S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 616 provides for consideration of three important bills. The first, H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, will ensure continued operations for those Federal agencies responsible for monitoring the health and safety of our food and drug supplies. H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, are two critical pieces of tax legislation that will give certainty to the small business community, making permanent two pieces of our Tax Code which Congress has had to continually renew annually for decades. Making these tax credits permanent will allow businesses to look out for more than a year ahead and to actually evaluate their economic situations, allowing for those businesses to make staffing and investment decisions for the long term rather than just the short term.

The rule before us today provides for a modified open rule for H.R. 4800. This allows all Members to offer any amendments to the bill that they may choose. The Speaker is committed to completing as many appropriations bills under regular order as possible.

The rule before us formalizes the same unanimous consent agreement that was entered into during the consideration of the CJS appropriations bill, which streamlines the debate, providing for 10 minutes of debate on every amendment offered on the bill. However, in no way does this rule restrict Members from offering any and all amendments to the underlying bill.

The rule further provides for the consideration of both H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, both under a closed rule. By bringing these two bills here today, Members will be allowed to debate the policy of each of these tax provisions individually rather than as a single omnibus tax extender legislation hurriedly passed at the end of the year that would not allow Members to weigh in on each separate extender as this process does.

H.R. 4800, the Agriculture and Related Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides almost $21 billion for the department agencies funded in the bill. This is funded at the same level as fiscal year 2014 and $457 million above the President's request. The bill provides critical funding for agricultural research; animal and plant health; conservation programs; the Farm Service Agency; rural development, including infrastructure and food safety inspection; the Food and Drug Administration; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and the food and nutrition programs, including child nutrition, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the program for women, infants, and children.

Of particular importance to the work I have been involved with on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the agriculture appropriations bill provides over $2.5 billion in funding to the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the bill allows for the collection of user fees cumulatively, amounting to overall discretionary funding of $4.5 billion in the FDA.

These dollars serve an important mission. From drug and device approval to food safety, the Food and Drug Administration is at the regulatory forefront of protecting the Nation's health, but it also acts as the doorway for new treatments and cures. From basic research to cutting-edge treatments, America has led the way in opening new fields of discovery and taking medicine to boundaries that I could not have imagined during my medical training or career, yet we have barely scratched the surface of medical breakthroughs that are over the horizon. And believe it or not, there are only hundreds of treatments for diseases that afflict us and thousands still without any treatment at all, let alone a cure.

Will the United States continue to be the home for the latest inventions? If the answer to that is yes, the Food and Drug Administration will be a key part of the future.

Patients and innovators are on the front lines in the fight against diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, yet their voices are not always heard. Bureaucratic rules have stood in the way of innovation. Some estimates show that medical devices may be approved almost 4 years earlier in Europe than in the U.S.

In 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended ``encouraging innovation'' as part of the FDA's mission statement in order to ensure that the FDA understood its role in helping new innovative treatments reach patients.

However, the true impact of the medical device, pharmaceutical, biologic, and generic drug industries in the United States is that they are partners in providing our physicians and practitioners with the tools that they need to prevent disease and alleviate human suffering.

The Food and Drug Administration must have the infrastructure and programs in place to ensure all innovations are dealt with in a fashion that ensures safety for the patient, as well as a straightforward and predictable and streamlined approval process. The Food and Drug Administration can continue to streamline the approval process of single-molecule drugs with which they have the most regulatory experience, but if we can't handle the fundamentals, then we have got a big problem.

Congress has taken several bipartisan actions in the last few years to break down the barriers to health innovation, and the Food and Drug Administration will and has seen changes as a result. The funding provided will continue to move these reforms along, but as report language notes, there is a great deal of work that remains to be done.

For the good of patients and to retain our global leadership and the economic benefits that come with it, it is time to breathe new life into the life sciences sector. As a physician, I understand the importance of ensuring that the government has the resources to lead to the next generation of treatments in the 21st century while also ensuring that those treatments are safe and effective. The bill will ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the scientific and medical expertise that they need when reviewing products utilizing emerging science by providing adequate resources in a challenging fiscal environment.

After the successful passage of the farm bill this year, the next step in that process is to fund those programs. H.R. 4800 achieves that goal.

And I will add, I was disappointed to see that the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, to bring grocery stores and fresh food to underserved communities, was not funded in this appropriations bill even after the House resoundingly defeated an amendment to strip the program from the farm bill, showing that this body overwhelmingly supports this initiative. I understand that an amendment to fix this oversight will be offered during consideration of the bill, and I hope that something can be worked out.

The two tax bills before us today are, again, critical to give small businesses stability and the ability to look beyond the end of each calendar year in making decisions for their companies. Extending these provisions today will be a boost to our economy.

H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would make permanent a provision within the Tax Code that allows annual investments of depreciable business property up to $500,000 to be expensed. Further, computer software and rules for the expensing of qualified real property--leasehold improvement, restaurant and retail improvement property--can also be written off as well.

The present tax system harms investment in many ways. One of the most important is that, unlike other expenses, businesses must deduct capital expenses--such as for business equipment--over many years rather than the year the expense is incurred. This raises the cost of capital and reduces investment. H.R. 4457 would go a long way to reverse this trend.

