To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we are breaking a record yet again for the most closed Congress ever. The majority has broken their own record for the most closed Congress in history. Again and again, they have wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the problems at hand. And that certainly is true today.

The American people are hoping that Congress will create jobs, expand educational opportunities, and support working families, but instead, we insist on spending millions of dollars on investigating made-up scandals and adding billions and billions to the deficit.

Today we have one rule for two bills: first, the bonus depreciation bill, and, second, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, two bills with nothing in common except to highlight the majority's insistence of choosing policy over people.

Now, H.R. 4718 would make bonus depreciation permanent. This is a policy that maybe you have never heard of, but it is a policy that used to be bipartisan and still would be on a 1- or 2-year basis, like the Senate has proposed. It is designed as a temporary measure, and I emphasize ``temporary'' because if it isn't temporary, it is not effective.

Bonus depreciation gives businesses an extra large immediate tax deduction for a portion of the cost of investments in equipment. Instead of spending more of the deduction over future years, it incentivizes purchasing equipment now in order to provide an immediate boost to the economy, instead of in the future when the incentive may not be available.

And that is how it has always temporarily worked. But if we make it permanent, then the taxpayers are simply subsidizing the cost of the equipment that businesses would need to purchase anyway.

My good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is as good a businessman as he is a Congressman--and that is saying a lot--said yesterday that in 2003, his small business went out and bought $100,000 worth of computers specifically because he could take advantage of the bonus depreciation, which was in place and was a very smart thing for him to have done. And that is exactly how bonus depreciation is supposed to work.

Mr. Cole knew computers would be cheaper at that time than in a year or two, when the tax credit would have expired. So he spent the money on equipment. And that surely helped the economy, and I am sure it created some jobs.

But why would Mr. Cole buy the computers immediately if he knew the tax credit would be there forever? He wouldn't, I don't believe. We will talk about that later.

This tool was put in place between 2002 and 2005, at 30 percent and then at 50 percent. It was reenacted in 2008 and then extended four times, often as part of a larger stimulus package, most recently at 50 percent. That expired at the end of 2013.

Now, when enacted as a temporary measure, there has been bipartisan support. However, the bill we have before us intends to make it permanent, completely negating the purpose of the bonus depreciation as a temporary measure.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into the change, and they said, ``Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness'' and that bonus depreciation ``was enacted for a specific, short-term purpose.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now insert the Congressional Research Service's report, ``Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues,'' from March 24, 2014, into the Record.

[From Congressional Research Service,

Mar. 24, 2014]

Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues

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

Summary

The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 (S. 1859), which would extend

expiring tax provisions for a year, includes bonus

depreciation. The temporary provisions enacted in the past

for only a year or two and extended multiple times are

generally referred to collectively as the ``extenders.'' One

reason advanced for these temporary provisions is that time

is needed to evaluate them. Most of these provisions,

however, have been extended multiple times, and some suggest

that these provisions are actually permanent but are extended

a year or two at a time because permanent provisions would

significantly increase the costs in the budget horizon.

Historically, bonus depreciation has not been a traditional

``extender.''

Bonus depreciation allows half of equipment investment to

be deducted immediately rather than depreciated over a period

of time. Bonus depreciation was enacted for a specific,

short-term purpose: to provide an economic stimulus during

the recession. Most stimulus provisions have expired. Bonus

depreciation has been in place six years (2008-2013),

contrasted with an earlier use of bonus depreciation in place

for three years. Is bonus depreciation temporary or

permanent? The analysis of bonus depreciation differs for a

temporary stimulus provision, compared to a permanent

provision that can affect the size and allocation of the

capital stock.

A temporary investment subsidy was expected to be more

effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus,

encouraging firms to invest while the benefit was in place.

Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. Yet,

research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very

effective, and probably less effective than the tax cuts or

spending increases that have now lapsed.

If bonus depreciation is made permanent, it increases

accelerated depreciation for equipment, contributing to

lower, and in some cases more negative, effective tax rates.

In contrast, prominent tax reform proposals would reduce

accelerated depreciation. Making bonus depreciation a

permanent provision would significantly increase its

budgetary cost.

Compared to a statutory corporate tax rate of 35%, bonus

depreciation lowers the effective tax rate for equipment from

an estimated 26% rate to a 15% rate. Buildings are taxed

approximately at the statutory rate. Total tax rates would be

slightly higher because of stockholder taxes. Because nominal

interest is deducted, however, effective tax rates with debt

finance can be negative. For equity assets taxed at an

effective rate of 35%, the effective tax rate on debt-

financed investment is a negative 5%. The rate on equipment

without bonus depreciation is minus 19%; with bonus

depreciation it is minus 37%.

If bonus depreciation is permanent, estimates of U.S.

effective tax rates reflecting concerns that the U.S. rate is

higher than that of other countries overstate the effective

U.S. corporate tax rate; U.S. effective tax rates on

equipment would be significantly lower than the OECD average.

