H.R. 3474House113th Congress (2013-2015)Passed House

Hire More Heroes Act of 2014

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

22 earlier actions

SenateFloor Latest Action

Cloture motion on the measure withdrawn by unanimous consent in Senate. (consideration: CR S3064)

May 15, 2014

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

November 13, 2013

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Ways and Means Committee

November 13, 2013

HouseFloor

Mr. Brady (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. (consideration: CR H2276)

March 11, 2014 • 4:57 PM

HouseFloor

Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2276-2278)

March 11, 2014 • 4:57 PM

HouseFloor

DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3474.

March 11, 2014 • 4:57 PM

HouseFloor

At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.

March 11, 2014 • 5:10 PM

HouseFloor

Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2284-2285)

March 11, 2014 • 6:31 PM

HouseFloor

Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 406 - 1 (Roll no. 115).(text: CR H2276)

View vote Passed

March 11, 2014 • 6:55 PM

HouseFloor

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 406 - 1 (Roll no. 115). (text: CR H2276)

View vote Passed

March 11, 2014 • 6:55 PM

SenateIntro Referral

Received in the Senate.

March 12, 2014

SenateCalendars

Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

March 13, 2014

SenateCalendars

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 332.

March 24, 2014

SenateFloor

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S2831-2832, S2847-2859)

May 8, 2014

SenateFloor

Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S2850; text: CR S2850)

May 8, 2014

SenateFloor

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S2889-2890)

May 12, 2014

SenateFloor

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S2923, S2924-2930, S2935-2947)

May 13, 2014

SenateFloor

Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 3. Record Vote Number: 143. (consideration: CR S2930; text: CR S2930)

View vote Agreed

May 13, 2014

SenateFloor

Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S2984-2993, S3018)

May 14, 2014

SenateFloor

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S3018)

May 14, 2014

SenateFloor

Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S3018-3019)

May 14, 2014

SenateFloor

Motion by Senator Reid to commit to Senate Committee on Finance with instructions to report back forthwith with the following amendment (SA 3093) made in Senate. (consideration: CR S3018-3019; text: CR S3018)

Finance Committee

May 14, 2014

SenateFloor

Cloture motion on the measure presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S3019; text: CR S3019)

May 14, 2014

SenateFloor

Cloture motion on the measure withdrawn by unanimous consent in Senate. (consideration: CR S3064)

May 15, 2014

Voting History

2 votes recorded • Roll call available

SENATE

Roll Call Available

May 13, 2014 at 11:12 AM

On the Cloture Motion H.R. 3474

Majority required: 3/5 (60%)

Agreed

96 - 3

HOUSE

Roll Call Available

March 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Majority required: 2/3 (66.7%)

Passed

406 - 1

Floor Debate

21 members

What members said about H.R. 3474 on the floor

+16

10 Republicans11 Democrats

Sen. Orrin G. HatchR-UT · May 8, 2014

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the Record and that I be able to complete my remarks. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to address some…

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the Record and that I be able to complete my remarks.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to address some proposals we have been hearing about in the tax space.

Corporate Taxation

Some of us--myself included--were very concerned to hear the other day that a very big American corporation announced plans to merge with a somewhat smaller but still large UK corporation and then have the combined entity domiciled in the United Kingdom. Apparently, a desire to escape the high U.S. corporate tax was part of the motivation for the merger. This type of transaction where a U.S. corporation escapes the U.S. tax net is sometimes referred to as an inversion.

Broadly speaking, there are two different ways to address the problem of

inversions. The first way is to make it more difficult for a U.S. corporation to invert. Just today we have read accounts of Members of Congress who propose doing just that. The second way is to make the United States a more desirable location to headquarter one's business. I believe the latter is by far the better way. That would mean lowering the corporate tax rate and having a more internationally competitive tax code.

Under current law, U.S. corporations are taxed on their worldwide income, but foreign corporations are subject to tax only on income arising from the United States itself. In other words, we subject our own corporations to a worldwide tax system, while subjecting foreign corporations to a territorial tax system. It is strange that the U.S. Government treats foreign corporations more favorably than American corporations, but that is, nonetheless, what we do.

There is a danger, if the relatively unfavorable treatment of American companies is ratcheted up--which seems to be the effect of some of these anti-inversion proposals--that American companies will become even more attractive targets for takeover by foreign corporations.

I don't know when my liberal friends will catch on and realize that some of their approaches are just downright idiotic.

As important as it is to get the corporate tax rate down, no matter how low we get the rate, we still need to replace our antiquated worldwide tax system. Instead of imposing arbitrary inversion restrictions on companies retroactively and thereby further complicating the goal of comprehensive tax reform, we should first keep our focus on where we can agree. By uniting around the goal to create an internationally competitive tax code, we can keep American job creators from looking to leave in the first place.

Successful tax reform can help reverse the trend and cause more businesses to locate in the United States, bringing more jobs to Americans. Make no mistake. The trend is alarming. Just look at the number of U.S.-based firms, ranked by revenue, in the global Fortune 500 over the past decade, and you will see a significant decline in the number. That, of course, means a lower tax base for the United States.

When are these people going to catch on?

As I just said, tax reform can be used to reverse that trend, make the United States an attractive place to locate businesses and global headquarters, and provide a base for more jobs in America.

As the ranking member of the Senate's tax-writing committee, that is where my focus is, and I will work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to achieve that goal.

It is ridiculous the ways some of our people in this government believe we can solve this problem by making it even more intrusive on businesses, even more onerous and burdensome, and by thinking they can force businesses to live in accordance with antiquated rules.

Executive Overreach

Madam President, I rise to defend, on a separate matter, the separation of government powers enshrined in our Constitution and the lawful prerogatives of the Senate, in which I have had the privilege and honor of serving now for nearly 38 years.

Just last week I spoke from this podium about the Obama administration's blatant disregard of its constitutional obligations and in particular about how ideological devotion and political expediency have again and again trumped the President's sworn duty to uphold the law. In the short time since then, the White House has provided yet another egregious example of its willingness to disregard clear legal obligations in favor of playing partisan politics.

Just days ago we learned the Obama administration withheld particularly significant information from disclosure to Congress, despite a lawfully issued subpoena, during a House committee's investigation of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. One of these documents, an email from a senior White House official, casts serious doubt about a number of the administration's key assertions about the explanations it offered Congress and the American people regarding the cause and nature of those attacks.

There are many important questions about Benghazi to which the American people deserve answers; questions about how and why brave Americans died in this terrorist attack, four brave Americans; questions about the circumstances under which our Nation lost its first Ambassador in the line of duty in more than a generation; questions about how the Obama administration advanced an admittedly false but politically advantageous narrative about the attack during the home stretch of a heated election campaign.

I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues both in this body and in the House of Representatives in seeking a fair and thorough investigation of this matter. What compels me to speak out goes beyond the substance of this particular investigation, as critically important as that is. I am deeply troubled by the Obama administration's utter disregard for essential legal and constitutional obligations. This lawlessness is made manifest in many different forms.

I wish to discuss this administration's long pattern of obstinacy in responding to congressional investigations and how this abuse has become the latest front in a vital struggle against sweeping executive branch overreach that has characterized President Obama's term in office.

Congress's investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack should have been and could have been a collaborative endeavor aimed at discovering the truth. Indeed, President Obama publicly proclaimed he was ``happy to cooperate in ways that Congress wants'' and promised that his administration would share with congressional investigators all information connected to the administration's own internal review. Secretary Kerry likewise pronounced and promised ``an accountable and open State Department'' that would provide truthful answers about all circumstances relating to the Benghazi attack.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been anything but open and accountable, nor has the White House and/or the State Department shown much willingness to cooperate in a constructive fashion with congressional investigations into the matter. Instead, this administration has repeatedly rejected document requests from several congressional committees, broadly asserting its unwillingness to turn over whole swaths of relevant material.

When congressional investigators responded with subpoenas, creating clearly defined and legally binding obligations for the administration to comply, Obama officials have continued to resist and in some cases have refused to disclose entire categories of critical documents.

Throughout the investigation this administration has consistently employed a strategy of minimal compliance. In many instances, executive officials have heavily redacted the limited range of documents the administration has in fact disclosed or forced congressional investigators through the cumbersome and perhaps unnecessary process of examining documents they insist must remain in the administration's possession. Such methods, when reasonably employed, have historically allowed the executive and legislative branches to make mutually acceptable compromises, establishing arrangements that allow Congress access to the information it needs but enable the administration to protect legitimate interests and confidentiality.

Instead, President Obama and his subordinates have taken these tactics to the extreme, creating an unmistakable impression the administration has something to hide. How could anybody look at what they are doing and not realize that is what they are doing. At the very least, it is clear that executive officials have deliberately slow- walked this important congressional inquiry.

