Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5771) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and make technical corrections, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 647) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax treatment of ABLE accounts established under State programs for the care of family members with disabilities, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 766 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, as the calendar year comes to an end, America's small businesses and taxpayers are looking to Congress for certainty before they file their taxes in April of 2015. While far from perfect, the Tax Increase Prevention Act will provide certainty by extending for 1 more year a number of tax relief provisions that simply would have expired at the end of this year. Put simply, this bill will prevent tax increases on millions of families that would happen if we were not bringing it to the floor today.

And to Mr. Kingston, I thank you for your years of service to this body on behalf of the American people and the people of Georgia.

In an ideal world, Mr. Speaker, the House would be debating a more comprehensive approach to tax reform. We would be worried and focusing our activities on growing jobs in America and giving the American people more of their hard-earned money back so they could invest either in their family or in their business--an opportunity to grow our economy to keep America strong--but our Tax Code is holding back America from being competitive and from providing America with more jobs.

American taxpayers deserve what we are doing today, which is an opportunity to work incrementally on a better, simpler, easy-to- navigate Tax Code with certainty, but only for 1 more year. We should be making long-range plans by working with the United States Senate and the President to make sure the American people come up winners. The United States tax rate is currently the highest in the world, and I would prefer to be debating reform, but we are here today for 1 more year's worth of opportunity to keep America where she and her citizens are prepared for the future.

Thanks to the leadership of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp from Michigan, we almost had a chance to fix these issues today, but he came to the rescue and said, ``I am going to work with Republicans and Democrats and anybody who will work with me''-- meaning the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--``on helping American business be stronger.''

The bottom line is that I believe we are going to work together, and it starts in the House of Representatives to get that work done. So just like the deal that Dave Camp started, we are here for the process today of jump-starting American business for yet another year.

Sadly, reports tell us that the President's veto threat undermines these bipartisan negotiations. The things Chairman Dave Camp is working on to make American jobs stronger and a reality--and working on in a bipartisan effort--the President of the United States is threatening to veto that very legislation. So, today, despite the veto threat, we are here to do our work.

Today, you will see, Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats certainly have things in the bill which are special and important to them but that, more importantly, are about the American people and opportunities to save and grow jobs.

Earlier this year, and certainly last year, the House passed a number of permanent extensions of these policies on a bipartisan basis. That means, Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats tried to work together. But the failure of leadership on the Senate side meant those bills were not ever even brought before the Senate to debate them. Worse yet, the President of the United States opposes those efforts.

We are here for one simple reason today. By taking the leadership opportunity, we think we can gain the ability, on a bipartisan basis in the House of Representatives, to give the Senate and the President one more whack at it.

Let me be clear. Even if this legislation is not as ambitious as it could have been, it is still vitally important. I think what we are doing here, under the leadership of John Boehner, is to say to the American people that we know what our job is, even if we are not as wildly successful as we want to be. America's small businesses and families actually need, and rely upon, Congress to do its job.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which is essentially Dallas, Texas, and some suburbs, I regularly meet with small businesses--important businesses--that employ people. Earlier in the year, I met with Jamey Rentfrow of Ascend Custom Extrusions in Wylie, Texas. Jamey's company manufactures and designs custom aluminum extrusions for industry. It was a most interesting visit. They call this manufacturing in America.

On the same day, I also met with JoAnn Gardner, a young woman who owns Savage Precision Fabrication. They make parts for military aircraft. They count on us to be able to get our job done to buy the newest and best equipment. It goes to help not only aerospace and military but other civilian needs also. They know that if we do this, the option for them to expense 50 percent of the purchase price of their assets can be taken care of. They can write it off when they want to rather than when the Tax Code wants.

In March, I met with Frank Millsap. It was a most interesting visit. He runs a rod car store called Sachse Rod Shop. He explained to me how our onerous Tax Code prevented him from employing more people.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. We are here to make sure we take care of the people in our home districts, many of them companies that are small mom-and-pop shops, but others that employ hundreds of people.

The bill would also affect a minority-owned business called Aluma Graphics, which is located in Wylie, Texas, and owned by Randall Williams, a young man who played professional football. When he got out, he decided he was going to go into business. He is realizing how tough it is to manufacture labels and decals for industrial products. This bill would help him and his employees.

