Reserved for the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). 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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the resolution as well as a July 21, 2014, memorandum prepared by the Office of the Parliamentarian for the Over-Criminalization Task Force of the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. Res. 5

Adopting Rules for the 114th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Resolved Clause.

This section provides that the Rules of the 113th Congress

are the Rules of the 114th Congress, except with the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Disclosure of Foreign Payments to Witnesses. Subsection

(a)(1) requires, to the greatest extent practicable,

nongovernmental witnesses to disclose payments or contracts

to the witness or an organization they represent originating

from foreign governments received in the current and

preceding two calendar years, to the extent that such

information is relevant to the subject matter of, and the

witness' representational capacity at, that hearing.

While failure to comply fully with this requirement would

not give rise to a point of order against the witness

testifying, it could result in an objection to including the

witness's written testimony in the hearing record in the

absence of such disclosure.

Jurisdictional Changes. Subsection (a)(2) adds language to

the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional statement

with respect to the criminalization of conduct.

The Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction over criminal

penalties and criminal law enforcement would remain

unchanged. That is, the committee would maintain its existing

jurisdiction over measures that create or repeal a crime, and

over measures that alter criminal penalties with regard to

crimes already existing in law.

The rules change is intended to cover measures that alter

the elements of a crime so as to criminalize new conduct and,

in so doing, trigger an existing criminal penalty. This rules

change is not intended to cover measures that merely supply

the regulatory framework or address the regulatory

underpinnings of the overall enforcement scheme. Past

measures proposing merely to adjust the elements of such a

crime--as opposed to adjusting the penalty for commission of

the crime--have been out of the jurisdictional reach of the

Committee on the Judiciary. Even though such measures have

left the criminal penalty unchanged, they have nonetheless

subjected new conduct to that criminal penalty. In other

words, new conduct was criminalized. If the relatively rare

practice of criminalizing new conduct within the framework of

existing penalties is left unchecked, it calls into question

the efficacy of the Committee on the Judiciary's

jurisdictional statement in providing a comprehensive look at

criminal penalties and criminal law enforcement. Hence, a

rule X statement of ``criminalization'' is the most

appropriate way to address this circumstance.

The jurisdiction of other committees over the elements of a

crime--particularly in the context of a regulatory scheme and

outside of title 18, United States Code--would remain the

same, except that it potentially would be shared with the

Committee on the Judiciary in some instances. In that

respect, it is similar to the criminalization of new conduct

accompanied by a new criminal penalty; this change is to

ensure that it is the act of criminalizing conduct, and not

just the penalties themselves, that gives rise to a

jurisdictional interest by the Committee on the Judiciary.

This rules change is not intended to alter existing

jurisdiction over any enforcement scheme that falls outside

of the ambit of criminal law enforcement. Rather, it is to

confirm that the creation of a new crime subject to criminal

law enforcement is what gives rise to the Committee on the

Judiciary's interest, and not merely the establishment or

modification of the penalty.

For instance, the change is intended to address a situation

analogous to H.R. 2492 of the 112th Congress, which addressed

attendance at animal fighting events through amendments to

the Animal Welfare Act--compiled in title 7 of the United

States Code--and to title 18. That measure was referred to

both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the

Judiciary. Portions of that measure were later included in

H.R. 2642 of the 113th Congress and addressed a type of

animal fighting to be covered by the Animal Welfare Act, but

did not amend the existing criminal penalty in the Animal

Welfare Act and did not touch title 18. As a result, the

Committee on the Judiciary did not receive a referral of that

measure.

Committees with jurisdiction over a regulatory statute will

continue to exercise that jurisdiction, and the interest of

the Committee on the Judiciary will extend to the creation of

a new crime without a change to an existing penalty only to

the same extent it would to creation of a new crime with an

accompanying penalty prior to the 114th Congress.

The subsection adds language to the Committee on

Appropriations' jurisdictional statement with respect to

certain loan obligations and new loan guarantees with a

textual reference to section 504(b) of the Congressional

Budget Act.

Clarifying the Jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration. Subsection (a)(3) clarifies the Committee on

House Administration's jurisdiction over the Chief

Administrative Officer.

Committee Activity Reports. Subsection (a)(4) reduces the

frequency of committee activity reports from two times per

Congress to one time per Congress.

Dissenting Views. Subsection (a)(5) codifies current

practice by updating the rule regarding supplemental,

minority, or additional views to include ``dissenting''

views.

Consolidating Requirements for Written Rules. Subsection

(a)(6) requires committees to include in their written rules

pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule XI certain audio and

visual coverage rules described in clause 4(f) of rule XI and

formerly required by such clause.

Conforming Committee and House Broadcasting Standards.

Subsection (a)(7) conforms the language in clause 4(b) of

rule XI with clause 2(c) of rule V to ensure consistent

application of broadcasting standards.