Moving to permanent bonus depreciation is inconsistent with

tax reform proposals made by the Wyden-Coats bill, the Senate

Finance Committee Staff discussion draft, and Chairman Camp's

proposal. All of these proposals would reduce the current

accelerated depreciation for equipment.

The usual extenders cost a fraction of the cost of

permanent provisions in a 10-year budget window, but bonus

depreciation is a smaller fraction because it is a timing

provision. A one-year extension costs $5 billion for FY2014-

FY2024, less than 2% of the cost of $263 billion for a

permanent provision.

What the majority is fond of saying is that this bill would bring in $10 billion in revenue. And I heard it over and over again at the Rules Committee last night, that we are going to have $10 billion in revenue. But what they fail to say is that over 10 years, it is going to cost us $287 billion, nearly $300 billion, which could buy us a lot of high-speed rail, a lot of bridge infrastructure, a lot of highway work. But what we are now doing is a permanent subsidy to make tax cuts to every business that wants to buy equipment.

Now, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scored this at $287 billion over 10 years. We are not making that up. The majority is cobbling together a piecemeal approach, and it will not work. We would love to have tax reform, we cry out for tax reform, but this isn't it.

To cap it all off, this is another closed rule. And let me say what that means. Even if a Member wanted to offer an amendment to pay for the nearly $300 billion cost of this bill--which is the rules under which we operate, you know, PAYGO--they wouldn't be allowed.

There are so many better things to spend that $300 billion on, the things that we really need in this country. But the closed rule ensures that it would stifle the debate and hijack the process. And, more than that, we know the Senate will not take this up.

So, once again, we are doing a bill that might make some people feel good but not if they think about it a little bit. Because even the businesses who are going to be prospering from the tax decrease are going to be responsible for the loss of $300 billion.

So with the second bill, which is H.R. 5016, the Financial Services Appropriations, the majority is cherry-picking which agencies to fund and which to strangle for purely political purposes. They will continue chasing down the all-but-defunct IRS conspiracy rabbit, getting funding for the IRS but making it so that $2 billion worth of the tax revenue will not be collected because they have cut the budget of the IRS so much. So add that $2 billion to the $300 billion that we are voting on today for depreciation, and add that onto the deficit, too, since it is not paid for.

In addition, as the majority crisscrosses the country touting states' rights, they have also put forward legislation that obstructs, once again, the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting funding for constitutionally protected medical care. The majority insists on ensuring that women are second-class citizens, and they continue to chip away at our constitutional rights.

Furthermore, this bill continues to prevent multi-State policies under the Affordable Care Act from providing coverage for abortions under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, except in the most desperate of circumstances.

We need to say over and over again that, of the women in this country who are using birth control, 58 percent--more than half of them--are using it for medical reasons. And they are being deprived. Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the women in this country who are using prescription contraception are using it because they have medical issues, and it is expensive. But we will not let them get any help because we simply don't believe in providing health care for women.

Government workers deserve the same benefits and the same access to comprehensive health care as those in the private sector enjoy. It is, in fact, dangerous for the majority to target abortion care and require its exclusion from health insurance plans that include other important and necessary reproductive health services. Women expect and deserve the best health care and coverage that fits their needs.

And let's remember that 58 percent of the women who use oral contraceptives use them for medical purposes, not just for birth control.

I would like to be able to say that women should expect their government to be able to put their health and safety above election- year politics, but this is what we have come to expect here. Women deserve better. But I am afraid in the House, women's rights, again, continue to be undermined. Time and again, we have prioritized in this House--some of us--politics over people.

Let me mention the veterans, for example. Listen to this. This is really important to know. While those veterans who have served and sacrificed for our country are waiting months in line for medical care, the House majority will spend more money investigating and trying to debunk a nonexistent Benghazi scandal than helping our veterans get the care they need. That is right. The committee investigating Benghazi has a much larger budget than the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If that is not a political statement, I don't know what is.

And I need to point out that just yesterday, transcripts from the Armed Services Committee about Benghazi proved that everything that could have been done was done.

And I know that when I last did the rule on the floor on the special Benghazi committee that I received a call from the mother of one of the Navy SEALs that died, saying that she really wished the Congress would stop dragging their family back through that horror. They know what happened.

Instead of working on the real problems--and we have got them--they are finding time to sue the President for doing his job, to hold vote after vote to repeal ObamaCare. And let's remember the shutdown of the government that took $24 billion in that short time out of this economy.

So we come here to make things better. And with these actions and with this behavior, we make things worse.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

May I inquire if my friend has any more requests for time?

We are going to call for the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the legislation that would treat wildfires like similar major natural disasters and ensure that money intended for managing public lands is actually used for that purpose.

