Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5016) making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4718) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2015 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over a great number of programs and activities, including the Federal Judiciary; the Treasury, which includes the IRS; the Federal Trade Commission; the Federal Communications Commission; the Small Business Administration; and several other activities.

All the agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction play an important role in the functioning of the Federal Government, and I think it is appropriate that all the Members of the House have a chance to offer germane amendments that impact the funding that is provided in this bill.

The bill that we are considering today provides $21.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $566 million, or 2.6 percent less than last year, and $2.3 billion, or 9.6 percent less than the request.

The subcommittee's allocation has been reduced, but it is one that is necessary to live within the confines of the budget agreement that was put together under the Ryan-Murray agreement. The allocation is sufficient to fund priority programs while reducing some of the programs that are not essential to the operation of the Federal Government or have a history of wasting taxpayer resources.

One of the main provisions of this bill is funding for law enforcement. The bill provides increased funding over fiscal year 2014 for several law enforcement activities.

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program receives a $6.5 million increase. The Drug-Free Communities program receives a $3 million increase, and the Treasury's terrorism and financial intelligence activities--they are the ones who develop and enforce sanctions--receive an $18 million increase. In addition, we have ample funding for the operations of the Federal judiciary and the D.C. Courts. We also have money for the supervision of offenders and defendants who are living in our communities.

Another priority for the bill is supporting small businesses and assisting in private sector job creation. This bill provides $195 million for the Small Business Administration's business loan programs, and that supports $18.5 billion of lending under a program called 7(a), and it supports $7.5 billion under 504 lending. This bill also provides increases over the current year for the Small Business Development Centers. It provides increases for the Women's Business Centers and for the Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program. In addition, this bill asks several of the regulatory agencies to report to this committee and to tell us how they are doing as they attempt to eliminate some of the burdensome, duplicative, and just plain unnecessary regulations.

In order to live within our allocation, we had to reduce funding in some areas. We actually eliminate funding for nine different programs, including the Christopher Columbus Foundation and the Election Assistance Commission. Those are activities that we feel are no longer necessary or are certainly not vital to the operation of the Federal Government. We further reduce funding for more than a dozen agencies and programs that, in our opinion, can operate on a little bit less, like the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission.

For the GSA, we reduce their funding for the Federal buildings fund by $240 million. We continue to require them to regularly report to us on their spending and on the state of their building portfolio. The bill provides the GSA with enough funds to operate their current building inventory, and it provides new funding for three land port of entry construction projects. We also continue to push the GSA to reduce their surplus and vacant space. We designate some funding to help them consolidate their projects and dispose of some of the projects, but we make sure that they do that only if there are going to be savings in the long run.

In an effort to increase transparency and accountability, we make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, subject to the annual appropriations process of this Congress. When Dodd-Frank set that agency up, they purposefully left it without any oversight from this Congress. We think that is not the best way to go. We think that that is an agency that ought to report to us what they are doing, how they are doing it, and how much money they are spending, and this bill will correct that flaw.

The bill freezes funding for the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. It includes a requirement that OMB submit the President's budget request on time, which is something they have not been able to do in the last couple of years, or they will face a withholding of approximately 7 months of their budget until the President's request is sent. In addition, the bill contains a prohibition on funding for the White House to prepare signing statements and executive orders which are contradictory to existing law.

I would like to touch on the IRS. This committee still remains outraged at some of the activities that we have seen from the IRS in recent times. First, we learned that they were singling out individuals and groups of individuals for additional scrutiny based on their political philosophies. Then we learned that they had wasted millions of dollars in having lavish conferences around the country and in making silly videos. Then we learned that the new Commissioner paid $63 million in bonuses and awards after the prior Commissioner had said we are not going to pay those. Then we find out that some of the people who were receiving those bonuses and awards were, in fact, delinquent in paying their own taxes. So,

last year, we had some reforms on spending, and we had reforms on the targeting, but work remains to be done.

This bill provides the IRS with $10.95 billion. That is $341 million below the level last year, and it is $1.5 billion below their request. Now, people say that is a pretty drastic cut, but that actually leaves the IRS funded at the same level at which they were prior to 2008. We have to remember that the IRS has betrayed the trust of the American people in a lot of different ways, and it is going to take some time for the IRS to restore that trust, because it seems like, just about every week, we read about a new revelation of some sort of IRS bureaucratic incompetence or, maybe, of a willful disregard for existing law--or sometimes even both.