Indeed, the administration has managed to drag its feet and frustrate congressional investigators for more than 1\1/2\ years since the Benghazi attack, limiting and delaying compliance for over 1 year since the first subpoena was issued.

The Obama administration's most recent abuse--a particularly egregious act--has been its long delay in releasing emails that were clearly responsive

to an earlier congressional subpoena. The administration only provided Congress these emails in mid-April after disclosing them as part of compliance with an outside group's Freedom of Information Act request, even though the emails were undeniably relevant and responsive to a lawful congressional subpoena, a subpoena issued in the summer of 2013, 7 months earlier.

This is the second time the Obama administration has simply passed on to Congress documents it has previously released to media and watchdog groups, a weak attempt at complying with a congressional subpoena. Now, that is an administration out of control, an administration not living up to the laws, an administration that is ignoring legitimate inquiries of the Congress, and an administration that seems to think it can get away with anything. More important, this episode demonstrates the careless and intentionally evasive approach the administration has taken in responding to congressional subpoenas. A simple FOIA request turned up multiple documents the administration admits are covered by a prior congressional subpoena and therefore should have been disclosed months earlier.

While the executive branch is obviously obliged to take all lawful requests seriously, it is outrageous this administration would treat a routine FOIA request from a private party with more care and serious attention than a lawfully issued subpoena from a coordinate branch of the Federal Government. I might add a coequal branch of the Federal Government, the Congress of the United States.

I wish I could say the Obama administration's conduct and the investigations into the Benghazi attack represented an anomaly, a unique instance in an otherwise respectful record of good-faith efforts to cooperate with congressional investigations and to respect Congress's legitimate authorities. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case. Instead, we have experienced a pattern of obstruction, repeated instances of bad faith in responding to lawful information requests and subpoenas, and a fundamental disrespect of the laws and norms underlying the Constitution's separation of government powers.

We have all witnessed such abuse in this administration's handling of other high-profile investigations, such as the botched gun-walking exercise in Operation Fast and Furious. We routinely observe such hostility in more ordinary matters, as this administration regularly delays and often refuses to provide answers or produce information to Members of Congress.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I see this all the time, whether it is the refusal of the Treasury Department to explain how it deals with its statutory debt limit or the failure of the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to even the simplest questions about ObamaCare implementation. We see this hostility most transparently when the administration openly challenges the legitimacy of congressional investigations and when administration officials display outright contempt for proper lines of congressional inquiry.

None of this is to say that some assertions of executive privilege are not reasonable or even valid. Past administrations have often asserted privilege claims before Congress, and sometimes--sometimes-- they have done so aggressively. This area of law has relatively few judicial precedents. It is largely defined by past practice in which the distinction between legal requirements and prudential interests is often quite blurry. As such, we can expect some legitimate disagreement as to whether particular claims of executive privilege are within the bounds of reasonableness.

But fundamentally the text and structure of the Constitution enshrines a congressional right--and establishes a congressional duty-- to investigate executive branch activities. That is how through the years we have kept administrations straight. It is a very important part of our job on Capitol Hill.

Judicial precedents--as well as established practice between the legislative and executive branches stretching all the way back to the investigation of the St. Clair expedition under President George Washington in 1792--also affirm the rightful authority of Congress to require Presidential administrations to produce information in response to congressional requests.

Since the great constitutional clashes of the Watergate period, specific and binding precedents have detailed the requirement that administrations must seek to accommodate congressional information requests made in good faith, subject to adjudication by Federal courts. The Obama administration's actions clearly fall short of these basic obligations. Its abysmal record--highlighted most recently in the Benghazi email controversy--has demonstrated that executive officials are not acting in good faith to comply with legitimate congressional inquiries.

The administration's public efforts to delegitimize congressional investigations endangers not only the relationship between the current White House and this Congress but more fundamentally undermines the separation of government powers by attacking one of the most important checks on executive overreach.

The administration's expansive justifications squarely contradict the Supreme Court's command in United States v. Nixon that ``exceptions to the demand for . . . evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.''

Even more troubling, the Obama White House has even attempted to undermine our congressional investigatory power at its core. This isn't hyperbole. The current administration actually had the audacity to argue in Federal court that a committee of Congress was categorically barred from asking the judiciary to enforce a subpoena that the executive branch had defied, a course of action implicit in the structure of our Constitution, demanded by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, and recognized by courts for decades.

Thankfully, one of President Obama's own judicial appointees roundly rejected this astonishing claim, but that should give Members of this body very little comfort. By challenging the very authority of Congress to investigate executive abuses, by challenging the obligation of a Presidential administration to accommodate congressional inquiries in good faith, and by challenging the power of Federal courts to resolve such disputes, the Obama administration's actions represent a serious threat to our constitutional structure.

Indeed, this particular effort to undermine essential institutional checks and balances is part of a broader pattern of executive abuse-- one that includes the Obama administration's disregard for its obligations to enforce the law, its actions to exceed legitimate statutory authority, its attempts to defy specific requirements of duly enacted law, and its efforts to usurp legislative power from Congress.

I spoke at length last week about many such abuses of executive power by the Obama administration. I will continue to do so because I believe keeping the exercise of executive authority within lawful bounds is essential to the legitimacy of our government and to the liberties of our citizens. I recognize that doing so will require continual vigilance--by the courts, by the American people, and by those of us who serve in Congress.

This latest episode with the Benghazi emails--as well as the President's new pen-and-phone strategy--demonstrates quite clearly that the Obama administration has not shown any signs of relenting in its executive overreach.

This unprecedented pattern of executive abuse comes from a President who promised unprecedented transparency and who regularly criticized his predecessor's use of executive power, including in the context of executive privilege.

The administration's actions demand a redoubling of Congress' investigative efforts. I urge the majority leader to join the House to form a joint select committee on the Benghazi terrorist attack and its aftermath.

I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle--not to mention the Obama administration itself--have convinced themselves that this investigation is simply a partisan exercise, apparently prompting them to ignore the institutional struggle between Congress and the Executive.

I just wonder: What would have happened had Robert C. Byrd been our majority leader, as he was for so long? He

would not have put up with this for 1 minute. He would have asserted this institution's authority and this institution's responsibility-- Congress' responsibility, if you will--to get to the bottom of this.

I served on the Iran-Contra special committee. It is not a bad thing for us to investigate an administration that appears to be out of whack, appears to be ignoring the basic tenets of the law, and appears to be hiding information from the public. Forget the public right now. How about the Congress? It is hard to respect an administration that acts like this.

We should be eager to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack, and my friends on the other side ought to quit trying to protect the administration when they know these are serious charges. These are serious matters. We have an obligation to get to the bottom of it, and let the chips fall where they may. There were four deaths here of heroes.

All the Members of this esteemed body--whether Democrat or Republican--should demand that Congress' institutional prerogatives are preserved and defended.

As members of the legislative branch, we have the fundamental right-- and the accompanying duty--to exercise a lawful oversight function. When any Presidential administration engages in extreme resistance and demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate with legitimate congressional investigations, we all--not just people on this side-- have an institutional obligation to defend our rightful constitutional prerogatives.

These executive abuses matter. The Obama administration has clearly and consistently overstepped its authorities and ignored its obligations under our Constitution and Federal law. This overreach threatens the rule of law, and it undermines the governmental checks and balances necessary to secure our liberties as Americans.

President Obama promised unprecedented transparency that would restore trust and confidence in government. But his administration's lawless actions have heightened the need for more robust and effective congressional oversight.

As even a liberal Washington Post columnist opined earlier this week, ``The Obama White House can blame its own secrecy and obsessive control over information'' for the heightened scrutiny of its questionable activities.

Oversight investigations are a critical tool that Congress must use effectively to promote government accountability. The Obama administration's escalating strategy of stonewalling, even to the point of ignoring legal obligations and longstanding norms, now threatens our rightful role in calling the executive branch to account.

Indeed, the basic assumption that underlies the Constitution's plan of government, as James Madison explained in Federalist 47 and 51, is that:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and

judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,

and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may

justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. . . .

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the

several powers in the same department, consist in giving to

those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of the others.

The provision for defense must in this, as in all other

cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition

must be made to counteract ambition.

As Madison explained, it is incumbent upon each of us to insist on Congress' right and duty to investigate the executive branch, and to ensure that the administration abides by the most basic--the most fundamental--requirements of our constitutional system.

We owe the American people--not to mention the families of those who perished--a meaningful investigation of the Benghazi attack, not just to find answers to remaining questions but to affirm that this is still a Nation of laws and that the people's elected representatives are still capable of pursuing the truth and holding the executive branch accountable for its actions.

This is a matter of great concern to me, and I am sure it is to a lot of people who are starting to realize that there is a stonewalling like we haven't seen since Richard Nixon.