These businesses, not just in the 32nd Congressional District but all over our

country, are important, as they provide people the honesty of hard work and the return of continuing to come to work the next day because their company can make the money to get it done.

What we are doing today will extend for only 1 more year the tax provisions, but it will help millions and millions of people.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this rule contains a great bill that's called the ABLE Act, which represents, I believe, what our country can do best when Republicans and Democrats and people who care in the United States Congress work together.

Almost every single person in America, I believe, knows someone with a disability: a family member, a best friend, perhaps a brother or sister, or maybe even an aunt or uncle. But we all know that it is only fair that we pay attention to the people we dearly love.

So, today is a game-changer. Today, we are removing what I think is a glass ceiling for disabled people who are held at a disadvantage in our Tax Code. The ABLE Act would make 529 tax-free savings accounts available so that families can cover important expenses such as postsecondary education, housing, career development, and medical expenses not covered by private insurance, Medicaid, or other benefits that might be available to them offered by government.

These tax-free savings accounts will empower families so that their loved ones can have opportunities they have not had in the past. It is personal to me because as my father looks at all of his grandchildren, he can have the opportunity of helping out in their education, but not for Alex Sessions, his grandson with Down syndrome. He can help all the grandkids, but not Alex.

This happens millions of times in our country. There are millions of people with disabilities who count on going into a program or being enrolled in something that the Federal Government pays for, but we discriminate against them. When this gets signed into law, my father, Judge Sessions, will be able to treat Alex as he does his other grandchildren. What is amazing is that Alex needs it more than all of them combined, but he is the one that we wanted to keep in his place because he has a disability called Down syndrome.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important. It is important to the people whom it impacts. It is important to our families. But more importantly, it is important to our country. The gentleman, Ander Crenshaw from Jacksonville, has worked on this bill for 8 years. We are finding a way to put it into a piece of legislation. To help millions of people with their jobs, it needs to pass.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. We are here doing important work for millions of people. It does matter, and I think we make a huge difference.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Jackson County, North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to take the gentleman from Vermont up on, really, his issues. We are going to have a Republican House, a Republican Senate, that is able to effectively work with each other, look each other in the eye and find progress for the American people. So I promise the gentleman, he is going to get what he wants and more so that we can grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have as our next speaker a gentleman who, for 8 years, has toiled on the ABLE Act. He is the chief sponsor. He is the young man who has made so many conversations and discussions, not just among our Members here, but also among people all around this country, disability groups.

I earlier accused him of being from Texas. He is actually from Jacksonville, Florida, so I am sure I will get lots of cards and letters about that. We wish he were a Texan, but he is from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

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

A number of people who asked to speak today are on their way here, and we will do that.

I really want to stand up for just a few minutes, pending those several Members coming here, to say to you and to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that this country--America--is a great, great, great country. It is great because of its people. There is a lot that has been said today and on other days about some of our frailties, about some of our warts, about some of the problems that we have.

I think what Mr. Crenshaw said in his remarks is most appropriate because you have a man who has a number of very important issues that he carries on behalf of his congressional district in Jacksonville, Florida. He spoke about also taking the time to be a voice for millions of people across this country, not just for those whom he saw specifically in Jacksonville.

You heard the gentleman, Mr. Meadows, speak very plainly about two Down syndrome young women of our country who are key assets to our country. We weren't asking for anything else today through this ABLE Act that Mr. Crenshaw has so ably moved forward--it has taken 8 years-- than for people to have equity or fairness.

In the larger scheme of things, as a parent of a Down syndrome young man, I looked at where we stood, and said, ``Why wouldn't we allow the fairness?''

Really, let's look at it another way. Why would we want to keep these disabled individuals from having fairness? Why do we want to keep them poor and in the same circumstances they are in? Why would we want everyone else to be treated under one set of rules and, because they are disabled, they are treated another way?

These are questions and discussions that have been in my family now for 20 years. I don't know why Alex is my special gift. He is perfect. God made every child perfect in His image. We are the ones who struggle.