We want to make sure that they begin to clean up their act, and this bill provides that they can no longer subject people to additional scrutiny. They can't waste money on lavish conferences anymore, and they can't pay bonuses and awards to people unless they at least consider the conduct of that individual and whether or not that individual is current on his taxes. We require a certain amount of reporting from the IRS, and we require them to tell us how much official time is being used on union activities.

We also have language in there of this new, revised regulation that they have put forward regarding the definition of what is an organization under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was a rule that was promulgated based on the investigation that was taking place about the abuse of singling out individuals. In our opinion, the Treasury should wait until that investigation is conducted before any kind of new rule has been proposed. The rule was withdrawn after there were 150,000 comments, and a lot of those comments came from all sides of the political spectrum. We think there is plenty for the IRS to do in terms of time, in terms of energy, in terms of money before they spend that in trying to write a new rule. We also found out just recently that, while the IRS asks us to keep our records for 7 years, they couldn't keep their records for more than 7 months, so there is a provision in here that says they can't destroy any of their records if it is outside existing law.

Finally, I want to say something about the Affordable Care Act. This committee believes that the IRS should not have a role in implementing the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The IRS, as I said, has betrayed the trust of the American people. There is not much trust in the IRS today. People don't trust the IRS with their taxes, and they are certainly not going to trust the IRS with their health care. At a time when the IRS hasn't demonstrated much ability to either self- correct or self-police, the bill says that they can't spend any money to implement the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act and that they also can't transfer any money to fund it from the Department of Health and Human Services.

That is it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a good bill. It takes the money that we have and makes some tough choices, sets the right priorities, and spends money in a wise and efficient way.

I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for the work that they have put in. I want to thank our staffs--both the majority and minority staffs--for the work that they have put in.

I want to say a special word of thanks to the ranking member, Mr. Serrano, the gentleman from New York. His input has made this a better bill. Even though he thinks there should be more money and he doesn't agree with everything that is in the bill, he has been a great partner to work with in the spirit of cooperation and particularly in an effort to make sure that we return to regular order, where the appropriations bills are brought before this House, so I want to thank him for that.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.006

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for a colloquy.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding and engaging in this colloquy. I also thank him for his leadership on this particular issue and for making great strides regarding the rooting out of government waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee did include the language in question, and we were happy to do so.

As the gentleman stated, this type of practice surely fits within the same realm of government propaganda which is barred by law. When the conference committee is selected and meets to discuss all spending programs and priorities, I will work to see the gentleman's request is considered appropriately and amongst all conferees.

So again, I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I look forward to working with him on this item and others.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to thank him for bringing this to our attention and let him know that I am happy to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the bill strongly supports the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and actually provides $14 million above the request, and that is to make sure there are robust and forceful sanction programs. This bill also supports the TIGTA. It provides $581,000 above the request to ensure that the inspector general can keep a careful and close eye on the IRS activities.

So I appreciate the gentleman's support for the TFI, but it cannot come at the expense of the IRS watchdog. Everyone knows what has been happening with the IRS, and we need a strong IG to oversee the IRS. They are doing good and much-needed oversight, and the bill already provides Treasury's financial intelligence programs with a significant increase.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida working with the committee on this amendment. We are glad to accept it.

Recently, the IRS began enforcement of this new regulation requiring U.S. banks to report the amount of interest earned on deposits made by nonresident aliens, and this new regulation is detrimental to Florida's economy and the U.S. economy as a whole because it weakens the competitiveness of the U.S. financial institutions and forces foreign capital to flee our country.

The regulation burdens U.S. financial firms with additional paperwork and has the unintended consequence of causing many of these foreign depositors to take their business and capital elsewhere, so hundreds of billions of dollars will flee the economy.

That will impede small business lending and affect local communities. Both Congress and the administration will benefit from a fuller understanding of how the regulation affects banks, their clientele, and all of the communities, so I urge a ``yes'' vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. I have great sympathy for the situation that the family found itself in, but I have to remind my colleagues that the bill already cuts FinCEN by $3.3 million compared to 2014, and our bill increases taxpayer services by $7.5 million.