Likewise, the other two tax extenders that we are voting on today deal with S corporations or pass-through corporations. These corporations elect not to pay any Federal corporate taxes and, instead, pass corporate income, losses, and deductions and credits through to their shareholders.

H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, makes permanent an expired tax break that would enable businesses set up S corporations to shrink the window that they have to hold built-in gains from 10 years to 5.

H.R. 4454, the Permanent S Corporation Charitable Contributions Act of 2014, would make permanent the tax rule requiring an adjustment to the basis of a shareholder's stock in an S corporation if the corporation makes tax-deductible charitable donations.

Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate research and development. Sixty-two Democrats voted against the measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the policy, but it was the fact that the measure was not offset. However, offsets are something in Congress that we need when we are creating new programs or allocating money not previously appropriated, essentially making the American people pay more in taxes. Offsets are unnecessary and not needed when, in fact, we are shielding the American people from being taxed.

Moreover, we heard last night in the Rules Committee, and I suspect we will hear it again today on the floor, about the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in this rule are not offset. Congress only needs to pay for tax credits if one subscribes to the belief that all money in the country--all money in the country--belongs first to the government rather than the people. I reject this mind-set. Congress does not need to justify or offset not taking more money from the American people; Congress needs to justify and pay for policies that take money from the American people.

Indeed, every member of the Rules Committee on the minority side has voted at least three times to extend these very provisions without having any sort of offset. President Obama, himself, signed those three extensions of these provisions into law, all done without offsets. Senator Wyden, who has been working on a larger tax extender bill in the Senate has included the same PAYGO language that is included in these bills before us in this legislation. To make hay about this issue, which is truly much ado about nothing, is to play politics with taxpayers and our economy, and the Republican majority in this House will not play along.

In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package, permanent extenders like these are common sense. They bring back stability and certainty to businesses that are constantly waiting at the end of every calendar year to see if Congress will retroactively act to provide that tax relief.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of a response.

In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, 2009 to 2010, this House never considered a single bill under an open rule. Let me state that again: 2009 to 2010, the 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi was Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit, that is the definition of a closed process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first off, I just want to reference something on Speaker John Boehner's Web site.

John Boehner took the Speaker's gavel in January of 2011,

promising to run a more open U.S. House of Representatives

than his predecessor. In the 3\1/2\ years since then, Speaker

Boehner has made good on that pledge by allowing more

amendments and a steady stream of ``open rules,'' while the

Democratic-controlled United States Senate, under Majority

Leader Harry Reid, has gone in the other direction.

One congressional expert calls open rules, which allow

Members to freely offer amendments of essentially any nature

during the consideration of a given bill, ``essential for

fair consideration of legislation on the House floor.

Under Boehner's leadership, Members on both sides of the

aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more

amendments, and the House has operated under far more open

rules than were allowed under the previous Democratic-

controlled House.

The final years of the Pelosi-run House were a tour de

force in closed government. During the final 2 years of

Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never

considered a single bill under an open rule. Some Members of

Congress served their entire House careers under Speaker

Pelosi without ever operating under an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of so-called immigration reform, the administration has done more to distance and set back any policy in that direction.

Why do I say that? The reason is the unintended effects of their policies to send a message worldwide to those that come here by any method possible, and we will not prosecute, we will not send you back.

As a consequence, we have got an issue on the border of our State in Texas that is, at the same time, both heartbreaking and frightening, with underage children literally being shoved across the border.

Mr. Speaker, what does it say when an 8-year-old child can cross our border illegally? Who else is getting in, if 8-year-olds are able to come across this porous border that the administration has opened up?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that those conditions the gentleman referenced that might cause a child to be frightened existed 4 years ago, existed 3 years ago, but there has been a dramatic change in the past 2 years.

I believe that change is directly attributable to the policies of the administration when they went around the United States Congress to unilaterally alter the United States immigration laws, which specifically, in the Constitution, is a legislative branch requirement.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills: H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015; H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014; and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-In Gains Recognition Period Act for 2014.

The rule is fair and important for us to move forward on the debate on these pieces of legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 616 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide

for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 4582.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused,

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked

the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled

to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on the Ways and Means Committee. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. You have been a great leader, and we look forward to allowing you to lead us the rest of this year on our committee as we continue the debate on the extenders and making some permanent.

H.R. 4457 would permanently extend the small business expensing for equipment and property outlined in section 179 of the Tax Code.

As many of you know, section 179 first came into existence in 1958. I wasn't yet born. My parents were not yet married. They got married in 1958, so they didn't see the debate here in Washington. It may not have been quite like the debate today, though, I would say, because, ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, this is a mystifying debate. This shouldn't be this difficult. No wonder Congress has a low approval rating.

Section 179 of our Tax Code is very simple, and as the chairman said, it has been very bipartisan over the years. It allows businessowners to immediately deduct the cost of the investments of property and computer software rather than depreciating such cost over time.

In fact, on January 1, what had been an extender that allowed for the maximum expensing of $500,000 and the deduction phased out of investments exceeding $2 million went back to what is current law today. That is why this is so important. It is the essence of this debate, and it is the essence of what my bill does because it went down. The limit went down to $25,000 and up to $200,000 of investments.