I don't know that the President has done this personally. I hope not. But he has to look into it.

If he doesn't, then I think it is up to the majority in this body to hold the administration to account, with the help of the minority, and to not have them ignore, disregard, and treat with contempt the rightful oversight that we have an honor and an obligation to do up here. This is really a very serious set of problems as far as I am concerned. I hope the President will get after his people down there.

I think one of the problems is we have a lot of young people in the White House right now who haven't had the experience. On the other hand, some of these things are so deliberate that we can't blame it on lack of experience. These folks know and the people in the Justice Department know. To have withheld these emails the way they did, knowing they were crucial to any investigation, is something we should not tolerate here in the Senate.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Rep. Rob WoodallR-GA-7 · Jul 30, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you being down with me here tonight. It took me awhile to get my materials over here because the topic I have tonight is the topic of what this House has been doing to make a difference in the life of families across this country. That is the good news. I have to confess, I am here with good news/bad news tonight.

This is the stack of bills that this House has passed, again, to make a difference in the lives of families, to makes a difference in small businesses, to grow the economy, to create jobs, the bills this House has passed collaboratively that sit collecting dust in the United States Senate. That is the bad news part of tonight.

It is fair enough if folks think this process is broken. It is fair enough if folks think there is too much partisanship in Washington, but what we have here are the successes. What we have here are not the hypothetical ``if only'' bills. What we have here are the bills that have actually left this House and sit in the United States Senate. It is 356 bills, Mr. Speaker, 356 bills that have left this House that sit collecting dust in the Senate. We did a hashtag, Mr. Speaker: #StuckInTheSenate. We all remember, ``I am just a bill sitting on Capitol Hill,'' that Saturday morning cartoon. This is not a dictatorship. We had that conversation a little bit earlier this afternoon. It is not a dictatorship. It is a collaborative effort, and the House has collaborated to pass over 356 bills that have gone to the Senate to do nothing.

Now, again, it is good news/bad news day. Let me start with something that is good news, because if folks don't believe there is opportunity for success, I could imagine how folks would give up, not just folks here in this Chamber, but folks across the country, families across the country.

This, Mr. Speaker, you may remember it, H.R. 803, the Workplace Innovation and Opportunity Act. This passed the House. It passed the Senate. It was signed by the President. This has become law. This was a bill to consolidate a variety of workplace training programs. We talk so much about a trained workforce, how it is we get Americans who may be transitioning in their life, are transitioning home from Iraq or Afghanistan, transitioning from an industry that is in decline to an industry that is growing, how do we get those folks trained.

I credit Dr. Virginia Foxx with this. She is one of my colleagues here in the House. I serve with her on the Rules Committee, but she also serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee. She has been working to try to consolidate programs, take money from programs that were not effective and move the money to programs that were effective. Imagine that. Imagine that. Here she is, a conservative Republican, and what she was trying to do was take money from places that weren't working and put it into places where it would make a difference for moms and dads and kids. And she did it. She did it.

Now, what we passed out of the House was strong, Mr. Speaker. We went out and we found every single program that was failing in America and we brought them together and put them into a single pot and sent it over to the Senate. The Senate said: No, we don't think all of those programs are failing. We don't want to move that big of a package. We want to do something smaller. They ended up consolidating about half of what we consolidated in the House.

But guess what. When you elect Rob Woodall dictator, then I get to have it my way every day. Until then, this is a collaborative effort here: the House, the Senate, and the President.

So we worked with the Senate, and we worked out our differences. We found that package of consolidation that we could all live with, and we sent it to the President and we got a signature. That is what the American people expect. That is what my constituents expect. They expect us to work together to get things done, not sacrificing principle, not compromising on values, but finding consensus because we all agree that American workers need help. We all agree that moms and dads in transition need to find a better way to feed their families.

We can spend tax dollars better. We found a way to do that here. I call it common sense, Mr. Speaker. It is not supposed to take a rocket scientist to sort some of these issues out. It is supposed to be common sense.

Did I mention #StuckInTheSenate, Mr. Speaker? If I didn't, I want to mention it right now because here is one that really gets me.

We were just talking about hiring more moms and dads. It is called the Hire More Heroes Act. Do you remember it, Mr. Speaker? We passed it out of this House with over 400 votes. Now, young high school students, middle school students, they might not know how many Members there are in the House. There are 435 Members in this House, and more than 400 of them said we should pass the Hire More Heroes bill, but it is stuck in the Senate. Over 400 folks voted ``yes,'' only one voted ``no,'' so I don't want to hear about bipartisanship in the House. I don't want to hear about Republican this and Democratic that.

Mr. Speaker, 400-plus folks said let's pass this bill. I will tell you what it does. The Hire More Heroes Act says one of the highest rates of unemployment we have in this country are men and women in uniform coming home from overseas. It says that we have small employers in this country, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, most of the employment in this country is not driven by the big guys. It is driven by small employers. We heard from small employers in this country who said: I want to hire those veterans, but I am worried about that 50-employee threshold that throws me into this brand-new round of ObamaCare regulations.

Guess what this House did, Mr. Speaker. More than 400 out of 435 got together and they said, if you are a small business owner in America and you want to put unemployed veterans to work but you don't because you are worried about some Federal Government regulation dealing with ObamaCare, we will waive that regulation for you. Hire all of the veterans you want to, and be not afraid of Federal Government regulation.

Think about that. Think about that. It is what I think about. It is why I ran

for Congress. It is why my friends on the other side of the aisle ran for Congress. We came to make a difference--to make a difference. Who among us doesn't want to see unemployed veterans get a job? Who among us doesn't want to see small businesses succeed? We came together, more than 400 of us, to pass the Hire More Heroes Act, but it is stuck in the Senate.

Why? Why? Over 400 of us, almost every Democrat--we lost one--but every Republican, almost every one of us voted ``yes'' to make a difference for small businesses, get them the labor that they need and make a difference for veterans looking for a job.

That was a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and still is, and it is stuck in the Senate. It is not stuck because we can't come to agreement on it, Mr. Speaker. It is not stuck because Republicans are intransigent. It is stuck because the Senate can't get these bills moving.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking folks to just come together and do what I want them to do. What I am talking about are things that we are celebrating in this institution. I am not talking about things that squeaked through by the skin of their teeth. I am not talking about Republican proposals that we jammed through with the might of the majority. I am talking about commonsense proposals that make a difference in people's lives.

I will give you another one. How about H.R. 4414, Mr. Speaker? It is the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014. That doesn't sound very exciting, does it? And you know what, it is not very exciting for about 99 percent of Americans. But for Americans who have to work overseas and who have seen their health insurance policies canceled, quadrupled in price, folks who have struggled to find coverage, what this says is, if you don't live in America but you are working for an American company, really, you can sort out your insurance needs on your own over there. If you don't live in America, you don't have to comply with all these needs because--guess what--if you are doing business in London, the health care system is different in England.

If you are doing business in Paris, the health care system is different in France. If you are doing business in Moscow, the health care system is different in Russia. The rules we passed here won't work in those places. It is commonsense.

Had we not jammed that bill through Congress, that Affordable Care Act, maybe we would have gotten to that, but I don't know. It is a small group of people.

We passed a solution--let's look--269-150. I dare say those folks who voted ``no'' wouldn't say they opposed the policy, they would say they just thought it was a symbol of undermining ObamaCare in some way, they didn't want to undermine the President. I say nonsense about undermining the President. I want to make a difference in the lives of families.

Ninety-two days, Mr. Speaker, 92 days this bill has been sitting in the Senate.

Now, that is a minor piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that could make a big impact, but for a small number of people. What about things that make a big impact for a large number of people? What about those things?

The REINS Act, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 367, the REINS Act says--and it is a crazy bill, I will confess--it says before you pass a regulation, you need to consider the economic impact of that regulation. Now, while that is commonsense back home in Atlanta, it may seem crazy here in Washington, D.C.

Before you pass a regulation, weigh the pros and the cons to see if it is a good idea or not, weigh those pros and the cons. It is a REINS Act because we are just out of control here with regulation and we need to have a thoughtful conversation about it.

H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act. Trying to find ways for our small businesses to get access to the capital they need in what have been incredibly tight credit markets.

H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act.

Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, we are passing bills--they are all here, they are all sitting on Harry Reid's desk over in the Senate-- passing bills in an effort to make a difference in people's lives. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't be interested in doing it. I don't have a bill in this stack that is about making a political statement. I don't have a bill in this stack that is about trying to be one up on the other guy, trying to embarrass somebody, trying to call somebody out. What I have in this stack--did I mention there are 356 bills in this stack?--what I have in this stack are bills that could make a difference to a struggling economy today--today. I say today. These bills passed a week ago, a month ago, a year ago or more. They could make a difference. They are #StuckInTheSenate--356 bills.