Eliminating the Point of Order Against Considering

Appropriations Measures without Printed Hearings. Subsection

(a)(8) eliminates the point of order against the

consideration of appropriations measures without printed

hearings. This information is largely available through

archived broadcasts, testimony, and other documents available

on the Appropriations Committee's website and the public

hearings themselves.

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Subsection

(a)(9) increases the size of the committee to 22 members,

with not more than 13 from the same party.

Committee on Ethics. Subsection (a)(10) prohibits the

Committee on Ethics from taking action that would deny a

person any rights or protections provided under the

Constitution of the United States of America.

Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. Subsection (b) updates the

authorization for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to

conform to current practice and codifies a separate order of

the 113th Congress.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Incorporate

Macroeconomic Scoring. Subsection (c) requires the

Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation,

to the extent practicable, to incorporate the macroeconomic

effects of ``major legislation'' into the official cost

estimates used for enforcing the budget resolution and other

rules of the House. The subsection requires, to the extent

practicable, a qualitative assessment of the long-term

budgetary and macroeconomic effects of ``major legislation'',

which is defined to cover legislation that causes a gross

budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by the budget

resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of

the projected GDP for that year. This subsection also allows

the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in the case of

revenue legislation the House member serving as the Chair or

Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to designate

``major legislation'' for purposes of this rule.

This subsection also repeals the existing provision in

clause 3(h)(2) of rule XIII that requires a macroeconomic

impact analysis of revenue legislation, which is superseded

by the new rule.

Providing for Reconvening Authority for the House of

Representatives. Subsection (d) allows the Speaker, after

consultation with the Minority Leader, to reconvene the House

during an adjournment of three days or less, at a time

other than previously appointed. This codifies separate

orders from the 112th and 113th Congresses.

Providing Conference Committees with Time to Reach

Agreement. Subsection (e) modifies clause 7(c)(1) of rule

XXII by providing conference committees 45 calendar days and

25 legislative days after the formation of a conference to

reach agreements before additional motions to instruct

managers may be offered.

Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to Existing

Law. Subsection (f) requires that a Ramseyer print to show

the entire text of amended or repealed sections of a statute

along with the proposed changes.

Mandatory Ethics Training for New Members. Subsection (g)

requires that new Members of

the House, in addition to employees, complete ethics

training.

Technical and Conforming Changes. Subsection (h)(1)

conforms the standing rules to reflect the name in statute of

the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Subsection (h)(2)

updates an outdated statutory citation and removes a

reference inadvertently left in place at the start of the

113th Congress, which is no longer necessary due to the

enactment of the STOCK Act.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Independent Payment Advisory Board. Subsection (a)

eliminates provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act

that limit the ability of the House to determine the method

of consideration for a recommendation from the Independent

Payment Advisory Board or to repeal the provision in its

entirety.

Staff Deposition Authority for Certain Committees.

Subsection (b) provides the Committees on Energy and

Commerce, Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology,

and Ways and Means deposition authority to be conducted by a

member or committee counsel during the first session of the

114th Congress. Depositions taken under this authority shall

be subject to regulations issued by the chair of the

Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional Record.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (c) clarifies the procedures of the

House upon receipt of Article V memorials from the States by

directing the Clerk to make each memorial, designated by the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, electronically

available and organized by State of origin and year of

receipt.

In carrying out section 3(c) of House Resolution 5, it is

expected that the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will be solely charged with determining whether a memorial

purports to be an application of the legislature of a state

calling for a constitutional convention. The Clerk's role

will be entirely administrative. The chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary will only designate memorials from state

legislatures (and not petitions from individuals or other

parties) as it is only state legislatures that are

contemplated under Article V of the Constitution.

In submitting the memorials to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

with each memorial indicating it has been designated under

section 3(c) of House Resolution 5. The Clerk will make

publicly available the memorial and the transmission letter

from the chair. Ancillary documentation from the state or

other parties is not expected to be publicized.

The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary is also

permitted to designate memorials from earlier Congresses to

be made publicly available under the same procedure.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (d) carries forward the prohibition from the 112th

and 113th Congresses against consideration of a general

appropriation bill that does not include a ``spending

reduction'' account, the contents of which is a recitation of

the amount by which, through the amendment process, the House

has reduced spending in other portions of the bill and

indicated that such savings should be counted towards

spending reduction. It provides that other amendments that

propose to increase spending in accounts in a general

appropriations bill must include an offset of equal or

greater value.

Budget Matters. Subsection (e)(1) provides that titles III,

IV, and VI, of House Concurrent Resolution 25 (113th

Congress), as well as the allocations, aggregates, and

appropriate levels contained in the chair of the Committee on

the Budget's statement submitted in the Congressional Record

on April 29, 2014, as adjusted, will continue to have force

and effect until a budget resolution for fiscal year 2015 is

adopted. This subsection also provides that the chair of the

Committee on the Budget may revise allocations, aggregates,

and appropriate levels for measures maintaining the Highway

Trust Fund, provided such a measure does not increase the

deficit over the 11-year window and revise allocations,

aggregates, and appropriate levels to take into account

updated CBO baselines.