If you talk to Tom and Judy Price, who are from my district, they think that what we do here is just crazy and mystifying because they have to make real decisions in real time and with real money, not make- believe, not theory. They have to make decisions that impact real lives and real costs and real jobs. This is a jobs bill. That is what this is about. If you ask Tom and Judy Price, we have had expensing, and

we have had higher limits than $25,000. We don't today. We had them before, but they weren't paid for. We have had them for the 10 years since I have been here, and they haven't been paid for.

But do you know what? Here is the reality of life.

In Delaware County, Ohio, I talked to Tom Price this morning. He has a mulching business. He needs to buy a loader. Is Congress going to provide certainty? Oh, 2 years is fine. Retroactivity is fine. That is the narrative around here, Mr. Speaker. We've done it before. Let's do it again this way.

The Senate won't accept it. Let's surrender our card today. Let's surrender my voting card, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhere here. Let me give it to the Senate.

My daughter, going into sixth grade, understands there are two Houses. We shouldn't be surrendering this card, Mr. Speaker, to the Senate because, oh, the Senate is going to do it their way; have always done it that way.

Ladies and gentlemen, a bill becomes a law this way. The House passes a bill. That is what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, add permanency.

Tom and Judy Price, in their mulching business, they would like certainty to plan, not oh, we will make it retroactive and we will go out a year. Oh, by the way, Mr. Price, we are going to do it in November. We are going to make it retroactive to January.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

You guys couldn't survive running a business in Washington, D.C. You couldn't survive.

That is what this debate is all about. It is about reality.

My daughter knows that the Senate has the right to do anything they want, but we have our right with our card. Guess what?

There is supposed to be a conference committee. There is supposed to be a real debate and oh, my God, compromise between the House and the Senate. That is what this is supposed to be about. That is what I tell my daughter who is going into sixth grade.

But no, let's surrender to the Senate right now. Let's just surrender. We have surrendered before.

And oh my goodness, these deficits. These businesses pay taxes. You all want to raise taxes on them.

When we had a debate on this floor, and I was here in 2009, we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill. $1 trillion. Nobody cared about the deficit then.

But Mr. Price and Mrs. Price are trying to buy a loader for $200,000, and we are debating over the deficit and temporary Tax Code and retroactivity and surrendering to the Senate. That is what this debate is about. That is what this has come to.

And you wonder why, Mr. Speaker, Americans think Washington is broken; because we don't understand what real-life Americans who are trying to run a business and hire employees and raise their wages, they don't understand why we are having these mystical debates because they are living in the real world, the real world.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Hoosier State, Indiana (Mr. Young), a great member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee. He has provided great leadership on the subcommittee, and I appreciate his work.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just for the record, the gentleman from Texas has voted for the policy of either increasing or extending section 179, without offsets, six times on a temporary basis for a total of 8 years.

The gentleman from Michigan has time to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

The motion to recommit that the minority keeps talking about today will add billions to the deficit as well, and as I explained earlier, the problem with the narrative of We have done it this way, we are going to do it again, and the problem with surrender, as was talked about by the gentleman from Massachusetts, who I have a great deal of respect for, is the fact that we are missing the point of what is happening in the real America.

Real Americans see that we, on this floor, get a stimulus bill by the other side, in 2009--and I was here--jammed down our throats that added $1 trillion to the deficit.

Today, the minority is concerned about the deficit, and I assume they want those same small business owners who are trying so hard to create jobs with additional regulations--like Tom and Judy Price face--and they want them to pay more taxes, that is the bottom line; but when they have increased the debt before--whether it is for temporary tax policy or additional spending--there was no concern about the deficit and the debt.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary Lew, in a speech at the Economic Club in New York, said, ``The U.S. could face a permanent downturn in economic growth without increased business investment.''

How timely--because if you go to my district and talk to Tom Price or talk to Gary Skinner, who owns a farm--and I had the privilege of being in his combine, that combine costs $250,000--guess what: it is about this provision today.

The reality with our unpermanent extender policy, with respect to the investments that Mr. Lew talked about yesterday, is that real job creators who are trying to grow their businesses, hire more people--so people like my dad, when I was in high school--wouldn't have to get unemployment, like he did or my dad--who was an immigrant, so I understand a little bit about immigration--despite the fact that the gentleman from Maryland might not think so--and mom, another immigrant--could get jobs. That is what this is all about.

All you have to do is go talk to these job creators who are looking at us with a whole lot of perplexed looks as to: Why can't we change the narrative? Why can't the House have a position to negotiate with the Senate? Why does it have to always be, well, this is the way we have done it retroactively for 2 years, this is the way we will do it again?

That gives no certainty to these job creators, to these farmers. That is what this debate is all about, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a letter addressed to me and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Representative Ron Kind, dated June 9, from many employers. In fact, it represents millions of job creators throughout America and their support for making permanent this provision of section 179 of our Tax Code.

National Association

of Manufacturers,

June 10, 2014.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in

the United States representing manufacturers in every

industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support

H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014,

introduced by Reps. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) and Ron Kind (D-WI).

This bipartisan legislation restores and makes permanent the

enhanced Section 179 expensing provisions that expired at the

end of 2013.