It is time to make commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal on wildfires, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is prepared to close, I will close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority continues to choose politics over people, create problems instead of solving them, and insist on silencing debate in the Chamber. It is time to consider the real problems facing the country, and with summer comes the destructive fire season that affects so many of my colleagues' districts.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and move to consider the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to make the commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Chairman Camp, for your leadership on this important issue and your leadership on the tax-writing committee. If we would have had similar leadership in the Senate and at the White House, we would have a different discussion today, and that would be one on comprehensive tax reform.

Unfortunately, we are not having that discussion because there hasn't been leadership. In fact, there has been zero leadership from this White House. And after 5\1/2\ years of this President being in the White House, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for this economy. Taxes are higher. We have more regulations. We have an economy that is sputtering along. In fact, the facts are that the first quarter of this year, our economy retracted.

This bill is a jobs bill. It is that simple. It is a jobs bill. We have had bonus

depreciation since 2002. This isn't new. It has been in the Tax Code under temporary law since 2002, and extended many times--many times, retroactively. It expired, ladies and gentlemen, in December.

I was talking to a CFO of a large American manufacturer this week, and he said to me, You understand that when you retroactively do this, it doesn't help our economy.

When you only do it, in essence, for 1 year, which is the narrative that my friends on the other side of the aisle are acquiescing to, in that this is a fruitless waste of time because we should just accept the Senate bill that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee at the end of the year, which will retroactively extend bonus depreciation back to January of this year for another year--next year, 2015--that doesn't do a whole lot to grow our economy.

It is better than a sharp stick in the eye, 1 year; yet, if you talk to a CFO, like I did this week and as I have over and over and over again, a business plan is for several years.

When a business owner who is a manufacturer buys a piece of machinery to make a widget, it costs a lot of money. This expense is 50 percent of that, Mr. Speaker.

Guess what? You can make more widgets, and you can hire a new employee. The new employee makes money, pays taxes to the city of Columbus, pays taxes to the State of Ohio, pays taxes to the Federal Government--more tax revenue, a job, more jobs.

That is why hundreds of businesses and organizations are for this piece of legislation, which has been around--unpaid for--for 10 years.

I mean, think of the logic here, ladies and gentlemen. If we extend spending, we tell the American people that it doesn't cost them any more money. If we extend a current tax cut--so stopping a tax hike--it costs them more money. That is Washington, D.C., math. It makes no sense. That is the inconsistency.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this is about jobs; this is about our economy. This is bipartisan. It doesn't need to be partisan. I have said before that I don't want to give up my voting card to the U.S. Senate. Let the House speak.

Let's have a good, old-fashioned conference committee. I don't expect I will get my way. I know Chairman Camp doesn't expect he will get his way. We will have a good, old-fashioned compromise. I know that is a dirty word sometimes around here.

As my sixth grade daughter says: Isn't it supposed to work where the House passes a bill, and the Senate passes a bill, then you kind of work out the differences, and it goes to the President?

Yes, Angelina, that is the way it is supposed to work.

I wish the folks on the other side of the aisle would allow us to change this narrative of the Senate won't accept this, so let's just take the Senate bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and an outstanding member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and then I will yield to Mr. Roskam.

To the American people it must be really confusing. So we have had bonus depreciation, this tax policy, temporary for over 10 years, unpaid for; supported by many on the other side of the aisle, unpaid for; temporary, many times retroactive. And yet, moving that policy forward for 10 more years, the same way it has been paid for over 10 years, costs money, bad policy, even though we are giving for the first time certainty, predictability to people who actually create jobs in America, who must have a business plan and must make those big purchases. Amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas, I would like to submit, for the Record, a letter from over 100 associations that represent thousands of employers and job creators, of whom represent hundreds of thousands of employees. In the letter they say, this piece of legislation that we are about to vote on today helps them create jobs and increases productivity.

July 9, 2014.

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

undersigned associations--and the companies we represent--

appreciate the efforts of the House Ways and Means Committee

to make permanent important tax provisions that expired at

the end of 2013. In particular, we support swift action on

legislation (H.R. 4718) to permanently extend bonus

depreciation, creating a pro-investment tax climate that will

spur much needed economic growth and jobs and provide a

bridge to broader tax reform.

Continued uncertainty about bonus depreciation is

discouraging investment in the United States and, in some

cases, keeping companies totally on the sidelines. This

impacts both companies that make investments and companies

that manufacture capital equipment.

In contrast, since 2008, members of our associations have

responded positively to the availability of 50 percent

expensing, including an important part of the legislation

allowing companies to utilize Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

credits in lieu of 50 percent expensing.

Many of our companies have been recognized for this

commitment to domestic investment that creates jobs and

increases productivity. Renewing bonus depreciation and the

comparable AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation will

provide an immediate incentive for businesses to make

additional capital investments, thereby boosting the U.S.

economy and job creation.

Thank you in advance for supporting this important

legislation when it comes to the House floor for a vote later

this week. Our associations and member companies will

continue to support comprehensive tax reform, but until an

agreement becomes effective, extending bonus depreciation is

essential to maintaining the nation's economic momentum. In

order to plan with certainty, companies must know as soon as

possible what the tax rules for capital investment and job

creation in America will be in 2014 and beyond.