Subsection (e)(2) carries forward from the 113th Congress

the requirement that prevents the Committee of the Whole from

rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds an

applicable allocation of new budget authority under section

302(b) (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) as estimated

by the Budget Committee and creates a point of order.

Continuing Litigation Authorities. Subsection (1) addresses

continuing litigation in which the House is a party.

Paragraph (1) authorizes the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, through the House Office of General

Counsel, to continue litigation to enforce a subpoena against

the Attorney General related to the ``Fast and Furious''

investigation. This lawsuit was authorized by H. Res. 706

(112th Congress). It also authorizes the chair of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (when

elected) to take certain actions necessary to continue the

litigation. Paragraph (2) authorizes the House to act as

the successor in interest with respect to ongoing civil

actions regarding the implementation of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit was

authorized by H. Res. 676 (113th Congress). The subsection

also carries forward the authorities provided by H. Res.

676 (113th Congress) to remain in effect in the 114th

Congress. Paragraph (3) authorizes Michael W. Sheehy to

provide testimony in an ongoing criminal action in

accordance with authorizations from the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence in the 112th and 113th

Congresses.

Duplication of Federal Programs. Subsection (g) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the authorization of a

committee chair to request that the Government Accountability

Office perform a duplication analysis of any bill or joint

resolution referred to that committee. The subsection also

requires committee reports to include a statement on whether

any provision of the measure establishes or reauthorizes a

program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of

another Federal program. This order has been modified to

allow for a statement that no program is being established or

reauthorized for purposes of complying with the order.

Estimates of Direct Spending. Subsection (h) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the prohibition of

consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, or

any proposed amendment to or conference report thereon,

unless it includes specified information and estimates

related to direct spending, including means-tested direct

spending and nonmeans-tested direct spending. The subsection

also requires the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

publish a description in the Congressional Record of covered

programs

Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings. Subsection (i) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the requirement that

committee reports on bills or joint resolutions are to

include an estimate of the number of directed rule makings

required by the measure. The subsection defines ``directed

rule making'' to include those rule makings specifically

directed to be completed by a provision in the legislation,

but does not include a grant of discretionary rule making

authority.

Subcommittees. Subsection (j) waives clause 5(d) of rule X

to allow the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs

up to seven subcommittees and the Committees on

Transportation and Infrastructure and Agriculture up to six

subcommittees. Other than the inclusion of the Committee on

Agriculture, this is similar to provisions carried in the

rules package during the last several Congresses.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (k)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, former

Members, officers, and former officers of the House and their

spouses to any former member, former officer, or spouse who

is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of

1995.

Numbering of Bills. Subsection (1) reserves the first 10

numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by

the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R.

20) for assignment by the Minority Leader.

Inclusion of U.S. Code Citations. Subsection (m) adds, to

the maximum extent practicable, a requirement for parallel

citations for amendatory instructions to Public Laws and

Statutes at Large that are not classified in the U.S. Code.

Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in Machine

Readable Formats. Subsection (n) instructs the appropriate

officers and committees to continue to advance government

transparency by taking further steps to publish documents of

the House in machine-readable formats.

Temporary Designation. Subsection (o) designates a

temporary location for documents to be made publicly

available pending the official designation by the Committee

on House Administration under clause 3 of rule XXIX.

Congressional Member Organization Transparency Reform.

Subsection (p) allows participating Members to enter into

agreements with eligible Congressional Member Organizations

for the purpose of payment of salaries and expenses. The

subsection requires the Committee on House Administration to

promulgate regulations, consistent with current law, to carry

out this subsection.

Social Security Solvency. Subsection (q) creates a point of

order against legislation that would reduce the actuarial

balance of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust

Fund, but provides an exemption to the point of order if a

measure improves the overall financial health of the combined

Social Security Trust Funds. This subsection would protect

the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund from

diversion of its funds to finance a broken Disability

Insurance system.

Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices.

Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Subsection (a) carries forward

the select committee as authorized by H. Res. 567 (113th

Congress) as it existed at the end of the 113th Congress.

Additionally, the subsection provides the select committee

authority to adopt a rule or motion allowing for a ten-minute

rule for the questioning of witnesses.

House Democracy Partnership. Subsection (b) reauthorizes

the House Democracy Assistance Commission, now known as the

House Democracy Partnership.

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subsection (c)

reauthorizes the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

Office of Congressional Ethics. Subsection (d) reauthorizes

the Office of Congressional

Ethics (OCE) for the 114th Congress and clarifies that term

limits do not apply to members of the OCE. The subsection

reaffirms that a person subject to a review by the Office of

Congressional Ethics has a right to be represented by

counsel, and establishes that invoking such right is not to

be held as a presumption of guilt. The subsection also

prohibits the Office of Congressional Ethics from taking

action that would deny a person any rights or protections

provided under the Constitution of the United States of

America.

Section 5. Additional Order of Business.