Enhanced Section 179 expensing allows small and medium-

sized manufacturers to immediately write off up to $500,000

of investments in new property and equipment in the year

purchased, rather than depreciating the cost of the

investment overtime. Making this provision a permanent part

of the tax code will provide these job creators with the

certainty needed for effective business planning. In reducing

the after-tax cost of investments, the legislation will help

spur much-needed investments in new property and sales of

capital equipment. Since 2003, Congress has steadily

increased the amount of investment that small businesses can

expense, from $25,000 to $500,000.

Capital investment is key to economic growth, job creation

and competitiveness. Thus, NAM members strongly support H.R.

4457 and urge Congress to pass this important legislation.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

votes on H.R. 4457 may be considered for designation as Key

Manufacturing Votes in the 113th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter that I received from the National Association of Manufacturers. Having certainty over the tax treatment of critical investments will make planning for future investments significantly easier.

Capital investment is key to economic growth, job creation,

and competitiveness.

Consequently, enactment of this policy would amount to a major step towards a Tax Code that will promote investment.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is all about jobs. Whether it is on a family farm, whether it is in a mulch business, whether it is a small manufacturer, this is about increasing jobs. Even Mr. Lew said we have a significant problem that we are facing about capital investments. This is, over the last 50 years, a tried-and-true provision that we know creates jobs. And to provide certainty is so critical. If we talk to those job creators--I have talked to them, Mr. Speaker. This is so important to give them certainty over time, not retroactivity like the narrative that we fall into.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, sir, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will tell the gentleman from Michigan my constituents don't have to be scared. They watch us. I don't have to tell them anything. And I am certainly not going to tell Mr. Skinner or Mr. Price, trust us, we will retroactively, we will, ladies and gentlemen, we will retroactively-- because we are going to surrender today--we are going to retroactively pass a policy in November or December to allow you to expense something that you bought in June, because today Mr. Price needs to buy a loader for his mulch business.

And he scratches his head; retroactively? Retroactively? You guys don't know what operating businesses are all about if you are talking about retroactively, because that has been the narrative here. The other narrative is that the Senate is not going to do it. Well, with all due respect, after the R&D tax credit debate on this floor when the same argument was used, Senator Barbara Boxer--not someone who I agree with a lot on things--said that maybe we should look at making that permanent. Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, a member of the Democrat leadership, opened up the possibility of maybe we should make some of these permanent. Tom and Judy Price would be proud of Mr. Durbin. I don't know if Mr. Durbin has run a business or not, but Mr. Price does with his wife.

Ladies and gentlemen, this should be about common sense. Nobody is pure here. We have all added to the deficit. I would argue that the deficit was much higher when the other side was in control. Those are numbers. Less today, less last year, a lot more than 2009, I think we would all agree, the deficit, yearly deficit, the debt is certainly higher. The MTR will create debt. According to the Joint Tax, my bill will as well.

But this is about job creators, about allowing them to invest, invest to grow their businesses, to hire more employees, the American Dream that my mom and dad came here to believe and live in, ladies and gentlemen. In a House that my daughter--my daughter in sixth grade understands that we have a right as a House to pass a bill and have a position that might be different than the Senate's. God forgive us for having a different position than the Senate. But just because the Senate wants to do 2 years doesn't mean we have to do 2 years.

I don't understand that narrative. Even some of my colleagues say, well, why are we doing this because the Senate doesn't agree? Give me a break, ladies and gentlemen. Let's have a conference committee for once. Wouldn't that be great? That would be grand. And we can fight it out in conference committee just like the Founders told us we should.

Ladies and gentlemen, with respect to tax policy, there has been no Member of the House, the Senate, and the administration that has provided leadership to get to comprehensive tax reform like David Camp. He has been bipartisan, he has been open, and he has provided incredible leadership. But as all of us know in looking at history, one House can't provide leadership. You need an executive at the White House who is going to provide leadership. And, quite frankly, we have had none.

I credit Ron Wyden, the chairman of the Senate, he has got a bill at least. He has got a draft. I might not agree with his draft, but he has a right to have a draft, and the Senate has a right to have a position. And do you know what? Maybe one day we will get there soon, Mr. Neal. I know you are for that. I am for that. But we should have a House position. We should not surrender to the Senate.

But to get comprehensive tax reform done, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have leadership in the White House. We can't do it alone.

I thank Mr. Camp for his service. He has moved the ball on comprehensive tax reform greater than anybody has here since I have been here. But today is not about comprehensive tax reform, unfortunately. It is about providing certainty to small businessowners--our job creators in America. This is what they want. This is what they need. This is what has been proven to be successful to allow them to expand their businesses. And today, if Tom Price buys a loader for $200,000, he has to expense it over 7 years. His cash flow is killed, and I am not going to go tell him, ``don't worry. Trust me. We will do it in December retroactively.'' I will not do that.

We need to have a position. We need to do it today. We need to do it right. This is about policy. This shouldn't be about politics. This should be about the House's position.

I urge each and every one of my colleagues to put the politics aside, quite frankly, and support this bill, have the House have a position, and let's challenge the Senate, and let's do it before November, before December. Let's do it now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will adopt yet another closed rule for these two tax extender measures, which will cross a new Rubicon, a new threshold. We are going to break the record for the most closed rules considered by a Congress ever, and we still have 7 months to go.

