues, hear this: it 
is worth noting that this bill on the floor has nothing to do with 
enterprising startups that are unable to claim the R&D tax credit. Some 
of you have said to me: Well, we have all these startups in my 
district. By and large, they cannot benefit from this bill the way it 
is written.
  We would like to have written our motion to recommit to go further, 
to do that, but the Parliamentarians say, because you prevent it in 
your base bill, we can't go further.
  This is what is really stunning in the look of it all. On the same 
day as you are saying we are going to do a gotcha bill on R&D and 
challenge you all who support R&D not to vote for our approach, on the 
very same day--lest anybody think that this is an overwhelming interest 
in R&D on the Republican side of the aisle--Republicans are bringing to 
the floor a COMPETES Act that completely undermines everything to do 
with science and innovation in our country. It completely upsets our 
Innovation Agenda.
  In the 110th Congress we put forth the Innovation Agenda, a bill 
developed in a totally nonpartisan way. Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren, and 
George Miller took the lead going across the country, getting input, 
nonpartisan input, academic input, venture capital input, technological 
input, into an Innovation Agenda. That Innovation Agenda really calls 
for making permanent and modernizing the R&D tax credit. We see the 
relationship between science, technology, innovation, and progress to 
keep America number one with R&D tax credits, but not done this way as 
we do here.
  This is a trap in order to keep us from investing in Innovation 
Agenda, and that was something that Bart Gordon, as chair of the 
Science and Technology Committee, fought for and achieved. ARPA-E, you 
know that, to name one thing. But instead, today, Republicans are 
bringing a bill that totally does violence to all this. I hope Members 
will listen to and support the alternative presented by Congresswoman 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, our ranking member on the committee.
  But, anyway, the original COMPETES Act by the Democratic Congress was 
supported by an overwhelming number of Republicans. A majority of the 
Republicans defied their leadership and voted for the COMPETES Act in 
the 110th Congress, and that original bill passed in a bipartisan way. 
We laid the foundation for new industries that provide jobs for our 
workers, that open new markets for American products, that ensure that 
we continue to ``rise above the gathering storm.'' Norm Augustine and 
others led the way to show what the gathering storm was unless we made 
those investments in science and technology.

[[Page 7405]]