Reading of the Constitution. This section allows the

Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the

Constitution on any legislative day through January 16, 2015.

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

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

I, too, want to welcome the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, as we begin another session in this new year. I am delighted to know that the Rules Committee will be ready and available to handle the pieces of legislation that the gentlewoman spoke of in terms of helping the American people to understand what Congress' role is in working with the President to help with policies that will get this country back to work.

Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, we recognized as we came back to Washington that we were at a GDP growth of a negative GDP. We had to fight out of these terrible, terrible tax increases and the things that are occurring to our economy.

The American people found new footing this year because it was the Republican majority who gave new meaning and life to ``we are going to make this place, meaning Washington, D.C., and government, smaller and make things bigger and better for people back home.''

We have now lived through what has become a reality with Republican policies on energy, for a competitive marketplace for there to be alternative fuels that are available that have dominated the marketplaces and put other countries on their heels and have given an advantage to American drivers who are here, families who are trying to make a go of it. The price of gasoline at the pump has dropped.

We still have much to do. As we know of the first year that President Obama was in office, food prices began doubling, energy prices began doubling. Republicans now are giving the American people a sense that we can manage our country better, so that they cannot only have a job and keep a job, but that they can take care of their families.

We are going to aim this year on a lot of things; but today, we are here for the rules package that will enable the opportunities for all of our Members to know what the rules are and to become engaged.

Four years ago, Mr. Speaker, we pledged to the American people that Speaker Boehner, through the rules of this House and our package that we would have, would allow Members from both sides of the aisle to engage in robust debate under an open process.

I am proud to announce that in following through with that promise, which is what we have done, we now have a new, larger group of Republicans because of the hard work we have done and have sold to the American people about effectively managing their affairs in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, more tax increases, bigger government, the Democrat party. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Republicans are going to use a doctor to get the budget done this time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the young chairman from the Budget Committee.

I do have one additional speaker, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Overall, this package demonstrates Republicans' commitment to an open process from Members on both sides of the aisle on the issues of the day that need to be debated, on legislation that will make a difference in the lives of the American people.

We have heard from the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I believe this is a great package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, you are not permitted to sing in the House of Representatives, and I shall not do that; but I will take this opportunity to do as my colleagues in the Rules Committee did yesterday, a little bit in advance of my friend's birthday. Today is the birthday of my friend, Mr. Woodall. And as one who has had many more birthdays than he, I hope he has as many birthdays as me and many, many more. Happy birthday to you, Rob.

As my friends are already aware, the President has already said that he is going to veto this measure. We introduced last night the statement of the administration with reference thereto. That means that the likelihood that this bill will become law is highly improbable at best. I wish I was standing here under different circumstances. I wish that the House were about to vote on something it knows that the President will sign into law. I wish we were working on something that would actually help our economic recovery instead of hamstringing it.

I listened to my friend very attentively when he pointed out that the marketplace will dictate three different circumstances. One that he did not allude to that I will is that the marketplace will dictate where the oil, once refined if the Keystone pipeline is approved, the marketplace will dictate out there in that neverland where we don't participate, where the oil will go. Therefore, I want to make it very clear that I do not believe that it means that there will be cheaper prices in the United States of America.

I am standing here because House leadership would rather pass purely symbolic measures than work with the President. And I recognize that, as my friend has pointed out, that a long time has passed with reference to this measure. I did a little added research to determine what would Enbridge and the other companies up in Canada do in case there was no Keystone pipeline. In addition to rail, they also have plans to send oil east and west and plans to send it north. And, I might add, for all that same period of time, the resistance inside Canada, based on a number of circumstances having to do with the Beluga whale, all of the way back to farmers, having to do with environmentalists, the same as in our country, the same arguments, whether East, West, or North in Canada, have been going on while our debate has been going on here with reference to the Keystone pipeline.

The 113th Congress is going to be remembered, and I believe everyone now understands, as the least productive Congress ever. That is the one that we just came out of. However, it seems that the current Congress is going to take its best shot at accomplishing even less if we stay on the course that we are on. Virtually every bill that has come before the Rules Committee the House already passed in the 113th Congress. Most have no more hope of becoming law now than the last time around. We have yet to see one really new idea from the Republican leadership of this body, which has shown zero interest in actually doing its job, in my opinion.

How many more times are we going to have to vote to repeal so-called ObamaCare, a program that now unquestionably is improving the lives of some hardworking Americans. Instead, we are voting on bills handpicked for

their ability to demonstrate the Republicans' message of the week, regardless of chance of enactment, regardless of whether it is a good idea, regardless of whether it is something that will help everyday Americans. And because these bills are handpicked for specific purposes, most have come to the floor under a closed rule, which means that Members cannot change the measure in any way, not even to make it better and not even with bipartisan solutions.