I have got the great honor tonight, Mr. Speaker--I am not alone in this endeavor, haven't been alone in passing 356 bills. It has been a team sport from day one, team sport from day one--Republicans, Democrats, folks from the North, folks from the South, folks representing families from across the country.

Tonight, I have got Mr. Rothfus here, an 18-month Member of this institution, who came, I wager, not to make a point, but to make a difference, and has been doing that every day he has been in this Chamber.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I may have misunderstood what you said, because what my constituents believe is that it is partisanship that has shut this down. That it is Republicans fighting with Democrats and Democrats fighting with Republicans.

We are talking about over 350 bills that are sitting in the Senate that have passed this House, that we have come together on this House, you are saying 60 of those were introduced by Democrats?

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask the gentleman if he would stay just 1 more minute. I see you are down here with three lovely young women from the next generation of Americans. When they grow up, they are going to be the leaders of this country.

You mentioned energy in your presentation. I have got to be honest with you, I didn't come to deal with those big issues that are sometimes amorphous. I came to deal with the issues that make a difference in families' lives today, tomorrow, and in the next generation.

We talk about energy, we talk about streamlining production, we talk about the Keystone pipeline, but I live in Georgia. We are not drilling any wells in Georgia. I can't tell much of a difference at the price of the pump. I don't have that many families who say: This is going to make a difference in my pocketbook, this is going to make a difference for a job right here in Atlanta, Georgia. But you come from a different part of the country.

Can you see the difference that these bills make, not from a Republican/Democrat partisan perspective, but from a real world difference, real dollars in families' pockets back home?

I am looking at the Northern Route Approval Act poster you have got behind you, and I am

looking at the ``days in the Senate'' column. It says it has been 434 days that that bill has been in the Senate.

You are a new Member in this body. I have only had a voting card for 3 years. I know it is a collaborative process, but as I look at that 434 days in the Senate, does it mean that we have sent over a proposal to expand energy production to make those family-providing jobs that you mention and the Senate didn't like our idea, and so they sent us back a different proposal, and we have dropped the ball? Is that a possibility?

The gentleman said it so well. This isn't about one person. This isn't about one Chamber. This isn't about one part of the government. We are all in this together. Families in western Pennsylvania and families in north Georgia are in this together. We will rise or fall as a Nation together.

I go back to what you said when you first took the well. There are so many awful stories about Washington, D.C., and the way that we work together. Some of them are true, and many of them are just lore, but I believe you said--and my staff handed it to me after you said it--that about 254 of the 356 bills that are stuck in the Senate passed this House either unanimously or with more than two-thirds of the Members voting in favor of them.

I don't know everything about western Pennsylvania, but I know you don't get elected to Congress there because you are interested in propounding wild views that make no difference to people. You get elected there because you care about people and you want to do the things that matter. You know who the boss is, and it is those folks back home.

When I think that about this stack of bills, it would be so easy for people to dismiss it as: well, those are those crazy Republican ideas, and this is just some sort of political stunt.

How many times have we heard that it is a political stunt? Why are those guys talking about those bills? It is because of what you said. Sixty of these bills introduced by Democrats passed this Chamber, and 254 of these bills stuck in the Senate passed with two-thirds of us coming together--or more--to send them over to the Senate.

We have an obligation to work together. The answer to the question is that, after 434 days, the Senate hasn't said no. The Senate hasn't said: we have a better idea, so we will send this back to you. The Senate didn't say: you are focused on the wrong pathway; let's look at a different route approval.

The Senate did nothing.

I think about those seven appropriations bills you talked about. I want to remember the numbers. We have gotten 12 out of committee. We passed seven on the floor of the House. We have sent those over to the Senate.

Again, I don't know if the Senate is going to take our ideas or reject our

ideas or come up with their own ideas, but they have done none of those things. They haven't taken our ideas, they haven't rejected our ideas, and they promulgated absolutely no ideas of their own.

I don't enjoy being down here. This is not #kickthesenate. This is #StuckInTheSenate. It is not that there is not a way forward. You have described the way forward. It is not all my way. It is not all your way. It is not all anyone's way. It is a negotiated pathway forward.

When I ran for Congress, that is what I expected. When my constituents sent me here, that is what they expected.

I thank my friend for focusing on those commonsense points.

Again, when I open up the newspaper, what I hear is it is about partisan nonsense and it is about election-year politics. When we are talking about over 350 bills and we are talking about 60 of those bills being introduced by Democrats, but passed with Democrat and Republican support here in the House, when we are talking about 250 of those bills being passed with more than a two-thirds vote--many of those unanimously--what it tells me is we are not in the business of trying to make a point.

We are in the business of trying to make a difference, and if we had a willing partner in the Senate, we could absolutely make that difference.

I yield to my friend from Indiana, a former secretary of State, which has you in the executive side of things. You actually had to be responsible for getting things done. I guess that is my frustration with the Senate.

I just need somebody to stand up and be a partner and take responsibility for moving a few of these things forward, trying to make a difference in people's lives.

I would just like to ask my friend because, in serving on the committee, you have an insight that most of us don't have.

I am looking at those numbers, at 360 Members of this House voting ``yes.''

That is more than you need to pass a constitutional amendment, for Pete's sakes.

That is about as close to unanimous as we generally get. I am looking, and it hasn't been at the Senate for 1 week or 2 weeks. It has been there for almost 3 months so far.

What have they said? Have they said, We have got a better idea, and they have sent back an alternative to the committee? What have you heard?

These are not partisan issues. Education is not a partisan issue. Children are not partisan issues. We have votes with 360 Members of this body. Again, this is the hyperpartisan House--so the news tells me--and two bills right there in front of you are making a difference in people's lives. They could make that difference today, and yet the Senate does nothing.

I have been preaching the ``Stuck in the Senate'' hashtag message, I will say to my friend, because I still believe. I told folks when we started this hour tonight that this is a good news/bad news hour. The good news is I am sitting on top of a stack of 356 bills that this House has passed in a bipartisan way, and the bad news is that they are stuck in the Senate.

I believe that perhaps you and I, as young Congressmen, can't move the Senate, but I believe the American people still can move the Senate.

Sen. Lisa MurkowskiR-AK · May 8, 2014

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and the discussion of why we are here on a late Thursday afternoon. We started off the week with an air of…

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and the discussion of why we are here on a late Thursday afternoon.

We started off the week with an air of optimism that with the energy efficiency bill before us, we could get to that place where we could be debating substantive issues of the day. As my colleague has noted, we have not seen a real energy bill on this floor now for 7 years. When we think about the energy landscape in this country and what has happened in 7 years' time--7 years ago, we were looking to build import terminals to receive LNG. Now we are debating--or hoping to debate--the export of our LNG.

I have kind of put a target on my back, if you will, and said: Let's talk about what is happening with our oil potential in this country and our opportunity as a nation to export our oil, given that next year we will actually be producing more oil in this country than the county of Russia, than Saudi Arabia, but that is going to require some debate, some discussion, some policy considerations.

If we cannot even get to the point where we can move forward on an energy efficiency bill, how are we ever going to advance some of these policy initiatives when it comes to our natural gas, when it comes to our oil or how we might be able to deal with issues such as nuclear waste, where, quite honestly, until we can resolve these issues, they are going to be holding back our opportunity to advance in

these areas. How are we going to build out the potential in this country for our renewables and how we integrate them into an outdated system? There are so many policy issues we have to talk about.

So when people suggest all we want to do is talk about energy, I am one Senator who would love to do a lot of talking about energy. I would also like us to be able to legislate on energy initiatives. I would like us to update some of our energy policies, because as times have changed, unfortunately some of our laws have not.

My colleague from Pennsylvania has mentioned there was a time when we would have substantive debate. Take that back to the Energy bills that were before us when I first came to the Senate back in 2003. We took up an energy bill at that time that was on the floor, I know, for multiple weeks; it may have been multiple months.

On July 25, 2003, we resumed consideration of the Energy bill. We had a unanimous consent agreement at that time that more than 370--370-- remaining amendments would be in order.

Now, 2003 may seem like a long time ago for some, but for me it seems like just yesterday. Thinking about that, it is like: Wow. We were able to come to a UC on 370 amendments.

If we go back to the Energy Policy Act, if we look at the amendment log, it shows that more than 130 amendments from Senators of both sides of the aisle were considered.

I think it speaks to the issues that were at play at the time. We are still basing most of our energy policy, of course, on those 2005 and 2007 energy acts.

I think it is important to recognize that when it comes to something as significant as our energy policy in this country, the debate is worthy, the debate is important, and legislating on these issues is critically important.