As I said, we created ARPA-E, so important.
  This Republican bill betrays everything that the COMPETES Act did. 
The Republican bill betrays everything that the COMPETES Act did. It is 
an assault on science and a plan to surrender American leadership on 
innovation. Instead of investing in research and development, their 
bill slashes funding for essential initiatives at the National Science 
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy 
research.
  It cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D by $496 million. 
It is huge, half-a-billion-dollar cut, nearly 30 percent below what was 
appropriated last year. It cuts ARPA-E by $140 million, 50 percent 
below the level in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed last 
week.
  Most insidiously, Republicans are attacking science they don't even 
want to hear. Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't mean it 
isn't true. In this COMPETES bill that they are presenting, they are 
trying to silence the climate, environmental, and social science they 
have consistently tried to ignore. The Republican bill goes so far as 
to forbid Federal agencies such as EPA and FERC from using any research 
funded or developed by DOE, a brazen attempt to divorce their decisions 
from scientific inquiry.
  So again, the very idea that, on this floor today, they come out with 
this masquerade of R&D tax credits, $182 billion added to the deficit, 
with the impression that they care about R&D. R&D into what? R&D into 
nothing that is about innovation to keep America number one. These 
Republican bills represent a perfect manifestation of Republican 
trickle-down economics.
  The choice that our country has to make in the economy as we go 
forward is trickle-down economics versus middle class economics. 
Trickle-down theories have not worked. They are what got us in trouble 
in 2008, and it is exactly what the Republicans are trying to take us 
back to. Today is one manifestation of that.
  Republicans are seeking to ransack our Nation's investments in the 
future, our commitment to science, our commitment to our children's 
education, our commitment to bigger paychecks, and our commitment to 
better infrastructure for every American family.
  We need to come together in a bipartisan way, and that is very 
possible. We did it with the COMPETES Act before. To pay for R&D tax 
credit extension, we need to reject this Republican assault on science 
that will happen later today. We need to invest in the future of 
innovation of our country, of hard-working American families. We need 
to reject failed trickle-down economic theories and accept that the 
success of our Nation depends on bigger paychecks for America's working 
families. R&D tax credits made permanent and modernized are a 
significant part of that, but they are not a part of it if they take us 
deeper into debt, preventing us from making the investments in the 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible 
R&D bill, ``no'' on their destructive COMPETES Act, and ``yes'' on the 
proposal made by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, who I thank for 
her great leadership for keeping America number one.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank Mr. Brady for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side 
that, under the leadership of the former presenter, almost a trillion 
dollars was spent on a stimulus package with nothing to show for it.
  I was in the business world then, and I have been in the business 
world 37 years. The reason I ran for Congress was to bring real-world 
experience to this body. That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 
880. The reason for that is because, when you invest and you invest 
properly, there is a return. Those families find jobs, and that is what 
this bill is about.
  H.R. 880 is to simplify and make permanent the research and 
development tax credit. Despite the fact that the research tax credit 
has been extended 16 times since its enactment, it remains a temporary 
measure. It is very difficult to plan based on temporary measures. 
Clearly, it is high time that we provide certainty for innovators in 
Georgia and across the Nation by making this tax credit permanent.
  Innovation is the lifeblood of the small-business community, which 
employs over 70 percent of the workforce. Innovation in the private 
sector is essential to driving our economy forward and in fostering 
growth and creating jobs for Americans now and in the future. It is our 
duty in Congress to incentivize businesses so that innovators and 
entrepreneurs can do what they do best and fill the ever growing demand 
for jobs across our great Nation.
  We have so many capable men and women willing to work, so let's get 
out of the way of the entrepreneurial American spirit and pass H.R. 
880.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out 
that small businesses and the startups are disadvantaged if this bill 
passes. They can't take advantage of this real-world experience and 
business-world experience. I am here to tell you, as a small-business 
person, if you don't pay your bills, you go out of business. The leader 
had mentioned that this bill is going to cost $181 billion, but, Mr. 
Speaker and Members, if you add that $181 billion to everything else 
that the majority has passed in regard to unpaid-for tax cuts, that 
number jumps to $586.3 billion of unpaid-for tax policy.
  Now it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of our Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from California for yielding me time. I also want to thank 
Representative Brady for his characterization of my State, the State of 
Illinois, as being research driven, and indeed it is. I am also proud 
to know that, from the time I have been here, I have always been number 
one or number two in our delegation of supporting research, so I am 
research oriented.
  It amazes me how much doubletalk we engage in. We talk a great deal 
about deficit reduction and reducing spending, and yet, at the same 
time, we are passing a bill that is not paid for while we cut greatly 
needed programs and activities that could give balance to individuals 
all over the country who are just simply trying to survive and to make 
it, activities like Medicaid and SNAP.
  In my communities and in many others throughout America, we are 
struggling right now with the idea of how do you develop summer work 
opportunities for young adults so that we could have a real attack on 
some of the rash of violence and activity that we see approaching and 
being engaged in throughout urban America.
  I have always been in favor of research and development, and I have 
always been in favor of using tax incentives as a way of spurring 
economic development and stimulating the economy. But, you know, I am 
also interested in passing credits. I am interested in credits for 
businesses. We have talked about businesses. Well, let's pass some 
credits so that businesses can hire hard-to-employ individuals, so that 
they can hire these young people looking for summer jobs, for something 
to do.
  So I am in favor of credits, but I am not in favor of a bill that is 
not paid for, a bill that will not be comprehensive across the board, 
and a bill that will put more wealth in the pockets of the 1 percent 
and do nothing to aid the overall economy.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan 
once observed that the government's view of the economy is pretty 
simple: ``If it moves, tax it.''