A good example is so far this body has voted on 15 rules during this 114th Congress, of which 8 of those 15 have been closed. The closed rules we will pass this week will be numbers 9, 10, and 11. Listen, my friends, on this same measure last week and before, the United States Senate, operating under regular order that is now majority-led by Republicans, considered on this very same measure 18 amendments, six that were approved, and some of them that were offered were bipartisan.

Among the reasons I believe that the Senate majority leader determined that he would operate differently than the previous majority leader is so as to give his membership, smaller than ours, of course, an opportunity to participate in the process. All the more reason, I believe, that we should have open rules. We have new Members, too, as do they. We have Members that have ideas that may be bipartisan with reference to support and opposition to the Keystone pipeline. But no, we continue to operate under closed rules.

Do you know how many rules were closed at this same point in the last Congress? The most closed rules ever, six. The gavel might as well be a brick wall.

Furthermore, much of the legislation this Congress has voted on has evaded regular order, escaping the review, hearings, and markups that ensure appropriate deliberation and consideration. Those of us on the Rules Committee have a wonderful opportunity. We are becoming sort of like the place of first resort for legislation. It isn't coming from hearings. The American public doesn't get an opportunity to see the various committees. It just comes up to the Rules Committee and we massage it back and forth about what our views are, but it does not come under regular order.

Just like the original version of this bill, the House is considering the Senate version of this bill without a hearing or a markup.

These are not just academic procedural disagreements. It matters because Members are not able to represent their constituents. It matters because good ideas are being deliberately kept hidden.

I have been here a long time. I have seen some pretty great Congresses under Republican and Democratic control, and I have seen some pretty lousy ones.

But the last few years, this body has been like a hamster on a wheel, spinning and spinning, but never getting anywhere. You don't have to look farther than a couple of amendments the Senate made to this bill to see my friends spinning their wheels.

Climate change is real. Because a few Senators decided to get cute in parsing a few words, it is in the bill. We are going to vote on it. And then what?

Just yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the United States Department of Agriculture is making more than $280 million available for rural agricultural producers and small business owners to apply for resources to purchase and install renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements.

Once more, those funds were made available in the 2014 farm bill, which shows what Congress can accomplish when we work together. I might add, because farmers in this country have experienced a 37 percent reduction--and I, along with others, represent many of those rural areas--I am delighted that we were able to do that in the farm bill, and I am pleased that Secretary Vilsack made his announcement.

The Senate also included an amendment that finds that Congress should--as opposed to shall--require oil companies to pay an excise tax to fund oil spill cleanups.

While I appreciate this expression, the amendment effectively does nothing to mandate contributions to the oil liability trust fund. I would invite my colleagues on the other side to explain that. Tell us why it is that these oil companies should not be required to contribute in a mandatory manner to the oil liability trust fund. Instead, what is happening is we create the illusion that oil companies will actually be accountable in the event of a spill.

Alternatively, simply closing the tax loophole that allows oil and gas companies to deduct the cost of cleaning up oil spills would discourage oil spills and save hardworking American taxpayers an average of $1.3 billion per year.

The American people were led to believe that changing control of the Senate would lead to an end of this gridlock. But sadly, this has not been the case.

My friends are not going to be able to, like the hamster, spin their wheels continuously. Even the hamster gets tired. And sooner or later, when that hamster gets tired of the nonsense of spinning going nowhere, he either gets off or he falls off.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both of us the remaining amount of time on both sides.

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

Here we are, only 17 days before the Republican Homeland Security shutdown and with just 6 legislative days left until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down on February 28, closing down many of the crucial Department of Homeland Security operations that have kept our country safe from terrorist attacks.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a clean version of the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. With such serious consequences, it is time to put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect American families.

To discuss our proposal, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, my colleague just said to me, as my friend was looking at the Associated Press' fact check, that it would seem that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would know a little bit more about what he is doing than would a reporter. I would hope that that is the case.

I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), my classmate and good friend.

Madam Speaker, I would also take the opportunity to encourage the previous speaker to read Jefferson's Manual because some of the things he talked about on rules are not, at least, my understanding. So I accept his expertise on certain matters, but his ideas about what we can do in the minority strike me as strange.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would also advise my friend from Georgia that I have no further speakers. I don't know whether my friend from Georgia does or not.

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

I earlier asked several questions. I believe Mr. Cramer addressed one of them. I have yet another that I did not ask, and I am not asking him to respond.

I might add, I think those of us here in the body--and I said this to him when he was in the Rules Committee--I do believe Mr. Cramer from North Dakota really does have a comprehensive understanding of this matter.

While I disagreed with him about many matters, I do believe that he points out something that we need to pay attention to, in that there are already, without Keystone, a lot of pipelines in the United States of America, and in the period of time of this recent debate, there have been a lot of pipelines that have had spills and have caused major damage. Without getting into them, three of them have really been substantial. Shutoff valves become important.

We haven't discussed many of the things regarding the technology that has improved over time, but I keep hearing my colleagues talk about this being a jobs measure. Indisputably, if there were to be a pipeline built, there would be jobs.