The graphic that I am holding illustrates that--that we have the most closed Congress ever, which allows, among other things, that we don't deal with immigration reform, we don't deal with the minimum wage, we don't deal with unemployment insurance, we don't deal with universal gun background checks, we don't deal with dealing with banning assault weapons. This is a closed Congress.

This may sound like inside baseball, but it is much more than just a procedural agreement. I have seen a lot of rules serving nearly 10 years now on the Rules Committee, but this is a new one. This rule limits debate during the appropriations process. It deems passage of a provision to ignore the deficit that this legislation will create, and it sets an all-time record, as I have shown, for closed rules. We managed to do this yesterday and now have it on the floor all in one rule.

Congress has, as I have said, many important issues it needs to take up, including the things I have shown and reiterate now: immigration reform, raising the minimum wage, and extending unemployment insurance.

2.5 million people in this country are without unemployment insurance. If we were to pass it, it would create 200,000 jobs, and we stand around here and talk about creating jobs all the time.

Closed rules prevent the House from working its will on these measures. That is the way it appears that leadership, what is left of it, wants it to be.

My friends do make some Democratic amendments in order at times. Both parties have used closed rules when they have been in control, and that is true. That is the prerogative of the party controlling the House.

But you can read these closed rules like a roadmap of my friends' priorities. In general, the only amendments made in order are those that are expected either to pass or fail along party lines. Over 30 House Republicans and 64 percent of Republican voters polled support immigration reform, but we can't get a vote. Where is the immigration reform bill? Where is the measure that will allow for us to answer many of the problems that this country is confronted with in reference to immigration reform?

This week, as I have indicated, nearly 3 million Americans have lost emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December, but we can't get a vote here on the House of Representatives' floor.

The Voting Rights Act needs to be reformed in order to protect American voters, but we can't get a vote in the people's House. Leadership uses closed rules to prevent the House from working its will because they are worried about undermining their message, more worried about it than actually legislating.

Today's tax extenders are a perfect example of how these heavy-handed tactics help the chosen few, but leave everyone else without recourse. There are at least 50 other tax extenders that we could have taken into consideration, but no, we choose these six because that is your agenda. Dozens of other provisions that expire at the end of 2017 and several others scheduled to expire at the end of this year have been skipped over in favor of these six extenders favored by businesses that are pretty substantial, and not necessarily the big corporations but many of the large S corporations.

My friends across the aisle have passed up the chance--would you believe this?--to renew the work opportunity tax credit, which helps veterans get back to work, as well as the new markets tax credit, which helps revitalize communities.

How do you do that? They have chosen to ignore renewable energy tax credits and tax credits to help working parents pay for child care. How about that? They have decided there is no reason to extend deductions for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses, qualified tuition, mortgage insurance premiums, or State and local taxes, a deduction that is critical for Floridians and the people that I represent.

These six extenders will be the only extenders that the House votes on because these are the priorities of my friends across the aisle, priorities that may solidify your message, my friends, particularly your message with your base--and evidently you are confused about that particular matter--but you are more interested in them and assuring that you do nothing to help hardworking Americans.

You are going to use the power of the closed rule to ensure that no other provisions get a vote, and you are going to become the most closed Congress ever, disallowing immigration reform, disallowing a minimum wage increase. There are States that are giving a realistic minimum wage increase to people. You tell me, how it is that people live on $7.35 an hour? Many of us have been to food shelters and seen people that are working, many of us have seen people that are living in shelters, working families living in shelters, and we won't even bring a measure here. Are you afraid to just say ``yes'' or ``no'' whether or not Americans ought to have an increase in their minimum wage at the Federal level?

You let 2\1/2\ million people don't have unemployment insurance, can't meet their obligations, and we are not willing to help them, and you tell me that you will increase--you talk all the time about the deficit, so you are going to increase the deficit with some mumbo jumbo about money if it is not in the hands of, and disallow people that we know, if they were to receive unemployment insurance compensation, that they would spend all of that money and that it would, in fact, create jobs, and it would sustain small businesses if we were to do that.

One presenter in the House yesterday, outstanding in his presentation, a friend from the other side, pointed out that he had come from a hardscrabble life and that his father one time had been on unemployment insurance. I said to him, and I believe it to be true, that you just proved my point. And I asked him did his daddy get a job after he was on unemployment insurance. And his answer was, yes, and I knew that is what it would be. Many people who are on unemployment insurance today, if we were to give them a chance, they would get a job. Get a life, Republicans, give people a chance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend on the other side of the aisle may try to change the subject. Do that if you like. But I ask the gentleman: Is this a new record for closed rules or not? And I answer rhetorically because it is. And I don't deny that Democrats have used closed rules. I said it in my opening remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Judge Lloyd Doggett, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Returning briefly--before I yield to my good friend--to the subject of open and/or closed rules, this is what Speaker Boehner promised right here in this Chamber in his own words:

I offer a commitment: Openness, once a tradition of this institution, but increasingly scarce in recent decades, will be the new standard. You will always have the right to a robust debate in an open process that allows you to represent your constituents, to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard.