So I wish the IRS could do a better job of dealing with taxpayer services. That is one of the areas that they really need to get a handle on because there are too many stories like the one she just told, but FinCEN does good work.

They work with industry to detect and discourage and apprehend money launderers, so I don't think we should cut them any further. As I pointed out, we have increased the funding for taxpayer services, and so for that reason, I have to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one final thing. In terms of taxpayer services, this bill already provides $2.1 billion for taxpayer services. As I point out, that is an increase over last year. We have already cut FinCEN by $3.3 million.

So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention and am pleased to support the amendment.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I just want you to know that we have no objection to your amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased to support his amendment.

I think tax counseling for the elderly is very important, and I am happy to accept your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want the gentlewoman to know that this is a very good amendment. I support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am saddened to have to rise in opposition to this legislation today. As a long-time appropriator, I remember the days when we were always able to come together to determine the funding levels for our government in a bipartisan manner and with little partisan warfare. Unfortunately, this bill is not a product of those times.

I do not say this to blame Chairman Crenshaw or Chairman Rogers, as they have always listened to the concerns that our side has had and have tried to accommodate us when they could. Mr. Crenshaw is a great working partner, and he knows that that famous line is really true in this case: it is not personal; it is about this issue. There are many things we have been able to agree on as a result, but they have also been forced to listen to a portion of their caucus that is not interested in the business of governing, and as a result, the good portions of this bill are overwhelmed by the problems that this legislation has.

Let me discuss just a few of the more serious shortfalls of this bill, starting with a seriously inadequate allocation. This subcommittee received an unacceptably low 302(b) allocation that is $566 million below last year's bill. Percentage wise, this is a cut of 2.6 percent, a level that no other subcommittee has been forced to take. The result is that there are several agencies in this bill that are not funded properly.

Primary among these is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is funded at $10.95 billion, a cut of $341 million below last year. This means the agency would operate at a level that is below sequestration-- funding levels that were already grossly inadequate. I assume this is being done both as some sort of collective punishment of the Exempt Organizations unit for the problems associated with their scrutiny of liberal and conservative 501(c)(4) organizations, and as one final attempt to hinder the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We already heard from the chairman that they don't think this committee should be involved with the Affordable Care Act. We keep forgetting that it was passed by both Houses, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. These actions are irresponsible, and they do more to hurt the American people than does the IRS. Rather than investing in further training to prevent the problems that happened previously or ensuring that we have the resources to go after tax cheats, the majority has chosen to play politics with the agency that brings in the vast majority of our Nation's revenue. Unfortunately, these funding levels will prevent the agency from collecting money from tax cheats, expand the tax gap, and increase our deficit. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also severely underfunded at a level of $1.4 billion. This is $300 million below the request and is simply insufficient to allow the agency to properly oversee Wall Street and protect investors, including many retirees who have 401(k) and pension plans that are invested in the marketplace. Both parties have created additional responsibilities for the SEC in recent years, but funding has not kept pace. If we keep asking the agency to do more with less, then we cannot be surprised if we experience another financial crisis.

There are numerous other cuts to the bill that are harmful as well, including the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission, cuts to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration, all of which have negative impacts on the operations of our Federal Government and private sector job growth. However, I believe that the biggest impediment to reaching compromise on this bill is the large number of partisan riders that have been added. Let me name just a few of the more excessive, all of which are major concerns to our side of the aisle.

There are riders preventing the IRS from implementing the Affordable Care Act and from reforming the 501(c)(4) regulations, which have caused so much confusion and abuse. There is a rider limiting Americans' ability to travel to Cuba on people-to-people visas.

There is a rider preventing the SEC from requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose their campaign donations to their shareholders, even though there is no indication that the agency has plans to do so.

There is a rider that prevents the provision of abortion services in multistate health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

There are riders preventing the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide legal abortion services to low-income women and to determine its own local criminal justice laws with regard to marijuana.

This is, by no means, an exhaustive list. The number of riders on this bill seems endless. I have no doubt that we will be asked to add even more to this list during debate on this bill.

Before we do that, I would point out that we have spent a lot of time this year discussing how to ensure a return to regular order in the appropriations process. I would suggest that it is extremely difficult to do so when the majority attempts to pack legislation with a laundry list of partisan priorities.

This is irresponsible governing, at best, and they make a mockery of one of this institution's most important functions, to fund the Federal Government.