I agree with my friends on the other side that most, if not all, construction jobs are temporary jobs, and there are those in labor unions who are very supportive of this matter for the reason that it would create jobs.

But I have in mind something that many of us have advocated for years. The greatest reminder occurred the night before last right here close to us, in Maryland, when a piece of concrete from a big, old bridge fell off and, fortunately, when I saw the lady on television, her car was damaged and she was frightened out of her wits. But she is alive and was unharmed. That is concrete off of a bridge.

There are thousands of bridges in this country, and all of us know that we could be about the business of dealing with our infrastructure, which would create a whole lot of jobs and not leave us to these ideological debates.

I might add, if we approve this matter, in order for people to litigate, they have to come here to the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia. That does not make sense to me, and it precludes those who would want to bring actions from being able to do so. This legislation allows that as the only vehicle.

I might add, the litigation isn't concluded yet in many of the places where there may continue to be concerns--in South Dakota, where Mr. Cramer is close to--Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and certainly in Nebraska.

In the midst of trying to combat all of the problems that we have here in this country, attaching conditions and ultimatums to fundamental legislation is not the way to go about addressing the policy that was earlier raised and that I will raise in the previous question with reference to immigration.

If my friends really want to debate immigration issues, they should work with us and the President to reach a comprehensive and bipartisan consensus. Perpetuating the Department of Homeland Security stalemate is as dangerous to our country's security as it is corrosive to our democratic process.

Please, let's stop the pointless politicking. Let's end these games of chicken with our national security. Pass a clean DHS funding bill, and let's get back to the business of the American people.

I didn't know that this was in the drawer in front of me. It kind of looks like a hamster. The wheel just keeps on spinning. But my little friend here is still with us and has, in many respects, like my friends, stopped, by virtue of his being inanimate, his spinning. And that is what the Republicans need to do: stop spinning like the hamster on the wheel and get on with the business of the United States of America.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about House Resolution 100, which provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. Folks might find that a little unusual to talk about a bill that begins with the title S. 1, but there is a new day in Washington, D.C., that excites me, and it is that the ``open for business'' sign is there on the Senate side. It is not a function of Republicans doing this or Democrats doing that. It is a function of the process working the way that it should.

The first vote I took on the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Speaker, was back in 2011 when I was first elected to Congress. It passed the House by a wide bipartisan margin. It was never given the time of day in the United States Senate.

As we come here today, we are not just talking about approval of the Keystone XL pipeline in S. 1. We are talking about the inclusion of another bill that has passed time and time again, the Better Buildings Act. Mr. McKinley from West Virginia has language that would promote energy conservation across this land, a bill that has passed time and time again in this House but has never been passed by the Senate.

It is an opportunity here today, Mr. Speaker. It is an opportunity to do those things that the American people sent us here to do: bipartisan votes, commonsense legislation for the first time in a long time, Mr. Speaker, and what I hope will be the beginning of a long trend here in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As you listened to the Clerk read, Mr. Speaker, you heard that there are a lot of different points in this bill. It is not just a bill for consideration of S. 1. It is also a bill so that when the House is not in session in D.C. next week, the Speaker will have the ability to call the House back into session to continue to conduct business because the business must continue to go on. I am glad the Rules Committee was able to include that provision as well.

Seven years ago is when the permit process started on the Keystone XL pipeline, Mr. Speaker. Since seven years ago, longer than it took to build the Hoover Dam, we have been trying to approve a small section of pipeline. I say ``trying to approve'' somewhat loosely. I think if we had been committed to getting it done, we could have absolutely gotten it done. Again, it is a commonsense piece of legislation that decides rather than building a pipeline across Canada to carry oil to Canadian refineries, which will provide lots of jobs for Canadians, if our partner to the north is willing, we will build that pipeline through America to deliver that oil to American refineries to create Americans jobs.

This is not a bill that mandates that, Mr. Speaker. The marketplace is going to control this construction decision. The marketplace is going to control where the oil is refined, and the marketplace is going to control whether or not the oil comes out of the ground to begin with.

Too often, I think we have been treating the Keystone XL pipeline approval process as if it were an environmental decision. There are those who wish the United States would reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. I am one of those. I don't think there is any advantage to be had by putting all your eggs in one energy basket. I am in favor of an all-of-the-above strategy that makes sure that America's energy security--North America's energy security--is based on multiple-- multiple--avenues for energy production. But we do not get to decide in this Chamber whether or not the Canadians bring oil out of the ground. We only get to decide whether or not, once that oil comes out of the ground, it is moved with U.S. jobs and U.S. construction to U.S. refineries, or whether or not those jobs go elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, time and time again folks come to the floor and they say: Where are the jobs? Where is the jobs legislation? I am thrilled to be carrying this rule for the Rules Committee today, Mr. Speaker, because this is one of those jobs bills--bipartisan, common sense. And if we pass it here in the House today, Mr. Speaker, headed to the President's desk, that signature will change the lives of those hardworking Americans looking for jobs today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank my friend for his well wishes and to tell him I am sympathetic to the hamster wheel scenario that he describes.