Sincerely,

Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Aerospace

Industries Association; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

Refrigeration Institute; Airlines for America; American Boat

Builders & Repairers Association; American Composites

Manufacturers Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe

Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American

Foundry Society; American Lighting Association; American

Petroleum Institute; American Trucking Associations; AMT--The

Association For Manufacturing Technology; Arizona

Manufacturers Council; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce;

Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated Industries of

Arkansas; Associated Industries of Florida; Associated

Industries of Missouri; Association of American Railroads.

Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Association of

Washington Business; Auto Care Association; Biotechnology

Industry Organization; Book Manufacturers' Institute, Inc.;

California Manufacturers & Technology Association; Chemical

Coaters Association International; Colorado Association of

Commerce & Industry; Corn Refiners Association; Council of

Industry of Southeastern New York; CTIA--The Wireless

Association; Forging Industry Association; Fuel Cell and

Hydrogen Energy Association; General Aviation Manufacturers

Association; Georgia Association of Manufacturers; Greater

North Dakota Chamber; Illinois Manufacturers' Association;

INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry; Indiana

Manufacturers Association.

Industrial Energy Consumers of America; Industrial

Fasteners Institute; Industrial Heating Equipment

Association; Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries;

Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute; International Sign

Association; Iowa Association of Business and Industry; IPC--

Association Connecting Electronics Industries; ISSA--The

Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association; ITTA--The Voice of

Mid-Size Telecommunications Carriers; Kansas Chamber of

Commerce; Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association; Medical

Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA); Metals Service

Center Institute; Mississippi Manufacturers Association;

Missouri Association of Manufacturers; Motor & Equipment

Manufacturers Association; National Air Transportation

Association; National Association of Electrical Distributors;

National Association of Manufacturers.

National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers;

National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM);

National Automatic Merchandising Association; National

Business Aviation Association; National Cable &

Telecommunications Association; National Council for Advanced

Manufacturing; National Electrical Manufacturers Association

(NEMA); National Marine Manufacturers Association; National

Mining Association; National Propane Gas Association;

National Roofing Contractors Association; National Stone,

Sand & Gravel Association; National Tooling and Machining

Association; National Waste & Recycling Association; Nebraska

Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Nevada Manufacturers

Association; New Jersey Business & Industry Association; Non-

Ferrous Founders' Society; North American Die Casting

Association; North Carolina Chamber.

NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing

and Convening Technologies; NTCA--The Rural Broadband

Association; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; Portland

Cement Association; Precision Machined Products Association;

Precision Metalforming Association; Resilient Floor Covering

Institute; Rhode Island Manufacturers Association; San

Antonio Manufacturers Association; Secondary Materials and

Recycled Textiles Association (SMART); South Carolina Chamber

of Commerce; Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association;

Specialty Equipment Market Association; Specialty Graphics

Imaging Association.

SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association; Steel

Manufacturers Association; Texas Association of

Manufacturers; Textile Rental Services Association; The

Hardwood Federation; The State Chamber of Oklahoma; U.S.

Chamber of Commerce; United States Telecom Association; USA

Rice Federation; Valley Industrial Association; Window and

Door Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers &

Commerce; Woodworking Machinery Industry Association; World

Alliance for Decentralized Energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Health Subcommittee chairman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume for my closing.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is very clear. As the gentleman from Massachusetts--who is a friend of mine and who I agree with on a lot-- said we should be here to talk about comprehensive tax reform and not temporary tax policy.

In my years here in this United States Congress and my years, more importantly, on the Ways and Means Committee, there hasn't been a chairman that has been more bipartisan, more inclusive, and made a stronger effort to comprehensively reform our Tax Code than Chairman Dave Camp. If he would have had a partner in the White House and a partner in the Senate to move the ball along as far as he did, quite frankly, in a very bipartisan way, we wouldn't be here today.

But here are the facts: for the past 5\1/2\ years, Barack Obama has been the President of the United States of America. Here is a fact: the first quarter of this year, our economy retracted 2.9 percent.

This bill is a jobs bill. Simple enough. And, in fact, during my time on the Ways and Means Committee--putting Chairman Camp aside--without Chairman Camp, with other chairmen, we haven't had any bipartisanship. We haven't had tax bills. We didn't have an effort to comprehensively, in a bipartisan way, have a Tax Code rewritten. It has only been Chairman Camp.

So we can talk about theory and academics. But here we are today, with one choice in an economy that is not near where any of us want it to be after 5\1/2\ years of Barack Obama as President.

We have a piece of legislation that we know creates jobs that for 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. For 10 out of the last 12 years, it hasn't been paid for. And there is no benefit to job creators for long-term certainty. None. Zero.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have already submitted for the Record a list of hundreds of associations that represent thousands and thousands of employers around the country who create jobs for hundreds of thousands of employees who say this is one of the best job-creating tools they have.