I know there are conversations yet underway as to whether an amendment opportunity will be made available, whether the four or five amendments the Republicans have offered that are being considered by the majority leader and the bill's sponsors of ShaheenPortman, whether we will be able to reach a fair consideration for the processing of those amendments. I would certainly hope we are able to do just that.

The energy efficiency bill, as I noted in my comments the day before yesterday, is good, sound policy. It is an important leg in the energy stool. When we talk about our energy resources and what we have available domestically, what we are able to be producing--whether it is our fossil fuels, whether it is our renewable fuels, whether it is other alternatives--the recognition is that our most readily available energy source is the one we do not waste. If we can be more efficient, if we can do more when it comes to conservation, this benefits all of us.

So let's figure out how we can move an energy efficiency bill. This is round No. 2 for us. Let us not allow the process to bog down a good bill and a bill that deserves to not only pass this body but to be worked through the body on the other side and to ultimately be signed into law by the President.

I want to start work. I want to be legislating. I also recognize this has been a difficult time for us all right now. We are not seeing a lot of legislation moving through this Senate, but I have been trying to use the time I have, as the ranking member on the energy committee, wisely, trying to focus on those areas where we can critically examine the energy policies we have in place and how we might refresh, how we might reimagine the energy architecture we have.

Last year I released a pretty major report. We called it ``Energy 20/ 20.'' It is a blueprint that kind of lays out my view of a sound, robust energy policy. I did not want a report that had taken a lot of time and energy and effort and love and passion to just sit on somebody's desk, so we have been working in this past year to flesh out some of the details we outlined in the blueprint.

I have released now four separate white papers stemming from ``Energy 20/20.'' The first one was on LNG exports. The second was on energy exports generally but also focusing on the specific issue of the prospect for oil exports. We released a very well-received white paper on electric reliability, and then earlier this week I had an opportunity to release a white paper on the nexus between energy and water. All of these are available on the energy committee's Web site.

I have given speeches on the floor. I have addressed small groups, large groups, basically anybody who will listen, not only in my State of Alaska but around the country. My colleagues and those who have been listening have heard me say multiple times that what I am looking for, what I am hoping for, what I am trying to build are laws and policies that will help us access our energy resources to be able to have a policy that says our energy should be abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure.

I joke about it and say there is no acronym for that, but I have arranged it alphabetically so you can remember it.

But when you think about these five components, when you incorporate these all together--abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure--it makes pretty good sense.

I think the effort we have engaged in, in the energy committee, has been a worthwhile effort, and I hope this broader conversation will forge consensus on what I think we recognize can be some tough issues.

I have been working hard, even though we are not moving a lot of bills through the floor right now, to try to advance the conversation on so many of these issues I think are a priority.

The Nexus Between Energy and Water

I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the most recent white paper I have released, and this is on the connection or the nexus between energy and water. I mentioned I had an opportunity to present this on Tuesday at the Atlantic Council here in Washington. It is entitled, ``The EnergyWater Nexus: Interlinked Resources That Are Vital for Economic Growth and Sustainability.'' It is a very timely subject, very relevant to the current discussion of measures we can take to support energy efficiency.

I think it is apparent, but it certainly bears repeating, that there are clear links between energy and water and water and energy. These fall into two categories. It sounds kind of simple, but it is water for energy and energy for water. Without water much of our energy-- electricity included--cannot be produced. Our economy literally comes to a halt. Without energy--and particularly electricity--the treatment, the transport, the distribution of water does not function either. That all seizes up as well.

So we have water and energy just inextricably linked, and I think it is important to acknowledge that the continued availability and reliability should not be taken for granted. I think sometimes this is the part we fail to keep in perspective.

We are talking a lot about energy right now, but as we talk about energy, let's talk about how that energy source intersects with water. In an effort to produce this energy, how much water are we consuming? In an effort to use that water, how much energy is being consumed to move or treat? So, again, the nexus is tight.

When it comes to water-for-energy, an interesting statistic is that about 41 percent of our freshwater withdrawals in the United States are attributed to cooling the vast majority of our powerplants. This also consumes about 6 percent of our freshwater. Water is also routinely needed to produce the various energy resources we rely on, whether it is oil, coal, gas, or uranium. According to the Congressional Research Service, the production of biofuels has the highest water-intensity value, requiring 1,000 times more water than conventional natural gas. So, again, understanding the intensity is important as we talk about our energy resources. Altogether, more than 12 billion gallons of freshwater are consumed daily for the combined production of fuels and electricity across the country.

Turning to energy-for-water, one study on a national scale found that direct water-related energy consumption amounted to more than 12 percent of domestic primary energy consumption in 2010. That is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 40 million Americans.

We are seeing new technology, and we are seeing that really with the potential to provide a paradigm shift. But

from today's vantage point, a steady population increase and the resource needs of a modern economy could make freshwater a limited resource in many parts of the country. We are certainly seeing that out in the West. Severe droughts in California and for that matter across most of the Western United States only serve to underscore the risks. Out West, of course, hydroelectric power is a major contributor to clean and cost-effective electricity generation, particularly in Washington State, Idaho, and Montana. So if rivers and reservoirs are running low, this power-generation capacity is at risk.

I believe the recent and rapid expansion of our domestic energy production is very good for our Nation, particularly the growth in unconventional oil and gas production. What we have seen is that it has created jobs, it has generated revenues, it has revived local economies, and it really does wonders for our energy security. As I mentioned, the United States is now producing and exporting more energy than ever before. Our net energy imports are at a 20-year low. They are projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by 2025.

With many new wells located in regions that have already experienced some water shortages, we are seeing producers who are moving in a direction to help ensure that there is going to be sufficient water available for both the work they are doing and other regional needs. New technological advancements and new methods to maintain a balanced use of freshwater resources have been continuously emerging.

I think it is important to recognize that folks are appreciating that you can't count on an unlimited supply of this water resource. Utilizing our technology to be smart, to be efficient, is going to put everyone in better stead.

Even in the case of conventional power generation stations, technological innovation and advances can assist in reducing--if not eliminating--the overall amount of water that is required for cooling purposes. But, again, the key is technology. Continued research and development is at the heart of innovation and advancement.

The questions that are appropriate to ask are what can we do to ensure an adequate supply of water and how can we responsibly minimize the amount of water that is used for energy and then also energy for water? Conservation, of course, can help reduce demand for both water- for-energy and energy-for-water activities, but we have to recognize that it can only go so far. As I just mentioned, innovative energy and water use strategies, coupled with advanced technologies, are equally important when trying to optimize our limited supplies.

I have called on all stakeholders in the private sector as well as in government to support R&D and demonstration of new technologies that can really work to reduce our energy and water consumption.

Again, talking about the bill that is on the floor--energy efficiency--everything we can do to reduce our energy consumption as well as our water consumption is all good. It is all good.

The genesis and sustainability of such efforts are highly reliant on open and continuous information exchange between the parties. I have suggested that the Federal Government not only can but should facilitate this exchange of information on a national and international scale. It can do that by forming genuine partnerships with the stakeholders--including industry, utilities, and academia--and teaming up to advance a better understanding of the energy-water nexus, adopt better practices through technological innovations, and really learn from one another about the procedures and implementation strategies.

This dialogue should also include international perspectives on the energy-water nexus, utilizing the experience and expertise from around the world. We have seen technological advancements and great work going on in Australia, the Gulf countries, Israel, and Singapore. The development of new and improved technologies can answer the needs of both the domestic and international energy-water markets. This could mean opportunities for job creation--good jobs--in high-tech, R&D, and manufacturing.

What I am advocating with this white paper and the proposals out there is really better planning and better collaboration. I am not looking for a top-down approach. I am not looking for more binding rules or mandates. I am certainly not advocating for the forceful implementation of any new policies or directives to use certain technologies. The adoption of best practices should always be on a voluntary basis.

But having said that, I do believe that if we can demonstrate savings and demonstrate efficiencies from new technologies and better resource management approaches, the stakeholders are going to figure this out, and they are going to say this is a win-win for their own bottom line. This makes sense for their customers. It is good to advance.

Along these lines, I have introduced energy-water legislation with Senator Wyden. We introduced it in January. Our bill is the Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act--we call it the NEWS Act--and it features some plain old commonsense policy improvements. What a concept.

Just think, in more ordinary times perhaps I would have even introduced the proposed NEWS Act as an amendment to the bill we have before us. But what we have--S. 1971--is a short bill, a simple bill that directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee or a subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate and streamline the energy and water nexus activities of our Federal departments and agencies. We are asking this panel--which would be chaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and representatives would be brought in from these and other agencies--to identify all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government--because we know it is just a huge spaghetti mess here--and work together and disseminate the data to enable better practices and explore the relevant public-private collaboration. We also call for OMB to submit a cross-cut budget that details these Federal expenditures related to energy-water activities. What we are looking to do is to streamline these efforts not just to save water, not just to save energy, but to save taxpayer dollars.