Today, we are working together as the House of Representatives for a bill that Mr. Crenshaw saw a need for, and he had the fortitude and the opportunity today because of John Boehner. Yes, Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat Member of this body; yes, some United States Senators, including Senator Harkin of Iowa and, yes, Senator Casey from Pennsylvania; yes, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a senior member of our Republican leadership team who, by the way, has a Down syndrome son, Cole--we all worked together. This is a special thing.

I think, today, it ought to be a pat on the back for us, an opportunity for us to say this is important and this is good. That is what we should remember from today, in that we may not go to sleep knowing our job is done, but that we did something right by coming together as a body.

My dear colleague Louise Slaughter, who is from New York, very clearly understood a long time ago, as she put her name on the bill, that this is a good bill. Members of the Rules Committee, who typically don't put their names on bills, put their names on this bill--380 Members of this body. See, there are good things that happen.

I do want to thank my colleague, Ms. Slaughter. I do want to thank people because this is a bipartisan effort. This is a chance for us to work together, and I think we did a good job today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the gentlewoman, I will let her make her closing arguments, and then I will do the same.

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

It has been mentioned a couple of times today, but I also want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, for your distinguished service, not only to the people of Georgia in your district, but also to the people--your friends--who are in this body, who have benefited from your service on the Appropriations Committee and who knew that you took time, just as we are doing here today, to deal with the intricacies of NIH, to deal with the intricacies of cancer, to deal with the intricacies of disabilities, to deal with the intricacies of our working together as a country and as a body and as Americans to make life better for people.

Mr. Speaker, your years of service here--some 20 years of service that you have given--have been of distinguished service. I have known you for a long time and have admired you.

I want to thank the gentleman, Jack Kingston, for his great service to America, which is exactly in line with what we are doing today.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your hard work. Your being in the chair as we do this is not by accident. It is on purpose. With the distinguished opportunity that you have of serving as the Speaker pro tempore today, I appreciate your great service.

Mr. Speaker, we have made the case today of what we are trying to do. We are on the floor to bring certainty to the Tax Code for one more year. It is not perfect--the gentleman from Vermont noted that--but it is an opportunity as best as we can do in the environment that we are in, and that is what this is about. It is the knowledge that we are going to wake up and do the best that we can for the American people.

Today is about the American people and their Tax Code. Today is about the ABLE Act and about millions of people with disabilities who are attempting as best as they can to make due with what they have but who, tomorrow, can get fairness and equity in that process. It is about an opportunity for families not to question why but to dig in and help.

Today is yet another opportunity when not only the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, and I may work together in our tutelage as chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee but when we can have a common sense of purpose. This is not perfect, but the world can be better today and tomorrow.

I would ask my fellow Members to understand that we are here asking for everybody to vote ``yes'' on the rule. They can do what they want to do on the underlying legislation, but today is an opportunity to give thanks for the opportunities that lie ahead of us that are about others instead of ourselves.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 766, I call up the bill (H.R. 5771) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and make technical corrections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5771.

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

As we all know, there is a series of tax provisions that routinely expire that Congress must then renew, typically extending them for 1 year retroactively and 1 year prospectively. Congress routinely extends these policies without offsetting the revenue loss.

This on again-off again style of legislating on a temporary basis is a terrible way to make tax policy. We are the only Nation in the world that lets large pieces of its Tax Code expire.

Hard-working taxpayers deserve to know whether these tax policies are going to be there year in and year out on a permanent basis. Temporary renewals cannot provide the certainty that American businesses need in order to make the best decisions about how to invest in cutting-edge research, whether to buy new pieces of equipment, and most importantly, whether to hire that additional worker. These temporary renewals mean uncertainty for families as well as they try to plan their family budgets.

Throughout the year, the Ways and Means Committee has produced legislation that carefully examined many of these temporary extenders and reformed and made permanent several of the most important ones. The whole House on a bipartisan basis later passed this legislation.

This included important policies such as a permanent and improved credit for research and development and permanently higher section 179 expensing levels for small businesses--policies that were also included in the President's budget proposals.

Analysis by the nonpartisan experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed that permanent extensions of these policies would result in companies spending more on R&D and making new investments, all of which would promote job creation and higher wages.