When we choose politics over the needs of the American people, we should not be surprised when those same people become cynical about their elected representatives. The appropriations process is not and should not be the place to add every partisan priority that the other side cannot pass through the regular legislative process.

I feel confident that the American people would rather just have us get on with our jobs, instead of rehashing the same arguments over the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and many other issues.

Our side will attempt to remedy some of these defects through the amendment process; although with the inadequate allocation, it will be difficult to do so. Unfortunately, as it is currently written, this is not a bill that I can support.

Before I finish, let me take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill. They have all devoted many hours to creating this bill and report, and I know I speak for all the Members on our side when I say that we are grateful for the hard work that they have put into this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned baseball. I would like to remind folks that we are so committed and dedicated to our job that we are not watching the Home Run Derby right now.

With the way we treat Washington, D.C., you would think we were members of the city council. But I am going to shock everyone by actually yielding 2 minutes of time to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton), who was elected by the folks from D.C.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Cybersecurity is of critical importance to our national security and our economic security. I look forward to working with you as we move to conference to ensure that the SEC can effectively address cybersecurity issues.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a second in closing to say that Mr. Cohen's comments were very well taken. I think the mistake we make here is that we continue to add riders to this bill, and a lot of riders in the past had to do with Washington, D.C.

Now, as I have said on many occasions, for me, this is more than a legislative issue. It is a personal issue. I was born in Puerto Rico, raised in New York, and at times I haven't been pleased with the relationship and the way Puerto Rico has been treated by this Federal Government.

So I would just hope that, as we go along, people will continue, continue, continue to realize that the District of Columbia has its own folks, its own elected officials at the local level, and they should be able to conduct their own business.

Lastly, we do this because this country that we love so well and this country that I love so well and that we serve on a daily basis should not treat any segment of its citizens in a different way than it treats other people. I realize that we have a constitutional responsibility, but we don't have to misuse that responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, departmental salaries and expenses of Treasury have already been cut by $17.4 million this year as compared to last year. That includes the departmental offices account. That means that this portion of the bill is 4.4 percent below what the administration requested.

Mr. Chairman, there is no need to cut it any further. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. The IRS has already been cut overall by $341 million from last year's funding level. This will prevent the IRS from going after tax cheats and helping those who are attempting to obey the law.

The Taxpayer Advocate has even said that insufficient funding of the IRS is one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers. This underfunding will force the IRS to operate with 9,500 fewer staff, which means that less than 50 percent of taxpayers who reach out to the IRS for assistance on the telephone help line will be able to get it, while waiting times for those who do get answers will rise to 35 minutes or longer.

As many as 24 million taxpayers would be unable to reach the IRS for assistance. That is unacceptable.

The cuts in this bill will also result in $2 billion in uncollected revenue compared to what could have been collected at the requested level, thereby increasing the deficit by that amount.

Take as contrast funding at more than $1.6 million above last year's level and over half a million more than was requested. I am not sure what they have done to deserve an increase that they didn't even ask for.

During our hearing, it became clear that the IG didn't fairly represent the findings of its own investigator. Its lead investigator reviewed 5,500 emails and concluded that there was no indication of political motivation, yet the IG failed to mention that until months later after his order was released, and you will certainly not hear Republicans mention it now.

So I am not sure what they are trying to reward, but it certainly is not good work. I oppose this amendment and urge that everyone else do so as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman says that the IRS has too much money. I haven't done the math totally, but I think if we were to accept every amendment that will come up in the next couple of days against the IRS, we would not only reach zero on the budget for the IRS, we would probably go under and create a crisis that we don't know how to handle.

The enforcement account at IRS has already been cut by $72 million above last year and is more than $421 million below the President's request. The taxpayer service account is already funded above last year's level.

Given the lack of funding for the IRS, there should be no need to plus-up an account that has actually increased while the overall funding for the agency has decreased. That is just a simple statement to understand.

I understand the need to continue to attack the IRS under this belief that they went after just a certain kind of organization. They went after no one. They asked questions of both sides, both conservative groups and liberal groups. I guess we are not going to hear the end of it for the next couple of days. It might be 3 days of bashing the IRS.

So I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, for a minute there, I was almost convinced that they are not after the IRS, but they are even willing to give money to an agency they traditionally do not support just to get at the