It is unfortunate that my friends on the other side of the aisle campaigned telling the country how open and transparent they were going to be, and then when they do the opposite and are called out on it, it is just more excuses.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4582, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Mr. Tierney, my good friend, authored that bill to help millions of people lower their student loan debt. The bill would allow borrowers to refinance Federal and private student loans to the lowest rates that are currently available to new borrowers.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a distinguished gentleman, my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to my friend from Texas that I am prepared to close. I have no further speakers at this time, and so I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is not all doom and gloom over here. There are provisions in the agriculture appropriation measure that I support.

I appreciate the report language in support of the United States Department of Agriculture's pollinator programs. I, along with others, have been leaders in bringing the subject to the attention of Congress, something of vital interest to all of this Nation.

I have been teased an awful lot about being the ``bee man'' because I bring up the pollinator issue all the time, but the fact of the matter is, if we don't have bees, we are not going to have food.

I also appreciate the provisions related to citrus greening, which has been devastating to Florida citrus growers, as well as those provisions in this measure that address rural housing.

I represent Belle Glade; South Bay; Canal Point; and Pahokee, Florida; and places where rural housing is really important, but I, along with all of my colleagues--particularly Joe Garcia, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Mario Diaz-Balart--have raised the issues with reference to citrus greening. The whole south Florida delegation has been involved in that particular area.

I grew up in the citrus area. I saw the early-on stages of greening. If we don't do something about this particular problem--and this farm appropriations does deal with some of it--then we may have no citrus coming from the State of Florida.

There are a limited number of days left on our legislative calendar, and we have many miles to go before we, as a Congress, have delivered on our obligation to help all Americans.

We absolutely have an obligation to businesspeople, but we also have an obligation to help veterans get work; an obligation to ease the burden on teachers who use their own money to support their students-- our students; and an obligation to address forthrightly important issues, including immigration reform and raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment insurance.

We should stop standing around here and thinking that we are doing something when we offer a moment of silence, which is right for victims who have died of gun violence and the grief that is coming through all of those families. You hear them begging for us to do something.

We know that we can't solve all of those problems, but at least we could give them some assurance that we are trying to have universal background checks and that we are willing to ban assault weapons. Why would anybody want an assault weapon, other than a police officer or military person, and why should we permit them to be in their hands?

We won't bring those measures down here to the floor, and we do so at our peril.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the underlying bills, and certainly vote ``no'' on this record-setting rule for closed rules, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I share your concerns as you expressed them with reference to the unaccompanied young people coming to our country, and I don't make any quarrel with you, but I would highlight the fact that it is believed by some that many of the places they are coming from--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Central America--the kids are running because of fright.

I remind you that they already have TSP, and we did that quite some time ago for those Central American countries. We did it, rightly, then.

I just offer that for information, and I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the bill (H.R. 4453) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the reduced recognition period for built-in gains of S corporations, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4453.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for H.R. 4453, the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014.

Since we started the tax reform process in January of 2011, one of the main themes coming up again and again is the need for certainty for individuals to plan and businesses to thrive. Nowhere is this more true than for small businesses.

Pass-through businesses, like S corporations, account for more than half of all jobs in the United States. In my home State of Washington, they are particularly important, providing 1.4 million jobs, with S corporations providing more than one in four private sector jobs.

Permanence in the tax law is especially important for these privately-held businesses because they can't go to the public markets every time they want to invest in new equipment or hire workers. They need certainty to plan how to most effectively deploy their capital.

A perfect example of an area of the Tax Code that is ripe for permanence, so that S corporation businesses can plan to access and redeploy their own capital, is the built-in gains, or BIG, relief provision that is before us today.

The BIG tax, as it is called, is a double tax on S corporations that want to sell their assets after converting from C corporation status. Currently, S corporations have to wait 10 years after converting before selling their assets to avoid the punitive double tax.

Traditional year-to-year tax extender legislation has reduced this holding period to 5 years, holding to the original antiabuse intent of the rule, yet providing significant relief for businesses nationwide. H.R. 4453 would permanently reduce that holding period to 5 years.

As we heard from Jim Redpath, a small business witness who is an accountant--he testified before one of our Ways and Means hearings several weeks ago--the BIG tax causes S corporations to hold on to unproductive or old assets that should be replaced.

He gave the example of a road contractor that is holding onto old equipment and trucks that are sitting in the junkyard that he can't sell. He can't even sell them for parts. Rather than selling them, if he did, they would be subject to the BIG tax, the double tax that I talked about earlier.

The other impact here is, if businesses are allowed to sell these assets and used equipment, it would benefit other small businesses, starting businesses, for example, that may not be able to afford the newest and the latest equipment and technology, but they can start their businesses with used equipment.

Instead of selling assets and using the proceeds to hire new workers or invest in new equipment, businessowners sit on the sidelines. This is a perfect example of Tax Code influencing business decisions, and this needs to stop.

According to the IRS, tens of thousands of corporations convert to C corporations each year. We can't continue to leave this capital locked up. We need to give it back to the small businesses that make this country thrive.

The second part of this bill is also a commonsense provision that will give S corporations certainty in the value of their charitable donations. The S corporation charitable basis adjustment provision simply ensures that S corporations get the same value for their deductions as all other small businesses.

These two commonsense provisions will give S corporations the certainty they need to create jobs and grow our economy in this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), who is also a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter of support signed by 35 different organizations in support of this legislation. These signees include organizations as diverse as the National Grocers Association, the National Electrical Contractors Association, and the Association for Manufacturing Technology.