I don't particularly enjoy these opening weeks of a new Congress, Mr. Speaker, because committees haven't gotten organized, legislation hasn't started to flow, and it puts the committee in the very unfortunate situation of having to act as the legislator, as the authorizer, to begin moving pieces of legislation to the floor.

That is unfortunate. But that is not the situation we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about today is a bill that not only passed the floor of the House but went to the Senate, a bill that not just went to the Senate but went through that wonderful open debate process that my friend from Florida described and has now come back to us today.

Four years we have been trying to move this bill forward, Mr. Speaker. It is a closed rule here today so that we can act on the same legislation that the Senate has passed, so we can send this bill to the President's desk, so we can get off the hamster wheel of futility that my friend from Florida describes.

I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker. But it doesn't happen by itself. It happens with years and years of work.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), whose advocacy and leadership have made having this bill on the floor today possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

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

I was just reading an article from the AP, which is doing a fact check on whether or not a conversation about

the Department of Homeland Security is a fair and honest conversation. They say, in reality, most people will see little change if the Department's flow is halted, and some of the warnings of doom are as exaggerated as they are striking. They go on to list word after word of folks announcing those warnings.

What is striking to me, Madam Speaker, is that, if we had the same open process going on in the Senate right now that the gentleman from Florida described--the great process that brought S. 1 to the floor--we would be bringing the Department of Homeland Security bill to the floor of the Senate as well; but, as you know, the Senate minority leader today is filibustering any effort to even bring this conversation to the floor, going back to the hamster wheel my friend from Florida described earlier.

How often do we hear that? How often do we hear about the procedural stunts that get in the way of doing the business that every single one of us knows our constituents sent us here to do?

This bill, though, is one about which we can be proud. This bill, though, is one that gets to the heart of what our constituents have asked us to do. This bill, though, has been done right from the start in a bipartisan way, in an open way, and it can make a difference for people tomorrow if we pass it on the floor of the House today and send it on to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to take the gentleman from Florida's advice and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), an expert on the appropriations process.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to the gentleman from Texas, my heart sits where his hearts sits--with American workers and American products. We build the best products in the world. There is absolutely no reason not to purchase the best products in the world to build something particularly as important as our pipeline.

The box we find ourselves in is that, candidly, some of us--in fact, I dare say all of us--are a little surprised the Senate was even able to move through this bill. I have not seen the Senate move like it has moved in this open process, in this expedient process. In the entire 4 years I have served in this institution, I have never seen it happen before.

It is a good bill. I don't take issue with the work the Senate did. It looks substantially similar to what we passed here in the House. We may never get a chance to send this bill to the desk.

Again, we are just trying to debate a small part of the appropriations process and the Senate right now can't even move into debate because of filibusters in the Senate.

So I say to my friend from Texas, I am absolutely sympathetic to his amendment. I would like to have an opportunity to debate more amendments on the floor of this House.

I think back to my early days here 4 years ago. We had a 3\1/2\-day what I call festival of democracy. We came down here and worked night and day on H.R. 1 until every Member had a chance to be heard. That is the way it ought to be done. And I regret that in this situation we did not have a chance to make the gentleman's amendment in order because it was a good amendment and it would absolutely be worthy of debate and consideration here on the floor of the House.

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

I also have no further speakers.

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

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

I may be an unnatural optimist, but I believe these 2 years that we are about to have in this institution are going to be the finest that I have seen in my lifetime. The reason I believe that is exactly because we are responding to the plea that my friend from Florida has made to get on about the business of the people.

It is hard being in the minority around here. It is hard. My friends on the other side of the aisle may feel like they are in the minority today. For the last 4 years, we had the Speakership in this Chamber, but I sure felt like I was in the minority.

The Senate, held by the party on the other side; the White House, the party on the other side--and things got to be about party, day in and day out, and it wore on me, wore on me.

That is not why I ran for Congress, Madam Speaker. It is not why you ran for Congress. It is not why any of my colleagues here ran for Congress. They ran for Congress to get about the business of the people.

We are 1 month and a week into this new session of Congress, and the Senate has already managed to do what it hasn't been able to do for 4 years, and that is hold an open debate and move legislation where Members had a chance to have their voice heard.

We have that measure in front of us today. The only thing standing between us and considering that measure, Madam Speaker, is passing this rule. I am excited about it. I am excited about it.

I am proud of what is in this underlying legislation. I am proud of the process that produced this legislation. I am proud of the leadership of folks like Mr. Cramer who moved it through the House first.

Now, this is the Senate version, but this is the process that folks have worked in tandem. This is a process that folks back home can be proud of.

Now, that is not to say every Member of this Chamber supports this legislation, Madam Speaker. They don't, and they have myriad reasons for choosing not to support this legislation, but the majority is going to work its will.