Having passed a number of these policies through the House on a bipartisan basis, we proceeded with the rather old-fashioned approach of beginning bipartisan negotiations with the Senate.

Until last week, we were making significant progress in those negotiations as everyone involved worked in good faith to reach a successful conclusion. We were close to reaching an agreement that would ensure that many of the bills that passed the House on a bipartisan basis would be included.

In addition, we were going beyond the list of traditional tax extenders and including additional policies designed specifically to assist low- and middle-income American families, in particular, policies such as the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which helps low- and middle-income families afford college, which was also included in the President's budget proposals. Other policies included making permanent the deduction for State and local sales taxes and the tax rules for mass transit benefits.

However, before these negotiations could conclude, the administration took the unbelievable step of issuing a veto threat. The President issued a veto threat over bipartisan, bicameral negotiations.

Now, I can't tell you with certainty exactly what the administration wants because the administration has not even bothered to reach out and tell us what the President's priorities are; rather than trying to engage and work with Congress, the administration is only communicating through press statements.

The President has often said that he wants to work with Congress to find bipartisan solutions. In fact, in his press conference after the election, the President said:

I am eager to work with the new Congress to make the next 2

years as productive as possible. I am committed to making

sure that I measure ideas not by whether they are from

Democrats or Republicans, but whether they work for the

American people.

That statement is completely at odds with the President's actions last week, and we all know that actions speak louder than words. As a result of the administration's actions, negotiations with the Senate have come to a standstill.

Inexplicably, the administration and some Senate Democrats have taken the position that policies that promote savings, investment, charitable donations, and job creation are a ``giveaway'' to big corporations.

These Senators and the administration should listen to the 1,032 charitable organizations that have written to every Member of Congress in support of the permanent tax incentives for charitable giving that would have been included in the agreement with the Senate. I don't think that policies that promote donations to food banks, homeless shelters, and hospitals are giveaways to corporate America.

The administration's actions now force us to take a different and less effective approach. With the end of the year and a new tax filing season rapidly approaching, we need to act. The IRS has been clear, unless Congress acts quickly, it will be forced to delay the start of the tax filing season.

American families are struggling to make ends meet as wages remain flat, even as expenses increase. These families can't and should not face a delay in getting their tax refund.

The legislation before us today will address the concerns raised by the IRS and ensure the tax filing season can open on time. We should ensure that the President's actions do not hurt hardworking taxpayers who are counting on that tax refund; therefore, I urge the House to pass this legislation and ensure that the tax filing season opens on time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I do want to thank my friend from Michigan for his support of this legislation before us today. It is something that we do need to do. We cannot allow these provisions to be expired for all of 2014, but I would say that, if you look around, we are not seeing the kind of growth and opportunity that we should see in America. We are not seeing the kind of job creation, we are not seeing the kind of income increases; yet expenses are going up for families.

The items that the gentleman talked about, whether it was research and development or section 179 or the American Opportunity Tax Credit, all of those were going to be permanent in the package that we were working on, and even the mortgage debt forgiveness for those who are selling their homes and their mortgages were underwater, we were extending that for 2 years, so there were a lot of things for families.

Certainly, the charitable provisions for food banks and for charitable giving, those would certainly help middle class Americans as well.

The reason why I think it is important to get permanent policy is that we haven't seen the kind of growth that we need to see, and the more of these items that we can make permanent, the more stability we have, the more likely it is that employers and individuals and families are going to make the kind of long-term decisions that will cause our economy to grow.

It is not just me saying this; it is the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that says permanent policies such as these, as we were working on, are the kinds of things that the country needs to do to grow.

Again, I want to thank him for his support of the legislation. Hopefully, in

the future, we will be able to get at some of these issues in a more permanent way, so that we don't have this unusual system where we have had all of these policies expired for all of 2014 and, in the final 2 weeks, we are going to retroactively put them into place for the final weeks of the year, so that when people file in April, they will be able to take advantage of these items. We should really do this on a more regular basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his remarks. This is a debate America needs to have and, hopefully, next year that debate will move forward.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Budget Committee and the incoming chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

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

I just want to say to my friend from New Jersey, I agree with you on the need for certainty. We have heard today a lot of common discussion about the need for certainty in our Tax Code and how difficult it is to be the only country in the world that let's tax policy expire and what that means for families and employers. But in terms of the concerns you raise about the deficit, as the gentleman well knows, these measures have never been offset. These measures have never been paid for, whether it was a Republican majority or a Democrat majority. Whether it was a Republican President or a Democrat President, these provisions have never been paid for.