I know people who want a job. They would rather have a job than unemployment insurance. They want a job really badly.

Something my dad said to me a long time ago when he lost his manufacturing job of 25 years: ``The most important thing is a job.'' And that is how simple this is, ladies and gentlemen. That is how simple this is.

In 5\1/2\ years, we have higher taxes, more regulations. This is about jobs. This is what job creators want. Let's give them what they want. Let's go to the Senate. Let's have a conference committee. Let's work it out the good old-fashioned way.

I know the gentleman from Massachusetts and I, if we got locked in a room, we could work it out the good old-fashioned way. Let's do it.

I urge my colleagues, let's not make this partisan. Let's make this bipartisan, as it should be, as it has been, and go work with the Senate to get this done and help Americans get a job.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration on two measures: H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and H.R. 4718, that would permanently extend the bonus depreciation.

The resolution provides a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 5016 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules on this important piece of legislation.

The resolution also provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4718, and provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 months ago, I was pleased to present the House the rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills. This rule will provide for the consideration of the eighth appropriations bill by the House.

In the Appropriations Committee, we have already reported out 10 of the 12 required appropriations bills and are moving closer to finishing the two remaining bills. Contrast this with the other body, where they have yet to pass even a single appropriations measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Appropriations bill maintains the fiscal discipline agreed to as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that this country desperately needs. While the President requested an additional $1.7 billion over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels, this bill actually funds these programs at $566 million less than last year's level.

In addition, this bill maintains a number of important funding restrictions over the IRS. Given their unconscionable targeting of conservative organizations and their deliberate stonewalling of legitimate inquiries by the Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, these funding prohibitions are necessary and appropriate.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4718, which permanently extends bonus depreciation. During this extended time of sluggish economic growth, it is important for the Congress to pass legislation that will encourage our job creators to do just that--create jobs.

An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would actually grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 billion to the economy; increase the capital stock by over 3 percent; increase wages by about 1 percent; and create 212,000 new jobs.

Since its creation in 2002, this credit has routinely been extended on a bipartisan basis. It is important that we do so again today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for making good on his commitment to ensure orderly and timely consideration of appropriations bills. I also want to commend Chairman Camp for examining the Tax Code, ensuring we can provide the tax certainty that so many businesses need in order to make investment decisions that benefit us all.

I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As usual, my friend is a sharp and acute debater and makes points over a broad number of issues.

I do want to say, for the record, I am not such a great businessman, but I have a great business partner who has been my partner for 25 years. She is the managing partner. She made the call. And I have been very fortunate to be friends and partners with her for many, many years.

I think she probably moved as quickly as she did because she didn't think the government would have the good sense to keep this open. But the fact is, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have done bonus depreciation. When my friends were in the majority, they continued to routinely extend it themselves.

And after more than a decade, it has become, frankly, pretty much a permanent feature of our Tax Code. Now it is not so permanent that you can absolutely rely on it in the business sense. But I still accept the argument, after something that has been repeatedly confirmed by both sides, and both sides have repeatedly extended it and made it effectively permanent, we ought to go ahead and provide business with that certainty. Again, we will have a debate on that, and that is appropriate.

The second point I want to discuss, where I do differ with my friend a little bit: look, we always quibble no matter who is in the majority over how open the process is and how much the minority is allowed to participate in it. When we do that, we usually need to remember, if we are in the minority, what our record was when we were in the majority.

I want to remind my friends on the other side that throughout the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of their time in the majority, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process. On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to the consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules.

Again, I was on the Appropriations Committee when my friends took the opportunity that every Member enjoys, to come down and participate in the appropriations process, away from everyone--their side and our side alike.

Additionally, the Congress has allowed under our control more than 1,000 amendments to be offered on the House floor, including a total of 488 amendments offered by Democrats and another 137 bipartisan amendments. Forty percent of all submitted amendments have been made in order. Compare that to our friends, who made only 17 percent in order under their majority regime in the 111th Congress.

So when you actually compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis would show that Republicans are running a far more open and transparent House. I think that is something that my friends need to recall when they raise this particular critique.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the District of Columbia. She does a tremendous job representing her community, and she is an articulate and able Member of this body. It is true. We do have an unusual degree of authority as Congress over the Capital of the United States. That is a constitutional issue and an article I, section 8 issue.

Being the Capital brings great privileges and benefits to Washington, but it also, unquestionably, at times, brings some difficulties and some strains as well; so we all--whoever is in the majority--try to manage that as best they can.

In terms of the abortion issue, the language in this bill that applies to D.C., as I understand it, has been pretty routine under both Democrats and Republicans over the years, and so that is my understanding of that issue.

On the marijuana issue, the Federal prohibition here has existed for many years and was actually proposed in the President's budget. The amendment that was offered and adopted in the committee--and there was a very spirited debate about this by Dr. Harris--does add new language to prohibit local funds for recreational use of marijuana. The intent is to prevent D.C. from legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

D.C. has enacted a law which makes possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil offense, carrying a $25 fine, and that goes into effect later this month.