[[Page 7406]]

  Well, today, more than ever, President Reagan's words ring true. 
Taxes are prohibitively high. We can take a step in a new direction by 
passing H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 
2015. This legislation is simple; it will make the R&D tax credit 
permanent. By doing so, we reduce the amount of taxes that America's 
innovators pay by providing a 20 percent credit on research expenses.
  According to a recent study, this policy will increase overall 
investment in research by $33 billion and result in 300,000 research-
related jobs. In practical terms, this means that a small business in 
the beautiful State of West Virginia--which I represent--or where you 
live that spends $5 million a year on research could be eligible for a 
$500,000 tax credit.
  That is enough money to hire 10 new employees at $50,000 a year. We 
are talking about 10 new, hard-working American taxpayers. We are 
talking about men and women who are given the dignity of work. They 
will pay taxes rather than possibly take government assistance.
  When I ran for office, I promised West Virginians that I would fight 
for policies that create jobs and bring economic freedom back to 
America. This bill takes us a step in that direction. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) 
has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) has 14 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, as I said earlier, of the R&D tax 
credit. My colleagues on this side of the aisle support the R&D tax 
credit. As we have been saying here today on the floor, it is an 
important credit that is vital to our global competitiveness, job and 
economic growth, and maintaining our position as the world's leader in 
innovation.
  As I have also stated--and I will say it again--this bill isn't paid 
for. The majority is adding $181 billion to the deficit with just this 
one bill. This is fiscally irresponsible.
  What I haven't been able to understand--and I am having trouble today 
trying to figure it out--is how we can pass bills that help 
corporations and the wealthy, adding the cost of that to the deficit, 
but then turn around and try to balance the budget and close the 
deficit on the backs of hard-working American families.
  They are trying to do this by cutting the programs we need to grow 
our economy, like education and infrastructure. We have an 
infrastructure bill that we are still waiting for a hearing on, which 
we are still waiting to see scheduled.
  It is a double standard; it is hypocritical, and it is harmful to the 
people that all of us represent. We are ready and willing to work with 
the majority to strengthen the economy, including progrowth reforms 
that benefit businesses and comprehensive tax reform that will benefit 
all of America, but this is the wrong approach, and we should not be 
party to this political gamesmanship that is taking place on the floor 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think one of the big problems with Washington is that everyone 
finds excuses not to do the right thing. The truth is we need research 
and development here in America, not overseas. We need the jobs that 
come with that here in America, not overseas. We need, frankly, the 
future of America here, rather than overseas. Republicans and Democrats 
both agree on that; both sincerely agree on that. Today, we heard 
excuses, and we will hear excuses.
  We are told this doesn't fund infrastructure. It doesn't. This is 
about funding the infrastructure of research and development and 
innovation, but not through the government. This is through our 
entrepreneurs, like Apple and Microsoft, and all the new research and 
groundbreaking drugs and medical breakthroughs. That is how we are 
funding the infrastructure of our future. Roads and bridges, we will 
tackle in another bill.
  We are told this isn't comprehensive tax reform. No, it is not. It is 
a critical step forward in that by taking a provision that has been 
temporary far too long and making it a permanent part of our Tax Code 
so that we can invest in R&D with certainty, so we can have honest 
scorekeeping in our budget, and so we can take that first step toward 
real, comprehensive progrowth tax reform.
  We are told today, as we have heard in the past, that it is not paid 
for, but in fact, to the extensions since 1981, these provisions 
haven't been paid for. Our Democrat friends passed these bills and 
supported them. They weren't paid for. We have done the same. It was 1 
year or 2 years at a time. To say this is fiscally irresponsible, when 
they voted so many times to do the same thing, seems to me to be 
another excuse.
  The cost of doing this permanently is no more than the cost of doing 
it 1 or 2 years at a time. To think otherwise is sort of in the line of 
saying: You know, that dessert doesn't have calories if I eat it 
standing up.
  Well, the cost of R&D is the same, but the cost of not making it 
permanent is very much not the same. We know the impact will be fewer 
jobs here in America, more R&D in China, and we will lose our lead in 
the world as the world's innovator.
  No more excuses--what we are looking for today is a bipartisan effort 
to make sure those jobs are here in America, that our companies have a 
chance to invest more and more and more each year. That is what we want 
them to do.
  We want to give college graduates hope. As the majority leader from 
California noted, 4 out of 10 college graduates either can't find jobs, 
or they are working behind a cash register. Well, it is wrong. We ought 
to give them an opportunity. We ought to give them some jobs and some 
hope. Those college graduates are skilled and talented, and they 
deserve to be part of America's innovative society. That is what they 
deserve. That is what we are going to deliver to them.
  While I am thrilled my Democrat friends are talking about the 
deficit, I wish they would have acted upon it earlier. The first year 
they took control of this House under the former Speaker, they doubled 
the deficit. The second year, they tripled the deficit. The third year, 
they took it over a trillion dollars and a trillion dollars again, 
until the American public said enough.
  What we got for all that spending was the worst economic recovery in 
half a century. We are missing 6 million jobs from the American 
economy. We have fewer people working the workforce than we did before 
the recovery actually began. In some ways, we are going backwards, 
especially for our young people.
  Today, with this bill, this is research and development both parties 
support. The only reason we are hearing the excuses is that it is a 
Republican bill this time. That is the only reason.
  Research and development is not a Republican proposal, it is not a 
Democrat proposal. It is an American proposal we all support. We think 
our economy ought to grow not in Washington, but back home, and that 
innovation matters. The way we do that is to recapture America's 
leadership in R&D.
  For all those reasons--and for the support of entrepreneurs, 
manufacturers, and technology companies back home all across America--I 
urge that we stop the excuses, we join together as Republicans and 
Democrats, we take back America's leadership in innovation and create 
the jobs that our young people deserve.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan bill 
H.R. 880 the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015 to make 
permanent and simplify an important tax credit, which promotes job 
creation and economic growth.
  Unfortunately, Congress did not address this issue last year, so I 
applaud Mr. Brady for