I would just say to the gentleman and to the Members of this body, why do we need to raise taxes on somebody to keep taxes the same? What we are doing is continuing current policy. In many cases, like R&D, it has been continued since 1981. Let's call it what it is.

If we are continuing something in a piecemeal fashion every few years, let's just make it permanent so we can get the benefits of those provisions in terms of reliability and certainty, as the gentleman raised, so that the small businesses all throughout the country can actually plan and expect that these items will be in place.

I share the concerns that have been raised by a number of speakers. Here we are at the end of 2014, retroactively putting in policies for the whole year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend, colleague, and partner on the Ways and Means Committee from Michigan for those very gracious and kind remarks.

I think the Ways and Means Committee is the best committee in Congress. We have a lot of bills that come to us. We have a lot of hard decisions. There is a lot of discussion. As you know, this is a big country and there are a lot of different opinions, but we always try to find a way to at least do that in a manner that is productive for the people we represent and that sent us here.

I want to thank you for the ability to work with you over these last few years. Maybe I should have turned that 12 into a baker's dozen, with all the kind remarks that have been said here today. I just want thank you and thank the members of the committee and staff on both sides of the aisle.

One of the things that is required in a committee like Ways and Means, with all of the responsibilities, is a staff that is able to work together as well.

So they help make us do the job well. They help keep us informed and really help make all the things that we do come together, including items like this legislation today so, thank you.

I would just urge passage of H.R. 5771, what we call the extenders bill, or the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in brief, there is nothing in this motion to recommit that addresses the issues raised by my friend from Massachusetts. The problems the gentleman identified are not dealt with at all here.

Does this motion to recommit increase investment, create jobs, and raise wages?

Does this motion to recommit create certainty in what is an uncertain Tax Code with this process?

It doesn't. What this does is make our Tax Code more complex, makes American workers and American employers less competitive, and it will actually hurt our economy and stifle growth.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Camp for yielding and for all of his hard work on this legislation and for bringing it forward today.

I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), too, for his hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 647, as amended, also known as the ABLE Act. And we have heard what ABLE stands for, but let me just repeat it very slowly so people can understand really what this is about: achieving better life experience for people who have special needs and who are disabled.

We all strive to have better lives, but some people in this world need a little help, and that is what we are doing today. Some people might disagree with some of the ways we are going about this. The bottom line is we are helping people that need a little special help, a little extra help from us, and we are going to step up and do that.

This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is designed to help those individuals with disabilities overcome the hurdles that they often face holding a job and trying to live independently.

Here is the problem: if someone with a disability works and achieves even a modest level of savings, they lose their assets to certain safety net programs, such as Medicaid and SSI. This can discourage individuals from pursuing work opportunities and gaining the independence that comes through work.

Here is the solution: this legislation today. This is the solution, Mr. Speaker. It helps individuals, regardless of disability, to achieve the best possible quality of life by ensuring continued access to essential safety net programs as well as tax-free savings accounts, allowing them to pursue independence and community involvement.

These ABLE accounts would be used to cover a wide variety of expenses related to addressing and overcoming the disabilities, and they would grow tax-free. These costs quickly add up, as needs can range from uncovered health care needs, education costs, housing needs, transportation costs, assistive technology, speech-generating devices and other technology, and personal support services.

This bill is critical because it allows individuals with ABLE accounts to maintain their eligibility for benefits while working and saving more for their future needs. ABLE account balances and withdrawals are completely excluded for purposes of Medicaid; and under the SSI program, the first $100,000 in account balances would be excluded from being counted as resources, meaning disabled individuals could save far more than today, while remaining eligible for benefits along the way.