In November, D.C. may have a ballot initiative to legalize possession of

small amounts. I suspect this will be an ongoing discussion and concern between the Congress and the community.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the points that she made. I would just say that, again, this is going to be an ongoing source of tension--it has been.

To clarify, when I said the Capital benefits, I meant to imply in no way that citizens here don't have the same obligations, same responsibilities, and bear the same burdens. I happen to have two wonderful military bases in my facility. We think we are privileged to host them. We derive considerable benefit and employment from their presence.

I will note, just as the gentlewoman suggests, we pay taxes, too. We are American citizens, and those weren't put there for our benefit. They were put there for the purposes of defending the country, but we are happy to have them.

I suggest there is probably a lot of that same pride in this community for hosting the Capital of the United States, so that was my intent in that remark.

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

I do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the last two speakers, in terms of the substance of their argument. I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation, which is proposed by

my good friend, Mr. Simpson, and I think they are discussing a very real and very important issue, and this is an issue where there is considerable bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I probably will end up opposing the manner in which you are going to try and bring this to the floor, but I do think it needs to come to the floor. There is an orderly process to do that. There are discussions underway to continue to work on it; but, again, my friend makes a very good point.

I have tried consistently during my tenure here, no matter who is in control, to recognize that, when we have disasters, that people who are dealing with them need immediate help, and you need to vote accordingly and try and make that occur.

I sit on the Interior Subcommittee where we wrestle with this funding issue that both of my friends brought up, and they are precisely right. Since you can't predict a fire, you can't produce the amount, we end up treating fires differently than every other kind of disaster and we savage the normal budget process and actually drain a lot of accounts, accounts that in some cases would help us prevent future fires by helping us get rid of hazard fuel buildup in forests and things of that nature.

Again, I think my friends make a good point. I think we are going to continue to work on this in a bipartisan manner. I hope we will get there.

I will note for the Record that when we were actually considering the Republican budget, we were engaged on that committee, which I sit on as a representative from Appropriations, in discussions with one of our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle about bringing an amendment and actually writing it in the budget. We had Republicans prepared at that point to vote for that amendment in sufficient numbers. The White House, I was told, was actually in favor of doing that. For whatever reason, the decision was made not to do that. Again, I cast no aspersions here, but I think we probably missed a more appropriate opportunity of actually cementing it down.

But I will say this: both of my friends have my commitment to continue to try and work with them and find an appropriate vehicle and appropriate time to get this done. I appreciate very, very much the fact that you came to the floor and brought it up and reminded us of how significant an issue this is. This is something we should be able to work across the aisle and accomplish. I thank my friend.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to actually fund the government. This rule would continue that process for consideration of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. In addition, it would allow for consideration of legislation that makes bonuses depreciation permanent, a provision that has existed as part of our Tax Code under both Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

I have enjoyed the debate. As always, I appreciate exchanging views with my good friend from New York, by way of Kentucky, two States blessed, and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, there will be a period of morning business until 12 noon today, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half.

At 12 noon today the Senate will proceed to executive session and to a series of two rollcall votes on the following nominations: cloture on Norman C. Bay to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and cloture on Cheryl A. LaFleur to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Following the second vote, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. If cloture is invoked on either of the nominations, the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 3 p.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the two nominations.

Measures Placed On The Calendar--S. 2599 and H.R. 4718

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to both of these bills.

Mr. President, later today, as I have just mentioned, the Senate will hold two rollcall votes to confirm nominations to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--Norman Bay and Cheryl LaFleur.

I am aware of the important nature of these two nominations, and I realize that their confirmations have significant consequences.

Upon her confirmation, Cheryl LaFleur will remain at the FERC as chair for 9 months. Following that period of time, Norman Bay will then assume the position of FERC chair.

I appreciate very much the work done by a number of Senators to get us to the point where we are. The chair of the energy committee, Senator Mary Landrieu, has done really hard work, and it has been a bipartisan effort to move these nominations forward.

I have been assured by both nominees that the issue which the Wall Street Journal editorialized about yesterday--and they called it ``the federal takeover of New York's electric grid''--will be addressed. I have spoken to both nominees, and they will take a hard look at that. When it came out yesterday, I directed attention to that, and that will be addressed by both of them, and they have said so.

Hobby Lobby Decision

Mr. President, last week my friend, the Republican leader, essentially declared victory for American women in their struggle for equality by saying:

We've come a long way in pay equity and there are a ton of

women CEO's now running major companies. . . . I could be

wrong, but I think most of the barriers [for American women]

have been lowered.

The Republican leader seems to be suggesting the obstacles preventing women from receiving equal treatment under the law have been conquered--the struggle for equality for women is over.