It is good. It is sensible. I think it is a rationed approach. I would like to be able to legislate on this, and I hope we will get to that point where we are beyond the energy efficiency bill, the Shaheen- Portman bill we have been trying so hard to work to advance not only this week but for years now; where we are beyond arguing over whether we are going to be able to move on some amendments; where we will take up with great energy and enthusiasm--pun intended--these initiatives that will help our Nation to be more productive, to be more energy secure, to have a stronger national security, and to have energy policies that are current and sound.

I am one who tries to get up every morning optimistic, glass half full, and I want to believe we will work out an arrangement so that we can have a fair amendment process that allows Republicans to offer a small handful of amendments to be debated and voted on, that will allow us to move an energy efficiency measure that is important to our energy policy and to demonstrate that perhaps we can do a little bit of legislating, a little bit of governing, and advance the cause.

I yield the floor.

Sen. Ron WydenD-OR · May 14, 2014

Mr. President, the Senate is now debating the EXPIRE Act. This is bipartisan legislation. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Utah Mr. Hatch. He has been so constructive in trying to build a…

Mr. President, the Senate is now debating the EXPIRE Act.

This is bipartisan legislation. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Utah Mr. Hatch. He has been so constructive in trying to build a bipartisan piece of legislation, a bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee several weeks ago with very substantial bipartisan support.

It really is designed to deal with a number of tax provisions that are temporary in nature and it, in effect, extends those temporary tax provisions until the end of 2015. In consultation with the distinguished Senator from Utah, I thought it was important to call this bill the EXPIRE Act. It was important because this legislation actually does expire after 2 years.

It, in effect, says--and I said--on my watch as chair of the Senate Finance Committee there will not be another extenders bill. It is not going to happen on my watch. This is it.

In effect, by extending these important provisions now for one last time, the Congress can give itself and the Finance Committee--on a bipartisan basis--the space that is needed to take on the challenge of comprehensive tax reform.

It is not going to be easy, but it is absolutely imperative for the future of the American economy. I know it can be done. I know we can get Senators of both political parties together and build a bipartisan tax reform plan. I know this because I have--and other Senators do as well--a fair amount of sweat equity in this cause.

Our former colleague Senator Gregg of New Hampshire sat next to me on a sofa for more than 2 years to build what still is the only bipartisan Senate comprehensive tax reform bill in the last 30 years. With Senator Gregg's retirement, to their credit, Senator Coats and Senator Begich pitched in.

So we know that there has already been a lot of bipartisan work on comprehensive tax reform and, suffice it to say, again building on this bipartisan lineage. My colleague from Utah, the senior Senator Mr. Hatch, and Ambassador Baucus and Chairman Camp in the other body, have also put in years of work and laid a strong foundation for tax reform.

So once the Senate passes the EXPIRE Act, the job of the Finance Committee will be to focus in a kind of

laser-like fashion on a bipartisan plan that is going to give all Americans the opportunity to get ahead.

I want to emphasize that. If I were to sum up my philosophy about tax reform, I want everybody in America to have the opportunity to get ahead--all our small businesses, all our Americans who are trying to deal with an extraordinarily challenging economy.

Frankly, that would be my first choice, to be out here working on comprehensive tax reform. But it was clear to me, with Chairman Baucus going to China as our Ambassador, that it wasn't going to be possible in a few short months to pass comprehensive tax reform.

I made the judgment--I will share it with the Senate again today, and I brought it up yesterday--that the failure to act on these temporary provisions, which are what the EXPIRE Act is all about, would cause further unnecessary, really gratuitous harm to American workers, to our small businesses, to our ability to compete in tough global markets. The EXPIRE Act is all about preventing a tax increase. We would clearly have a tax increase absent the EXPIRE Act, and it would be in areas of the economy that would be particularly damaging.

For example, it would really be a tax on innovation because right at the center of these temporary provisions--provisions that under this bill will last only until the end of 2015, and then they will expire-- they are not just meant to expire, they actually expire at the end of 2015. But if we don't take action to ensure that innovation has an opportunity to flourish, what will happen is we will, in effect, have a tax on those very jobs that are most important for our middle class--to grow wages, to encourage the kind of economic multiplier that is so good for our economy. So we ought to pass the EXPIRE Act so as not to have a tax increase on innovation.

We ought to pass the EXPIRE Act to not make it tougher for a company to hire a veteran, which I think is also hugely important. I will talk about it in a couple of minutes in further detail.

Another one that I know a lot of Senators are going to hear about this week is what would happen--absent this bill--to millions of Americans who are underwater on their mortgages. These are hardworking middle Americans who now are deeply underwater. Their lenders are willing to work out arrangements to lower their debt in a number of instances. But absent this bill, instead of getting their heads above water, what we will see is a tax increase on those homeowners that really drives them back down and increasingly sinking under all of this debt. Absent this bill, middle class people would be paying a tax on phantom income. I mean, they are not really getting any net income. When their lender works with them to relieve their debt, they surely shouldn't have to pay a hefty new tax. This bill does that.

This is National Small Business Week, and this legislation in particular goes to great lengths to make it attractive for small businesses and particularly for small businesses that would like to hire new workers.

Today we know there are nearly 10 million Americans out of work, and they are looking for jobs. The unemployment rate in my home State is 6.9 percent, which is well above the national average.

I think we would all agree that our highest priority should be to help people find jobs, and the EXPIRE Act is an opportunity to do that, particularly with respect to what it does for our small businesses.

Let me outline a few of those provisions--again, temporary in nature--so that we can do even more on a permanent basis for growing our economy and making it attractive for our small businesses to hire new workers.

In the EXPIRE Act is the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which encourages employers to recruit, hire, and retain individuals who often have had trouble finding jobs. The EXPIRE Act extends and expands this legislation in a few key ways so that the credit can help small businesses hire an even greater number of struggling Americans.

First, it would do more to help the long-term unemployed find work. These are those hard-hit Americans who are deeply at risk of falling between the cracks.

Second, the new approach will preserve the credit for veterans returning from overseas whom we have seen packing--literally packing-- job fairs in cities across the country in search of work. Picture that. The veterans who have worn the uniform of the United States and served all of us so admirably come back and can't find work, and they are coming out in throngs to these job fairs around the country. This bill will help them.

Small businesses that employee military reservists also currently get a wage credit when their employees get called to Active Duty. Not only will the EXPIRE Act increase that credit, it will open the credit to employers of all sizes to improve job security for even more reservists.

I mentioned the research and development credit, which of course encourages innovation in firms of all sizes. For many of them, having a strong research and development credit is simply imperative, but the reality is the current credit isn't doing all it might do to help small businesses, and complicated rules that are buried in the Tax Code may erase any benefits they see. The EXPIRE Act will change that in several key ways. To start, it will expand the pool of small businesses that benefit. It will also allow startups to use the research and development credit to help pay their employees' salaries, and it will build a bridge to tax reform so Congress can do more work to improve the credit further and make it permanent.

The research and development credit is critically important to the future of innovation in our country. Apropos again of the bipartisan theme we have taken in the Finance Committee, with the support of the ranking minority member, the distinguished Senator from Utah, there has been some very good work done by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, and Senator Schumer. I wish to commend them for their efforts to spotlight the need to do more to reconfigure the research and development credit to help small businesses.

The reality of course is what is the common thread between so many of our most successful companies--Intel and Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, and a host of others. They all started as innovative small businesses with their eyes trained on developing the future. The EXPIRE Act is a step toward a stronger, permanent research and development credit that will help even more entrepreneurs in our country grow their best ideas into successful businesses.

In the meantime, we all know small businesses in my home State of Oregon and across the country still suffer from the recession. They feel the effects of sluggish growth pretty much like everyone else. In a stronger economy, healthy small businesses might have decided to turn higher profits into investments aimed at expansion. The research and development credit--particularly the improved research and development credit--is going to help a lot of Americans, but we do want to place a special focus on our small businesses because helping them to make capital investments in new machinery, vehicles or computers is absolutely critical.

Again, the EXPIRE Act steps in to begin to address that effort in a thoughtful manner. The legislation allows small businesses to expense up to $500,000 of equipment costs right away, and it indexes that dollar amount to inflation so it grows in the future. It is what I think a number of Members know as section 179 expensing. If the Congress were to fail to pass the EXPIRE Act, that limit would fall from one-half million dollars to just $25,000.

The legislation also continues to simplify recordkeeping--all of the redtape we have heard small businesses, concerned about section 179, talk with us about. The legislation continues to simplify those procedures so small businesses can focus on their own growth instead of redtape.