June 11, 2014.

Pass the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014

Dear Member of the U.S. House of Representatives: As

representatives of America's closely-held businesses, we ask

that you support legislation (H.R. 4453) making permanent the

5-year recognition period for built-in gains, as well as the

basis adjustment for charitable giving by S corporations.

Small businesses are the engine of America's economic

growth and S corporations are the cornerstone of the small

business community. There are more than 4.5 million of them

nationwide. They are in every community and every industry

and, according to Ernst & Young, they employ one out of every

four private sector workers.

Unlike public corporations, these closely-held businesses

have little or no access to the capital markets. Instead they

rely on banks, relatives, and their own savings to fill their

investment and working capital needs. An overly long built-in

gains recognition period makes this disadvantage worse by

preventing companies that have chosen to become S

corporations from accessing their own capital and putting it

to better use.

Locking up a company's capital for an entire decade is

simply unreasonable. Past Congresses have recognized that a

decade is too long and voted to reduce the recognition period

on three separate occasions, but those temporary measures

have expired and the 10-year rule is back in effect.

Enacting a permanent shorter recognition period would

sustain the original intent of the rule while providing S

corporations with much needed certainty. It would allow them

to make decisions based on what is best for the company

rather than the dictates of the tax code. At a time when our

economy badly needs increased investment, allowing more

companies to access their own, locked-up capital is an

important step.

Furthermore, making permanent the basis adjustment to stock

of S corporations that make charitable contributions of

property would help bring consistent treatment among flow-

through businesses, and would allow America's S corporations

to be more active and supportive of much-needed charitable

activities.

On behalf of America's Main Street business community, we

respectfully ask that you vote in favor of the S Corporation

Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014.

Thank you for your consideration.

Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Air Conditioning

Contractors of America, Agricultural Retailers Association,

American Council of Engineering Companies, American Institute

of Architects, American Rental Association, American Supply

Association, American Trucking Associations, Associated

Builders and Contractors, Inc., Associated Equipment

Distributors, Associated General Contractors of America, Auto

Care Association, Financial Executives International, Food

Marketing Institute, Heating, Air-conditioning and

Refrigeration Distributors International, Independent

Community Bankers of America, Independent Electrical

Contractors.

Metals Service Center Institute, National Association of

Wholesaler-Distributors, National Beer Wholesalers

Association, National Electrical Contractors Association,

National Federation of Independent Business, National Funeral

Directors Association, National Grocers Association, National

Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, National

Roofing Contractors Association, National Small Business

Association, S Corporation Association, Small Business

Council of America, Small Business Legislative Council,

Subchapter S Bank Association, The Association For

Manufacturing Technology, Truck Renting and Leasing

Association, United States Business and Industry Council,

Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America.

Small businesses across the country recognize just how crucial it is to give access to capital to businesses in our struggling economy today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Maryland spoke very eloquently on this topic. I just want to note that his past action shows something a little bit different. He has voted for this provision three times in the past.

No, I will not.

I will not yield my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I would still say that the gentleman from Maryland--to clarify my point--has voted for the extension of these policies three times for a total of 8 years, and that is a fact. That is part of the voting record.

I do not yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate that the gentleman has voted for this extension of this policy three separate times for a period lasting 8 years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the chairman of the committee.

I am. I have no other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, just to be honest, I also might want to mention that Mr. Levin has voted five times to extend these policies, for a total of 12 years.

Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have repeatedly reauthorized these tax policies without paying for them. Democrats have agreed with the policy of these bills before us today. Making them permanent gives businesses certainty that they will always be a part of the Tax Code, and it is a more honest way of budgeting. Increasing taxes to pay for these policies makes no sense.

We all agree that small businesses impacted by my bill need more access to their capital, which my bill gives them. Making the policies in this bill permanent, while raising taxes in the area of the economy, defeats the purpose of freeing up capital in a way that encourages job creation and moves the economy ahead.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give businesses what they have been asking for since I came to Congress, and that is the certainty in the Tax Code, so that the Tax Code is working for them and they are not working for the Tax Code, so they can plan ahead, so they can grow their business, so they can hire more workers, and so that we can get this economy moving again and get people back to work.

In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, they need the ability to access their capital, so they can invest, again, in their businesses; reenergize their businesses; buy new equipment; sell new equipment; create jobs; and, again, grow the economy.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill before us today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the tax extenders being considered today are important to small businesses and have been supported by Democrats.

The first two bills impacting S corporations regard the gain on the sale or distribution of appreciated assets and how charitable contributions of an S corporation are taken into account by shareholders. Over the years, we have modified these provisions and extended them on a bipartisan basis.

The section 179 expensing provision which we will consider second has been in the Tax Code since 1958. It was expanded and nearly quadrupled to a maximum expensing allowance to nearly $100,000 in 2003.

In 2008, as another recession took hold, that allowance was increased to $250,000; and in 2010, we again expanded the provision, this time to $500,000, as we continued action to spur the economic recovery. This level was in effect through 2013, and this bill before us would make these significant expansions permanent--unpaid for.

When these expansions were first enacted in 2003, House Republicans noted that these expansions ``reflected the need for an economic stimulus and growth package.''