The only things missing from the Republican leader's declaration would be an aircraft carrier and a large ``MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'' sign hanging in the background. We all remember that. Remember, that was President Bush declaring the war in Iraq was basically over. Well, it was not. And the war regarding women is not over.

The Republican leader suggested that the notion of ensuring equal rights for American women is tantamount to ``preferential treatment.'' That was his opinion. That is as shocking as it is troubling.

The truth is, regardless of what Republicans in Congress may say, the barriers of inequality for American women are very real and very substantial. Take this as an example. There are many examples, but let's try this one: The Republican leader mentioned pay equity. American women are paid an average of 77 cents for every $1 their male colleagues make for doing the exact same work. It is not fair. But instead of working with Senate Democrats to give working women a fair shot at equal pay for equal work, Republicans refuse to even let the legislation be debated. This was one of their multitude of filibusters.

The Republican leader also spoke of the growing number of women CEOs at major companies. Now try this one on: Currently, among Fortune Magazine's listing of the 500 top companies in the world, there are 24 chief executives who are women. That is 4.8 percent of all the CEOs in the Fortune 500. If anyone believes--including my friend, the Republican leader--that fewer than 1 in 20 is good enough, this perfectly illustrates the Republicans' antiquated beliefs concerning working women and American women in general.

But perhaps the most disturbing reminder of the inequality barriers that women face is the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision. Just a few weeks ago, five men on the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporate bosses the right to interfere with their employees' decisions about birth control.

In its Hobby Lobby decision, those five Justices ruled that for- profit companies can assert religious objections to deny their employees--who may not share their same religious views--the contraceptive coverage required by law. That is what the Court said.

The Court's decision was stunningly wrong. The Court's misguided decision effectively takes away the right of American women to decide their own health care, instead empowering boardrooms to make final decisions on their employees' access to birth control.

How is it possible that in the 21st century we are debating whether or not bosses should be able to dictate their employees' family planning? It is 2014. It is not 1906 or 1907 or 1915.

Health coverage is a form of payment or compensation for employees.

There is a strike going on in New York--they are going to start Monday, I am told--for the largest short-haul railroad. Mr. President, 300,000 people ride that every day. What is the big sticking point? It is health care. Health care is a big deal to everybody. Health care is a form of payment or compensation for employees. Should employers' religious beliefs be able to dictate how you spend your paycheck and your days off? Of course not. So why would we let bosses decide something so personal and so private as the use of contraceptives?

Last week Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall introduced the Not My Boss's Business Act to fix the Hobby Lobby decision. This legislation would make it illegal for any company to deny their workers specific health benefits, including birth control, as required by Federal law.

The Murray-Udall bill preserves the exemption for houses of worship and the accommodation for religious nonprofits that have religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

The decision to use birth control is private--and it should be--and it should not be subject to the personal or religious beliefs of some corporate boss; otherwise, where is it going to end? As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissenting opinion:

Would the exemption . . . extend to employers with

religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions;

antidepressants; medications derived from pigs--

And there are medications derived from swine that help people get well--

including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated

with gelatin; and vaccinations?

That is what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

As Justice Ginsburg points out, the Court's decision is a very, very slippery slope. It opens the door to endless possibilities in which corporate boardrooms trump employees' health coverage.

That is why I support this bill, which clearly establishes a woman's right to quality health care. By passing the Not My Boss's Business Act, the U.S. Senate can knock down a significant barrier to women's equality. Regardless of what Republicans in Congress will tell you, we have a long, long way to go before American women are equal in all aspects of the law, as they should be.

The bill before us is a step in the right direction. It will help undo the damage done by the Supreme Court. But, more importantly, the Not My Boss's Business Act will help ensure American women have access to the health coverage they need and deserve and should be entitled to by law.

Recognition Of The Minority Leader

Mr. President, we hear the President is planning to spend the week calling for Congress to pass highway funding legislation that Congress is already planning to pass. It seems odd for the President to be focusing so intently on something that is inevitable while ignoring other issues that really should be addressed--issues such as ObamaCare.

So many middle-class families in my State and across the country continue to suffer from the impact of this law. One thing that becomes increasingly clear with each passing day is the extent--the extent--to which ObamaCare is particularly hard on women.

Research shows that women make about 80 percent of the health care decisions for their families in our country. Yet ObamaCare has caused countless women to lose the health care plans they had and liked. When these women first spoke out about the betrayal they felt when they lost their plans, many of the law's supporters simply waved their concerns away or said they were making it up. They said they were lying or that their plans were ``junk''--because, of course, the critics knew better. It is a pattern that seems to have continued ever since.

American women also now have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals under ObamaCare. The bill's supporters have continually waived those concerns aside too.

Millions of Americans use flexible spending accounts to pay for out- of-pocket health care expenses. But ObamaCare imposes arbitrary limits on how much of a family's own hard-earned money can be set aside, and the law also prevents people who have come to depend on FSAs from using them to pay for common expenses such as allergy medicine or cold medication.

ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare Advantage and other regulatory actions could reduce the average benefit for women and men who rely on this program by more than $1,500 a year. Concerns such as these are all simply brushed aside by ObamaCare's supporters.

Washington should also be looking for ways to grow economic opportunities for women, but ObamaCare, of course, does just the opposite. I have heard from businesses large and small in Kentucky that fear they will not be able to cope with the higher costs of coverage under ObamaCare. They do not want to cut hours for their staffs or eliminate jobs, but many may no longer really have a choice.

Many of them are worried about new mandates that place millions of Americans--nearly two-thirds of them women--at risk of having their hours and wages reduced. One of my constituents from Somerset recently wrote to tell me what this new ObamaCare mandate has meant for her.

I'm employed at a major chain putting these rules into

effect now. This is causing us to lose up to eleven hours per

week averaging $440.00 . . . [less] per month less in wages.

Obamacare [is] causing us to lose hours [and] lose wages, yet

expecting us to spend more.

Let me repeat that. She says ObamaCare is causing her to lose hundreds of dollars a month in lost wages and at the same time causing health

care costs to skyrocket. This is simply not right.

Yet despite these terrible stories that keep pouring into our offices, the people who supported this law when it passed continue to defend it now. We kept warning them that ObamaCare would hurt jobs and increase costs. They had to know ObamaCare was going to reduce choices for women and limit their access to certain doctors and hospitals. But Washington Democrats voted for ObamaCare anyway. They created these problems. That is why they should be working with Republicans now to start over with real, patient-centered reform that lowers costs and that women and men in this country actually want, but of course they refuse. They are just doubling down on ObamaCare.

Now they are trying to convince people of another untruth--that somehow it is not possible to preserve our Nation's long tradition of tolerance and respect for people of faith while at the same time preserving a woman's ability to make her own decisions about contraception. Washington Democrats are doing this based on a claim that, in the words of the Washington Post's nonpartisan Fact Checker, is ``simply wrong''

I realize Democrats may think the best way to keep people from focusing on the impact of ObamaCare on middle-class families is to just make things up and to attempt to divide us. Well, I think that is a shame. It takes a pretty dim view of what we are capable of as a country. The goal here should not be to protect the freedoms of some while denying the freedoms of others; the goal here and always should be to preserve everybody's freedoms. We can do both. That is just what a number of us on this side are proposing to do this week. Instead of restricting Americans' religious freedoms, we should preserve a woman's ability to make contraceptive decisions for herself. That is why we plan to introduce legislation this week that says no employer can block any employee from legal access to her FDA-approved contraceptives. There is no disagreement on that fundamental point. The American people know that. They know Democrats are just attempting to offer another false choice. What we are saying is that of course you can support both religious freedom and access to contraception.

Look, if Washington Democrats really wanted to help women, they would work with us to do so. We have been imploring them to work with us to deliver relief to middle-class women for years now, to work with us on a new approach to the health care law that is hurting millions of American women. It is not too late. Work with us to increase jobs, wages, and opportunity at a time when American women are experiencing so much hardship as a result of this administration's policies-- especially ObamaCare.

Bay Nomination

I would like to voice my opposition to the nomination of Norman Bay to be a Commissioner of and eventually lead the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. I fail to see what qualifies Mr. Bay to be Chairman of the Commission, especially when the Acting Chair of FERC, whom he would displace, is much more qualified to hold the position. Unlike most FERC Commissioners in the last decade, he has never served as a State utility regulator, he has never served on the Commission and does not possess the background in policy areas that FERC is charged with overseeing.

In contrast to Mr. Bay, the current Acting Chair of FERC, Cheryl LaFleur, is much more qualified to hold the Chair position. Ms. LaFleur came to FERC with more than two decades of experience in the electric and natural gas industries, including roles as chief operating officer, general counsel, and acting CEO of National Grid USA and its predecessor. I find it shameful that this administration would seek to displace a well-qualified woman in favor of a male nominee with less experience.

More importantly and of utmost concern to my home State, there are factors that lead us to believe Mr. Bay would reliably serve as a rubberstamp for this administration's extreme anticoal agenda. This agenda harms the people of Kentucky and is one I most strenuously oppose.

As the current head of FERC's enforcement office, he has shown a history of targeting carbon-intensive businesses. Who is to say that if installed as the next head of FERC, he will not come after Kentucky businesses relying on the coal industry for electricity, which is 90 percent of my State.

Moreover, during his testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this past May, Bay cited his home State of New Mexico as an example of a real-life ``all of the above'' approach to energy. He mentioned his State's reliance on solar, wind, oil, and gas for its energy mix. Notably left out of this supposed ``all of the above'' approach, however, was any mention of coal--which, by the way, provides 70 percent of the electricity in New Mexico.

For all of these reasons--because he is not qualified, because he holds an anticoal agenda, and because he will be only too willing to implement this administration's anticoal policy--I will be opposing Norman Bay's nomination to FERC. I urge my colleagues to do the same.