A lot of small businesses have property that has lost value over time. Those small businesses can claim a deduction to compensate for it. The EXPIRE Act extends a key provision that allows small businesses to expense up to half the cost of that property upfront in the first year rather than spreading it out over a longer period.

Both of these tax incentives, section 179 expensing and bonus depreciation,

are powerful tools to encourage investment. They are lifelines for small businesses looking to grow, and the EXPIRE Act protects them also.

Next, I would like to touch on the energy sector, which I know the distinguished presiding officer has a great interest in. Obviously, small energy businesses play a major role in the future of the American economy, building a lower carbon future, and the EXPIRE Act is going to protect the incentives those businesses rely on to grow.

I will start briefly with the production tax credit. The wind energy industry, which benefits from the production tax credit, supports more than 50,000 jobs. Many wind companies are small, and they require lots of capital and planning to bring them to market. Their story illustrates what is important to end the cycle of stop-and-go tax policies that make our Tax Code, again, needlessly--as some would say, almost insanely--complicated and uncertain. Growth in wind energy has leveled off over the last 2 years, largely because of the expiration and late renewal of provisions such as the production tax credit.

The EXPIRE Act also extends provisions to encourage the provision of other alternative renewable fuels--fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, liquefied natural gas, and liquefied hydrogen. There are small businesses across the country that stand to gain if the EXPIRE Act is passed, and there are incentives to create jobs in those areas, but our country is going to lose out if the Senate fails to act.

Our small businesses ought to be able to plan for the future, to chart a course, in effect, from youth through maturity. Stop-and-go tax policies only make that more difficult. Even when well-intentioned, productive tax incentives go into the code, allowing them to expire over and over undermines their effectiveness and the ability of our businesses to have the certainty needed to grow for the long term. Our taxpayers, small businesses included--and we recognize them especially this week--deserve predictability and certainty.

The EXPIRE Act is called the EXPIRE Act for a reason. It is going to end after 2 years. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over the last day make a number of very thoughtful comments about the need for comprehensive tax reform, and I wish to tell my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, that with respect to the need for comprehensive tax reform, they pretty much have me at hello. We are going to get this extender bill passed, and then it is my intent to work very closely with Senator Hatch, the distinguished ranking member on the Finance Committee, and all of our colleagues to start putting together a strategy for a comprehensive tax reform plan to pass this Congress.

I will say on the floor that I think there is a real opportunity now to break the gridlock on tax reform. If we look, in effect, from this day, essentially May of 2014, until certainly the middle of 2015, there is an ideal opportunity, an ideal window for Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to build a bipartisan coalition to pass that into law-- comprehensive tax reform--and to work with our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who have similar interests. I know that because I have talked to a number of them in recent months.

I want colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know we are going to focus on getting these extenders passed now. Speed is important because the longer we wait, the more we damage, for example, our ability to create those innovation jobs because, in effect, we are going to have a tax increase on innovation, making it harder to hire veterans and the tax hike middle-class people would get, in effect, because they are underwater on their mortgages and they got a break from their lender. We have to get that done. It is my intent to use every single day as we go forward with that effort to make sure the extenders pass and pass quickly, then move on to comprehensive bipartisan tax reform. I know we can do it.

He is not here today, but my colleague Mr. Coats, the senior Senator from Indiana, has done very good work--stepped in when Senator Gregg retired--and has more than met me halfway. I particularly want to commend Senator Begich, who has been part of our bipartisan coalition and who has had very thoughtful ideas, particularly on protecting the middle-class small business incentives for savings. He is a small businessperson himself.

I have been out here probably 20 minutes or so, and I haven't said anything that isn't about Democrats and Republicans coming together, coming together first to pass the extender legislation and then to use every single day over essentially the next year and a half--that window until the summer of 2015--to put together a bipartisan plan that can help grow the economy.

I will close with this. After the bipartisan effort in 1986, where a big group of progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans came together, our country created 6.2 million new jobs over the next 2 years. Nobody can claim every one of those jobs was due to tax reform; that simply would be stretching things, but clearly it helped. The business people I talk to now in Oregon and others who come to Washington say they very much want the same certainty and predictability that was seen in 1986, in terms of being able to make those investments to grow their businesses and particularly hire more middle-class Americans at good wages. That is what we are going to be all about. We are going to pursue it in a bipartisan way. Let us pass the EXPIRE Act and move on to address the question of bipartisan comprehensive tax reform.

As I leave the floor--I touched on it while he wasn't here--I am particularly pleased about the Roberts-Schumer addition to help more small businesses be part of those innovation jobs for the future because what Senator Roberts and Senator Schumer did is to take that credit and do more to move it toward an approach that will help those small businesses, the ones starting in garages and all across the country where individuals are betting on the future and taking the risks. It is going to be easier for them because of the good work done by Senator Roberts and Senator Schumer. It is another reason for colleagues to vote for the EXPIRE Act.

With that, I yield the floor.

Rep. Keith J. RothfusR-PA-12 · Jul 30, 2014

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this very informative Special Order tonight. You are right: I came here to make a difference. I came here to be part of a team that wants to relight…

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this very informative Special Order tonight.

You are right: I came here to make a difference. I came here to be part of a team that wants to relight America, relight the job market, relight opportunity, relight the American Dream, because people are hungry for it. They see this town that is out of control, they look at this town, and if they visit this town, they marvel at the growth that is happening in Washington, D.C.

I challenge everybody who visits Washington to count the construction cranes they see and the explosive growth and the high-end shops that open here and the concentration of wealth and power in this town. It is a scandal to the rest of the country. I see these construction cranes here on Pennsylvania Avenue. I would like to see those construction cranes back in Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker.

But this is a very important discussion we are having about the actions that this House is taking to relight the American economy and how it gets snuffed out in the Senate.

As we have reviewed this evening, Mr. Speaker, the House has continued to pass legislation that would move our country ahead, grow our economy, add more jobs, and increase wages and prosperity. Then there is the brick wall across the other side of the Capitol.

Nowhere is the Senate's inaction more evident than in the budgeting and appropriations process we have here in Washington, D.C. The Senate and House have together managed to pass all 12 appropriations bills and complete the appropriations process on time by September 30 only four times since 1977. It is shocking.

This House, Mr. Speaker, has been working to correct this problem. I want to recognize the hard work of the House Appropriations Committee and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

This year, the Appropriations Committee has already passed 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee. Seven of those bills have already passed the House here, most of them with strong bipartisan majorities.

How many bills, how many appropriations bills has the Senate passed? Zero. They have yet to pass a single one.

The Senate's failure to do its work is disappointing, but it is not surprising. That is why I introduced the Congressional Pay for Performance Act earlier this year.

The bill is simple. The House and Senate must each pass a budget and all annual appropriations bills by August 1 or have their pay withheld until the job is done. It applies that fundamental lesson that we learn in our first job: if you don't do your work, you don't get paid until you do. That is the lesson that millions of young Americans learned working their first job this summer. It is the lesson I learned on my first paper route. I didn't get paid if I didn't deliver the newspaper. It is past time for Members of Congress to live by that lesson.

Beyond the Senate's failure to execute their constitutionally prescribed job of appropriations, the House has passed, as you noted, more than 350 bills, including many jobs bills, that Senator Reid allows to collect dust in the Senate. Over 98 percent of these bills have passed with bipartisan support, both Republicans and Democrats.

As of this morning, Mr. Speaker, 195 of these bills passed without opposition. House Democrats introduced 60 of these bills that now gather dust in the Senate. Again and again, the Senate refuses to act.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Sixty of those bills, Mr. Speaker--you look at the stack of paper that the gentleman from Georgia has with him here today--Mr. Speaker, 60 of those bills were introduced by Democrats, and yet they gather dust in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Mr. Speaker, we passed dozens of energy-related bills designed to increase production, reduce prices, add family sustaining jobs, and promote American energy independence. Bills like the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, the Northern Route Approval Act, which is going to get the Keystone XL pipeline going, passed in May of 2013, 241-175. It has been sitting over in the Senate for 434 days.

We have passed dozens of regulatory reform bills to promote job growth and keep an out-of-touch and out-of-control Washington, D.C., bureaucracy in check. Those like the REINS Act that the gentleman from Florida mentioned. A very simple bill. If a regulatory agency puts out a regulation on the economy that is going to cost more than $50 million to implement, suppressing job growth, bring it back here for an up-or- down vote. Let's restore the constitutional responsibility for both the Senate and the House, who have that responsibility for making the law. Let us take accountability for that. If there is a regulation that merits approval, we are going to vote for it. It is called being accountable. But you can't fire these bureaucrats who come up with these regulations that have a negative impact on our economy.

We have also passed the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency Act, known as the ALERRT Act. It is an effort to improve thoughtful consideration of the consequences of regulation.