Republicans want to talk about certainty. Well, this much is certain: the expanded 179 provision will be extended

again. Our economy still needs it, and if Republicans had any interest in working on a bipartisan basis on comprehensive tax reform, we could discuss how best to make a stimulus effort a long-term part of the Tax Code.

The opposite is being done today. It is tax reform in reverse. The S corporation provisions surely also will be extended, but in reality, we are not here to make law. I think that is evidenced by the atmosphere about these provisions as we take them up today.

The President has indicated he will veto the approach--permanent, unpaid-for tax cuts--taken in the Republican bills before us today, and importantly, the Senate Finance Committee has approved, on a bipartisan basis, legislation to extend all tax extenders for 2 years.

The total inability of the House Republican majority to take action to help our recovery, to bolster small businesses, and to grow our economy has resulted in smoke-and-mirror votes, like the ones before us today. They want to signal that they support small business, but their action is so inconsistent with their past positions that it is rendered hypocritical.

Ways and Means Republicans put forth a comprehensive tax reform proposal and received accolades--the chairman did--for making it revenue neutral. Chairman Camp included these extenders in his comprehensive tax reform proposal fully offset, the opposite of today.

The measures in front of us today add up to $75 billion in deficit increases--$75 billion more. When you add in the R&D credit that passed the House last month and the eight other provisions that have moved through Ways and Means Committee, it adds up to--everybody take notice--$614 billion, unpaid for and permanent.

There are still more than 40 tax provisions left unaccounted for. When all is said and done, Republicans are well on their way to increasing the deficit by $1 trillion, and we all know where it will lead--to future Republican demands to cut vital domestic priorities that have been on the chopping block for the GOP: funding for education, public health, and transportation--as we saw yesterday--to name a few.

Chairman Ryan put forth a Republican budget resolution, which the Republican majority passed through this House. That budget that you all here today on the Republican side voted for stipulates that any change in tax law must be offset. These bills today shred that principle. You are shredding it.

You are inconsistent. You moved in one direction with some praise and now you are essentially moving in the opposite.

And the final hypocrisy is one that hits home for 3 million unemployed Americans, I must say, for their families and for millions of Americans who care. The Republican majority insists that unemployment insurance be paid for, but when it comes to tax cuts, they can simply be added to the deficit. The bill before us today is seven times more expensive than the cost of extending Federal unemployment insurance for the remainder of the year. And I should note that we have simply already agreed to offset the cost of such unemployment extension.

Democrats stand ready--more than ready--to extend these provisions for small businesses. We stand ready--more than ready--to act on all of these expired tax provisions. We stand ready--more than ready--to act on comprehensive tax reform. And we certainly stand ready--more than ready--to extend unemployment insurance for 3 million job-seeking Americans and be paid for. But we will not be silent in the face of the Republican hypocrisy on display today. What they are doing today is reckless and irresponsible. Once again, here they go again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let this be very clear to our distinguished chairman. These bills being brought up here unpaid for come to $75 billion. The total of the bills that have come through Ways and Means comes to $614 billion. So 75 today, we had 300-and-some a week or so ago. The train is on the track as you have positioned it, 614 just to start. To extend these provisions for 2 years is $3.4 billion. That is why it is irresponsible to simply go off into the wild deficit, irresponsible yonder. That is where you are.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.

There is a tremendous difference between 3.4 and 75 in these bills and 614 when you add this together with more to come. It also means it gives us time to look to see whether they should be permanent under what conditions.

So that is why it is reckless, it is irresponsible, it is contrary to your tax reform bill where you lauded it and we applauded that aspect that you paid for it. You called it revenue neutral. We wanted something beyond that. We didn't want deficit wild.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), an active member of our committee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Well, since you stated how many times I have voted to extend temporarily, I will now yield some time to Mr. Van Hollen and then I will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). I don't think it will take very long to refute the statement made by the gentleman from Washington.

Is the gentleman ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I am glad the chairman spoke because this back-and-forth really illustrates what this is all about.

The chairman made these three provisions permanent and paid for. This bill here doesn't pay one dime. We have voted to continue these programs on a short-term basis for a variety of reasons.

For example, on bonus depreciation, the notion to make it permanent was contrary to its purpose. The chairman left it out of his reform and then comes here to vote to make it permanent.

We need an honest debate about tax reform and what provisions should be made permanent. You have prevented any kind of an honest debate. You don't even allow us to bring up some way to pay for any of this.

I previously pointed out the difference. It is so striking. If you extend these provisions, as the Senate does, for 2 years, the cost is $3.4 billion. These two bills are $75 billion.

There could be no more dramatic example of irresponsibility and of recklessness, and the mystery is: Why in the world are you doing this?

As you can see, there aren't huge numbers of Members here for the debate. You are going through the motions. These are rifle shots, and you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Don't bring up the number of times that someone has voted to continue these on a temporary basis as you argue to make them permanent. That is dishonesty.

I want to emphasize the path that is being followed here is not only contrary to the tax reform proposal, contrary to the Ryan budget. It is also

going to lead to the Republicans, as Mr. Van Hollen said so eloquently, raising this huge amount of deficit--$614 billion, going towards a trillion--and then the Republicans are going to come back here and say: wow, look at how much the deficit has increased.

So you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help.

So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.