[[Page 7407]]

continuing to work on this important measure to bring certainty to an 
important sector of the U.S. economy.
  By simply enhancing and making permanent the now expired research tax 
credit, H.R. 880 increases the ability of businesses to compete in an 
increasingly globalized marketplace by rewarding investments in 
innovation technologies and manufacturing. These new technologies 
provide the basis of new consumer products, increased scientific 
discovery, and technological improvements across numerous fields and 
disciplines.
  The common sense American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015 
lowers the cost of innovation, creates high wage jobs, and lays the 
foundation for a strong economy in the 21st century. The U.S. is facing 
increasing competition around the globe from countries with more 
advantageous tax structures, so it is critical that Congress extend 
this credit to remain competitive in the future.
  As a cosponsor of the bipartisan H.R. 880, I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this common sense 
legislation to provide the tools necessary to create jobs, promote 
economic growth, and create the innovations of tomorrow--right here in 
America.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 880--another unpaid-for permanent extension of an 
expired tax provision offered by the Majority.
  I am privileged to represent many of our country's leading research 
institutions and innovative researchers and entrepreneurs in New York's 
12th District. Like many of my colleagues, I believe that a permanent 
R&D credit will support critical research and create high-skilled, 
high-paying jobs throughout the country. This bill makes important 
improvements to the credit, and I hope to work with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to provide incentives for businesses to invest 
in research and development.
  However, I cannot support policies that extend certain tax provisions 
while other critical tax credits, like those for higher education and 
the Earned Income Tax Credit, face an uncertain future. All told, the 
Majority's slate of unpaid-for permanent tax extensions would increase 
the deficit by nearly $600 billion, all while its budget proposes 
severe cuts to education, transportation, and critical safety net 
programs in the name of deficit reduction. Americans are not fooled by 
this double standard, and Congress should reject this disingenuous 
approach to tax policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Neal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 880 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike section 2 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. NO INCREASE IN DEFICIT OR DELAY OF COMPREHENSIVE TAX 
                   REFORM.

        Nothing in this Act shall result in--
       (1) an increase in the deficit, or
       (2) a delay or weakening of efforts to adopt a permanent 
     extension of the research credit in a fiscally responsible 
     manner.

     SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 41(h) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 
     2014.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form, 
and I want to remind my colleagues that this will not kill the bill, 
nor will it send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will 
proceed immediately to final passage as amended.
  Well, we are 6 months into the new Congress; and what do we hear from 
the majority? It is more of the same, more of the same assurances: 
Trust us on tax reform; it is on the way.
  First, it was: Do not introduce tax bills. Trust us, tax reform is on 
the way.
  Then it was: If we make some extenders permanent, trust us, tax 
reform is just around the corner.
  The new refrain is: If we want to fix the highway trust fund, let's 
do tax reform at the same time.
  Mind you, we have just voted to extend the highway trust fund for the 
33rd time, and in December, we will most likely vote to extend the R&D 
tax credit on another short-term basis. Let's stop playing these games.
  By the way, when my friend from Texas talked about Democrats 
extending the deficits, did he forget that Bill Clinton left us with 
four straight balanced budgets, and in 8 years, they wrecked the 
trajectory of those balanced budget with $2.3 trillion of tax cuts? 
That is the reality. When I heard him say the Democrats ran up the 
deficits, I guess they forgot there was a President George W. Bush in 
between.
  What do we do here? We do the estate tax repeal. That takes care of 
5,400 families in America. How universal is that? If we weren't doing 
the estate tax bill--repealing it, by the way--then what we could have 
done was perhaps extend and agree upon a robust R&D tax credit, which 
you all know I support. How about, for 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 years, put it 
in line and let private investment build around it?
  If you are from Massachusetts, obviously, you are for a more robust 
R&D tax credit. Who in Massachusetts could be against that? World class 
universities, hospitals, businesses, incubators--we produce some of the 
highest and best tech advancements in the world. Kendall Square in 
Cambridge has the highest concentration of R&D in the whole world.
  We know this credit is vital to keeping America at the innovation 
forefront, and we know that the start-and-stop nature of this credit 
has put a damper on the willingness of firms to invest because they 
don't know if the credit is going to be gone tomorrow.
  Now, a chance to point something out that I think bears noting, as a 
percent of gross domestic product, research and development now is the 
lowest it has been in decades. Why is that? Because of the rejection of 
science on my Republican friend's side, private sector R&D is way down.
  The encouragement in the Tax Code is simply to buy smaller companies, 
merge, and take advantage of the innovation they have done. There is 
the opportunity here to build something around the R&D that we should 
be taking advantage of here today, but we are not doing that because of 
the notion of having rejected this science.
  The fickle nature of Congress toward this credit is attributable to 
one fact: we have not reformed the Tax Code since 1986. Now, 
Congressman Brady wasn't even born the last time that we did tax reform 
30-some odd years ago. He was but a wish in a couple's eye. That is how 
dated this argument is.
  He said: Why can't we agree on some things here?
  There are some things we can agree upon: Barack Obama was not born in 
Kenya; secondly, and just importantly, there is no imminent invasion of 
Texas that is being planned; And third, very simply, the tax cuts don't 
pay for themselves. They have to score some place.

                              {time}  1515

  We are taking up the time today debating this extender--or 
extenders--when we should be talking about tax reform that works for 
the middle class, a tax reform that does not reward investment; 
instead, we are doing this hodgepodge effort on tax extenders that 
really make no sense. Guess what, come December, we are going to be 
right back here on this floor tackling the R&D credit for another year 
or two.
  Now, before they say to me, Mr. Neal, you are wrong, I certainly have 
been right in the last two cycles about what happened as to where we 
ended up with tax extenders. The President has

[[Page 7408]]

already said he would veto a permanent R&D at this point, and I 
understand the whole nature of why we need to do talking points.
  I would submit this to my friend, Mr. Brady, and he is my friend, and 
we work together on many pieces of legislation. Why don't we commit 
ourselves to building an R&D tax credit for 10 years, so it can be 
built into the investment code of the American entrepreneur, so they 
know precisely what is going to be out there, instead of taking this 
tactic today that is never going to see the light of day as we go 
forward?
  This Congress could have been spending its time today talking about 
income disparity, downward pressure on wages, robotics, and what is 
putting the American worker behind the curve of opportunity; but, no, 
we can't do that. We spend our time instead on these sorts of 
arguments.
  I hope that we can send this back to committee and come up with 
something that we can all live with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this Democrat proposal does violence 
to America's research infrastructure. It does violence to America's 
economy, and it does violence to the future of our economy and to the 
hope of young people.
  We will not stand for this. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 the order of the House of today, 
further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________