This bill is about real people--we have heard some of the stories already this afternoon--real people who have real hopes and real dreams, dreams of being able to support themselves and plan for the future, dreams for a better life, and people like my godson, Kyle.

Now, Kyle today is 20 years old, but Kyle weighs 60 pounds and is in a wheelchair. Kyle was diagnosed at 18 months old with cancer. He can't speak. Up to this point, Kyle has only been able to save $2,000. And once you reach that $2,000 level, that is it. If you go over that, you don't get the benefits. Imagine if you were the parents of Kyle, trying to save for his future, to maybe get a speech device so Mom and Dad can hear Kyle say ``I love you,'' because he hasn't been able to say that. Imagine not being able to hear your child say, ``I love you, Mom. I love you, Dad.''

This savings account allows people to save that money for their children, to buy that technology, to get that wheelchair that costs $20,000. Some of us who are able-bodied and don't understand the disability that people live with every day, you see a wheelchair and there is no cost attached. We see people in wheelchairs, $20,000 and more for people who can only use maybe their index finger and a thumb to operate the toggle switch on a wheelchair so they can go from point A to point B.

I am proud to be Kyle's godfather. When you wheel Kyle into a room, he lights up the room, and we want to give him a better life. That is what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to thank the cosponsors of this bill, the 379 Members. But more than anyone, I would really like to especially thank the families that have been working on this for years. It has been an honor to visit with them, to

get to know them, and to get to know their families.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), who is a cosponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of stories today about people in need, about people with disabilities and special needs, and we have had some names attached to those stories, which really touches the hearts of those people that know those individuals, and I hope touches the hearts of the Members here in this Chamber when they hear the stories of people in need who need that special attention.

One key challenge for disabled individuals is that their access to certain safety net programs can be lost if they work. I want to just repeat that. It can be lost if they work and achieve even a modest level of savings. To overcome that challenge, the ABLE Act would help more individuals with disabilities save and live independently without losing access to critical programs like Medicaid and SSI.

Now, starting in 2015, States could create an ABLE program under which individuals with disabilities could start an ABLE account modeled after current section 529 savings accounts. Anyone--parents, grandparents, and other family members, and friends--could contribute to that account, which would grow tax free. Then when they need to withdraw from that account, those withdrawals would be tax free if spent on a wide variety of expenses related to helping them address and overcome their disability. That includes expenses like uncovered health care, education costs, housing needs, transportation costs, assistive technology, and others that I have mentioned earlier.

able account details-

One key challenge for disabled individuals is that their access to certain safety-net programs can be lost if they work and achieve even a modest level of savings.

To overcome that challenge, the ABLE Act would help more individuals with disabilities save and live independently without losing access to critical programs like Medicaid and SSI.

Starting in 2015, States could create an ABLE program, under which individuals with disabilities could start an ABLE account, modeled after current Section 529 savings accounts.

Anyone--parents, grandparents, and other family and friends--could contribute to their ABLE account, which would grow tax-free.

Then when they need to withdraw from the account, those withdrawals would be tax free if spent on a wide variety of expenses related to helping them address and overcome their disability.

That includes expenses like uncovered health care, education costs, housing needs, transportation costs, assistive technology, and personal support services.

Critically, individuals with ABLE accounts could maintain their eligibility for means-tested benefits while working and saving more for their future needs.

ABLE account balances and withdrawals are completely excluded for purposes of Medicaid.

And under the SSI program, the first $100,000 in account balances would be excluded from being counted as resources, meaning disabled individuals could save far more than today while remaining eligible for benefits along the way.

This change will go a long way to easing the minds of disabled individuals and those around them.

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

I am waiting for one other speaker. If the gentleman has another speaker, it would be helpful.

I guess we are ready to close then, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and words of support and, again, thank all 379 cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. I thank the Senate, which has worked with the Members of the House on this bill, making it a bicameral bill, and I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to point out the outside support that this bill has garnered.

Let me just name a few of those: the American Association of People With Disabilities, Autism Society of America, Autism Speaks, the Brain Injury Association of America, Easter Seals, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Disability Institute, National Down Syndrome Society, National Federation of the Blind, and the Arc, and that is just to name a few of the outside organizations and groups that support this legislation.