I offered an amendment to the ALERRT Act. The amendment requires the capital bureaucrats to acknowledge whether their regulations will have a negative impact on jobs or wages in a particular industry.

Any such regulation will be subject to additional review to ensure that the benefits justify the costs to families and communities. The principle is simple: if Washington bureaucrats are going to implement rules that take wages or jobs away from hardworking Americans, they should take responsibility for and justify their decisions. It is important that regulators think through the impacts, costs, and burdens that red tape imposes on families and communities, and it is time for the Senate to come to the support of those individuals and those communities and take up the ALERRT Act.

We have passed several tax-related bills to help individuals keep more of their hard-earned money and to help small businesses add jobs and increase wages, like the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act and the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act.

We have also heard stories of people whose hours have been cut because of the 30-hour work week in the President's health care law. But the House has acted. That is why we passed the Save American Workers Act to restore the traditional 40-hour work week and help those who want the opportunity to work more hours and see their wages go up.

The Senate has to act. Time and again, Mr. Speaker, the House has acted but the Senate has not.

I really thank the gentleman from Georgia for shining a light on what is going on at this Capitol, the production that is coming out of this side of the Capitol and then hits the wall on the other side. It is time for the Senate to act, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia notes that western Pennsylvania has a growing energy industry. We are seeing a tremendous number of jobs coming in, family sustaining jobs.

Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, when somebody gets a job in that field and they start to get that paycheck--and every American who gets a paycheck sees this--there is some stuff that is taken out. There is a FICA charge, a Medicare tax charge, and Federal taxes.

Mr. Speaker, that is how we are paying for Social Security, that is how we are paying for Medicare. When people pay their income taxes, it is how we pay for the defense of our country. This is a dangerous world, Mr. Speaker.

We need to have an economy that is generating the kind of jobs where people can get back to work and get those salaries and wages so that when they pay taxes, they are paying for Social Security, Medicare, and veterans benefits. We have got a boom like you have never seen before, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman from Georgia has all these bills there that show the work that this House is doing, all to help this economy get growing again.

If you want to be paying for Social Security, if you want to be paying for Medicare, if you want to be paying for veterans benefits, we have got to grow this economy at 4 percent, at 5 percent, yes, at 6 percent. So many people, Mr. Speaker, have said, that is not going to happen, we can't get there. It happened. It happened in the 1980s, it happened in the 1990s. We can do this. We are a blessed land, Mr. Speaker, and in western Pennsylvania we see that.

We are having a big debate right now with respect to the President's greenhouse gas emissions, and there is testimony being taken across the country, including in Pittsburgh. We have to use our resources.

Under his plan, in 2008, when the President was running for his seat, he promises, ``Electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.''

No single person should have the authority to impose a policy on a country that would cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket. That is why the REINS Act is so important. That is why Senator Reid has to move the REINS Act to the floor of the Senate, to have this Congress have a voice. Our Constitution has an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The legislative branch is where those policy decisions should be made.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is asking questions about what is happening on the Senate side. They are simply not acting.

It was 241-175. I think the last time I counted, there are some 234 Republicans in this House. It was 241, so there are Democrats voting for this bill.

There is almost universal support for Keystone XL. The President could allow it to go forward. Thousands of jobs are in the waiting-- thousands of jobs where people would be paying Social Security tax and Medicare tax and increasing the supply of North American energy being able to be refined in this country, which means American jobs refining that.

So what is happening over there in the Senate? It is not coming up. We get phone calls all the time from our constituents, and it is important that constituents call their Members of Congress, who are their employees. We are the employees of the American people. The Senators are the employees of the American people because they pay our paychecks.

Their hard-earned tax dollars are what fund the paychecks for Senators and the paychecks for the Members of this House. We are the employees of the American people.

So we welcome phone calls from our bosses, our employers out there. They need to be calling their employees in the Senate and saying: Why aren't you approving the Keystone XL pipeline? We need those jobs. Why aren't you approving the REINS Act?

We don't think one person should make the decision that would turn off the lights in this country, turn off the lights at power plants, turn off the lights in coal mines, turn off the lights in factories because the prices are going too high.

When the President said that electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket, if you are opening up a plant and you are looking at that, that is a cost. If the income doesn't exceed the cost, that factory isn't going to get built.

So there are folks across the country--entrepreneurs--who want to get things going. They want to hire people, but then they look at the cost, and they say: no, we are going to put our money elsewhere.

We need people investing in this country because that is what is going to cause this country to boom again, and look at some of the tax bills we passed out of this House, which wait in the Senate--where is the Keystone XL pipeline? Where is the Northern Route Approval Act right now?

I can't answer the question that the gentleman from Georgia asks, but I think maybe the Senators could answer that question if their bosses-- the people who pay their salaries--would call them.

You raise a good point because the way the process is supposed to work, one side of our Capitol--the House--will pass the bill or maybe the Senate will pass a bill, and then there might be a slightly different bill passed out of the other Chamber, and then the two sides would come together in a conference, and there would be some negotiating. There is some compromise going on.

Prior to coming to Congress, I had a job of negotiating contracts. Your client would tell you when you go into that negotiating room: whatever you do, make sure you get A and B into that contract.

So you know what your marching orders are, but you understand the other side has come in, and they have been told by their client: make sure you get C and D in that contract, whatever you do.

The art is that the two of you get together and you negotiate. You go back and forth. Are you going to get 100 percent? You never do. That is negotiating. That is life, but here, we passed these bills. We are waiting to negotiate. They are not even acting.

I go back to the appropriations process, which is fundamentally broken. Since 1977, you have only four times that the House and the Senate got this job done by September 30. That is a scandal.

Everybody in this country knows that April 15 is an important date. You have got to pay your taxes that day. You can't call the IRS and say: Hey, can I get a continuing resolution on that? Can I have 3 weeks?

The gentleman from Georgia pointed out that I have two of my young children with me. We know that the Tuesday before Labor Day, school starts. Am I supposed to able to call the principal and say: hey, we're not ready? Can I have a continuing resolution on that summer, so we can have 3 more weeks to get ready?

It shouldn't happen. The spending bills will be passed, whether it is through a continuing resolution that will extend it until December or January or February or March. Why can't it get done by September 30? It is an act of the will.

If the other side of the Congress--the Senate--hasn't passed any, where can you even begin to have that negotiation between the two different ideas and what is in those bills? We would love to negotiate with Senator Reid.

We would love to negotiate. In fact, it has worked. I think you pointed out the SKILLS Act which, again, the House passed some 16 months ago. It took a while for the Senate to get going. It finally did. We passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act last summer. We finally got it to the Senate and got together. It got done.

We passed a temporary patch for the highway trust fund that we sent over to the Senate. The Senate had some other ideas, so they are making some changes, but this is the process that is supposed to work. One House moves; the other House moves. They are not even moving, Mr. Speaker.

It isn't my way or the highway, but if you have one part of this Congress--the Senate--not even acting, what is the communication there? It is no way.

We invite the Senate to act. We invite the Senate to come and start to talk about the Keystone XL pipeline and the thousands of jobs that are waiting, talk about the REINS Act, talk about the ALERRT Act to require the bureaucrats in this wealthy and powerful Capitol to take a look at the regulations that they are putting out and making an assessment whether those regulations are going to hurt wages or jobs.

I talk to people who are capped at 29\1/2\ hours. They can't get above 30 hours, Mr. Speaker, so we passed legislation that, again, sits in the Senate. We need to boom this economy again. That is how you pay for the critical programs that we have.

We have to use the God-given resources we have in this country--yes, prudently, smartly, and in a responsible way. There are ways to do that.

We have made tremendous progress in this country over the last 50 years. I am from Pittsburgh, and they talk about, back in the day, that you had to bring two shirts to work because, by noon, your shirt would be dirty.

We are making tremendous progress with the environment. I have another bill that I am trying to get this House to move, so we can send it over to the Senate to help that progress continue, called the SENSE Act, H.R. 3138. Again, I hope to get this House to move it, but we have to get the Senate to act.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

3 versions available

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Placed on Calendar SenateIssued March 24, 2014

Calendar No. 332

113th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3474

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 12, 2014

Received

March 13, 2014

Read the first time

March 24, 2014

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken into account for purposes of the employer mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Hire More Heroes Act of 2014.

Employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration may be exempted from employer mandate under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

(a)

In general

Section 4980H(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by adding at the end the following:

(F)

Exemption for health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration

Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer under this paragraph for any month, an employer may elect not to take into account for a month as an employee any individual who, for such month, has medical coverage under—

(i)

chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including coverage under the TRICARE program, or

(ii)

under a health care program under chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, as determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary.

(b)

Effective date

The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 2014.

Karen L. Haas,

Clerk

March 24, 2014

Read the second time and placed on the calendar