Again, this is important legislation designed to help individuals with disabilities overcome the hurdles that they often face in holding a job and living independently, and I appreciate again the comments of the ranking member, Mr. Levin, and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

This legislation is crucial as much for what it avoids as what it accomplishes. A 1-year extension avoids the dangerous plan pushed by House Republicans for much of this last year to make permanent a select number of provisions at a cost of nearly $1 trillion.

That plan was not only fiscally irresponsible, it also left many provisions behind that are vital to working families and small businesses, including the exclusion for mortgage debt forgiveness, new market tax credits, continuations of the expansions to the earned income tax credit, and the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

This bill also avoids an almost equally harmful proposal under consideration last week that would have permanently extended a select group of expiring provisions and would also have given permanent breaks to a relative few while costing more than $400 billion and leaving out critical provisions that help working families.

I actively and publicly opposed that proposal. Fortunately, it generated a veto threat from the President.

The provisions in today's extender bill need more serious consideration than would have been provided in that proposal both as to substance, whether they contribute to economic growth and jobs, and how they fit into the need for both equity and fiscal responsibility.

Some of the extender provisions have contributed to economic growth, such as the provisions for R&D, promoting development of renewable energy, encouraging development of small business, and increasing educational opportunity. Others should not be part of any permanent action, such as bonus depreciation, which was always contemplated as a temporary measure to stimulate economic growth and activity.

Some of the provisions in tax extenders should end, and others need to be addressed as we make better sense of the international tax structure, including closing tax loopholes. While I did not agree with many of the provisions of the tax reform proposal of the chairman, he did attempt to address issues in a more comprehensive way, unlike what was passed through the House up to $1 trillion and was attempted last week.

It was a serious mistake, as I said, for the Republicans to have taken pieces of it, trying to make them permanent without paying a dime to offset the more than $800 billion cost of doing so.

The bill today, therefore, only maintains the status quo for this year. Not to act would disrupt the coming tax filing season for millions of American workers and businesses which have relied on Congress to extend these provisions and will, in a matter of weeks, begin filing their 2014 tax returns. As a result, I will support this measure.

As we act in the future, including on tax reform, I believe the lesson that should be learned from the past is that it is critical to try to work on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the importance of maintaining support for the values that must underpin legislative action.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Look, you made provisions permanent, Mr. Chairman, and you paid for them in your bill. There is disagreement how you paid for them, but you paid for them, and then you come forth with up to $1 trillion permanent unpaid for and leave out the child tax credit and the EITC.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Then we hear last week a proposal for $400 billion of it unpaid for, permanent--unpaid for, permanent--leaving out the EITC and the child tax credit, so that is why the President acted, and that is why it was essential he act.

I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), another distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) another member of our committee.

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

You are never sure what is going to happen the next day around here, so I am not sure if this is the last time you will be presenting a bill--something could come up next week--but let me assume that it is for just a moment and speak on a personal basis if I might. I hope the speaker won't cut me off. You are not supposed to talk to each other, so I will try to speak to you while I speak to the chair. I will try to do both.

Around here we can question each other's positions. In a sense, that is why we are here. Dave Camp leaves here having participated in a discussion of substance and questioning each other's positions in a way to try to come forth with legislation. But I think, in a rather unique way, our chairman has been able to do that with complete integrity, with complete seriousness--now and then a sense of humor, but complete seriousness--and the ability to question within a framework of some friendship.

So if this is your last management of a bill, I simply want to say for myself and, more importantly, I think, for this institution, if I might, that your decision to leave here means that you are leaving with your head so high and with, I hope, a feeling of real accomplishment and complete integrity and seriousness about your work. I am sure that your constituents are very proud to have voted for you 12 times. That was a commendable dozen.

So with some feeling of gratitude for having been able to serve with you, Dave, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened to both sides, and you have given me the reasons that I am going to be opposed to this legislation.

For the past 4 years, the Ways and Means Committee has debated comprehensive tax reform. Sadly, the fruit of that discussion before us is a 1-year retroactive extension of a temporary tax provision. This is an illusion. This is a Fellini movie we are seeing on a late afternoon in Washington, D.C. It is completely unpaid for. It gives no certainty to businesses or individuals because it expires 1 month from today.

Unlike today's bill, Chairman Camp's tax reform draft dealt with many expiring tax provisions in a courageous way. We were dealing with wind credits, R&D tax credits, mortgage debt forgiveness, all the way down the line, as well as the mortgage principal extension, which is needed for people who have had catastrophic problems within their own States. This is an example of what a responsible approach to extenders looks like.

This bill before us today is wholly inadequate. Not only does it add billions of dollars to the deficit, we kick the can down the road by only dealing with extenders in a retroactive manner. In other words, this money has been spent over the last 11 months, hopefully, getting to the point where we would pay for it. That is not the way to run the show, and you know that only puts us deeper into uncertainty and certainly deeper into debt.

Does anyone believe the 2 weeks these provisions will be in effect will encourage any business to make decisions about whether to hire more workers or invest in alternative energy or research, new equipment for small businesses or development in disadvantaged communities?

Thank you.

I am not finished yet, but I want to say to Mr. Camp, you have been a civil voice that will be missed in this hallowed Hall. And I mean that sincerely from my heart, because civil discussion is necessary in the House of Representatives.

Many times, in other places, it has not been civil. It will do nothing to encourage this legislation, this new development in renewable energy.

I want to be clear. I strongly support, my record will show, many of these tax provisions. I want to work with colleagues on the other side and my own side to make many of them permanent.

While this approach may help taxpayers and businesses who made decisions assuming Congress would act responsibly, it is not in the country's long-term interest, Mr. Speaker. At a bare minimum, Congress should be extending these provisions until the end of 2015 in a fiscally responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately must oppose this legislation, the so called ``Tax Increase Prevention Act.'' For the past four years, the Ways and Means Committee has debated comprehensive tax reform. Sadly, the fruit of that discussion before us is a one-year, retroactive extension of temporary tax provisions, completely unpaid for, and that gives no certainty to businesses or individuals because it expires one month from today.

It didn't have to be this way. Earlier this year, Chairman Camp released an ambitious proposal for a comprehensive reform of our tax code. I did not agree with everything in that proposal, and neither did many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. But I was confident that both sides could use Chairman's Camp's draft as a starting point to come together around a reform plan that would finally address the many loopholes and inefficiencies in our tax code.

Mr. Camp's draft also dealt with the many expiring tax provisions before us today in a courageous way. He resisted the temptation to assume these breaks would be indefinitely extended and added to the deficit. Instead, he made permanent the ones he wanted to keep and paid for them, while separately identifying ones he would let expire. This is an example of what a responsible approach to extenders looks like. Unfortunately, what happened next could not have been less reflective of Mr. Camp's earlier work.

Before the ink had even dried on Chairman Camp's tax reform

draft, the majority of Ways and Means began passing permanent

extensions of nearly $1 trillion in tax

provisions and did not even make an attempt to pay for one

dime of them. This approach is the height of irresponsibility

and has squandered any good will that had been developed

during the years of debate over tax reform.

This bill before us today is wholly inadequate. Not only does it add to the deficit and kick the can down the road, but by only dealing with extenders in a retroactive manner, it will not even encourage any business investment in the future. Does anyone really believe that the two weeks these provisions will be in effect will really encourage any business make decisions about whether to hire more workers, or invest in alternative energy, research and development, new equipment for small businesses or development in disadvantaged communities?

A retroactive extension will do nothing for commuters in New Jersey, who have been denied parity in their transit benefits for the last 11 months and will now be denied them again next year. It will do nothing to encourage new development in renewable energy, including offshore wind in my home state, as developers will have no certainty at all that the critical tax credits in this bill will be there for them next year.

I want to be clear: I strongly support many of these tax provisions, and I want to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make many of them permanent. However, while this bare minimum approach might help taxpayers and businesses who made decisions assuming Congress would act responsibly, it is not in the country's long-term interest. At a bare minimum, Congress should be extending these provisions until the end of 2015, in a fiscally responsible way, and then get back to work on real, permanent tax reform that ends this destructive cycle of expiring and renewing temporary tax policy once and for all.