I don't mean the majority, the Republican majority. I mean the majority--let's have a show of hands, see where people stand--and Republicans and Democrats are going to stand together and say, I support these American jobs. They are going to say, I support our largest trading partner, which is Canada. They are going to say, I support finality on a process that began 7 years ago.

I long for the debate we will have on this House floor, and I hope the gentleman from Florida and I get to manage the rule when we bring the surface transportation bill to the floor of this House because America needs that surface transportation bill. We need to build America, Madam Speaker.

What does it say when getting approval for this pipeline consumed more time than the entire construction of the Hoover Dam? Have we so hamstrung ourselves with bureaucracy that we can no longer do those great building projects as a Nation?

I hope that the answer is no, but if the answer is yes, we have the ability in this Chamber to change it to no. We are a society that does great, great things. We do have responsibilities that are great, great responsibilities, and we cannot accomplish those in a partisan way. We cannot accomplish those without partnership and cooperation.

For the next 2 years, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to move bills out of a Republican-led Congress that get signed by a Democratic- led White House. That is kind of the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it, and I am pleased to be a small part of it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 101, I call up the bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 636, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have a little bit of a deja vu here today because we are going to be talking on yet another tax extender bill like we did yesterday. This one involves small businesses.

Let me see if I can sort of lay out the case that is before us and the decision that we as Members of Congress are going to have to make.

Small businesses are the engine of economic growth and job creation in this country. Eighty percent of all businesses in America file their taxes as small businesses under what we call

subchapter S corporations or partnerships, and one of the critical ingredients to running a successful small business is to be able to buy equipment for your small business and to hire people to do things. One of the important provisions in the Tax Code to help do this is something we call section 179 of the Tax Code.

Section 179 is really simple. It says to small businesses: We want you to be able to write off the purchase of equipment to run your small business so that you can be successful.

Well, here is what happened. For a number of years, small businesses have been able to write off $500,000--a small business earning $2 million--to purchase equipment. The problem is, as of January 1 of this year, that ability to write off $500,000 to buy a couple of trucks and scaffolding and other kinds of equipment--maybe you want to buy a tractor if you are a farmer, maybe you want to buy a skid steer if you are a contractor--that $500,000 expensing limit has now gone down to $25,000.

What typically happens is Congress says: We don't want that to happen. Let's get it back up to where it was so small businesses can plan and invest for their future.

And here is what happened last year. Last year, this expired at the beginning of this year. So, we waited until December 11 to say: No, you can expense up to $500,000 for these small businesses to purchase things like tractors and all sorts of kinds of equipment.

So this is what we did to the American small business men and women of America last year. We said: You don't know what is going to happen, and we will let you know on December 11, and you will have a few weeks to make all of these decisions before this expires. Just think about that.

So from December 11 to December 31 of last year was the window in which American small business men and women realized they had this incentive to purchase and plan for equipment because on January 1 it went away. And that is where we are today.

So we are saying: Let's stop this monkey business, let's stop this crazy notion of injecting all this uncertainty into small businesses and make this provision that is bipartisan--this provision that we know creates jobs--let's make it permanent so that small business men and women of America can plan their purchases.

I remember talking to a dealer of Case tractors. We make Case New Holland tractors in Racine, Wisconsin. We call them Case Magnums. These are phenomenal tractors that increase the productivity of farmers and ranchers. They are also used for construction. Well, it is a pretty big purchase. It is about $200,000, $250,000 for a nice Case Magnum, and it is a big purchase that somebody needs to think about and plan.

Case, the dealer in Janesville, Wisconsin, had to wait from December 11 to December 31 to be able to try and market these tractors as something that a small business person or a farmer could actually purchase. Think about the kind of uncertainty you are injecting into the economy when people cannot think and plan and invest in their businesses because of Congress.

So what we are simply trying to do here is produce certainty so that the men and women on the line in Racine, Wisconsin, making Case tractors can make those tractors and so that the dealers selling those tractors can sell those tractors so the farmers and ranchers and construction contractors can buy those tractors, knowing that this incentive that has been here and not, up and down is there, and they can plan accordingly, so that we can grow the economy and create jobs.

The purpose of all of this is to get people back to work. The purpose of all of this is to recognize that small business is the backbone of our economy, and one of the biggest things that is threatening small businesses, one of the reasons why we have this middle-income wage stagnation, one of the reasons why we have slower than average economic growth, is because we have all this uncertainty in our economy.

We need to give businesses certainty. We need to help them plan for the future. We need to stop this crazy game of extending a tax benefit that has been on the books for quite some time one year at a time or retroactive one year at a time and give businesses certainty.

This notion that not raising taxes is all of a sudden some tax cut that one must pay for is a notion that we just completely disagree with, which is a difference of opinion between ourselves and the other side of the aisle.

And so I urge adoption of this Tiberi bill to extend the 179 limit to $500,000, to make it permanent and help small businesses grow and create jobs.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished House majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the author of this legislation, be allowed to manage the time for our side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I will use all that time. I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman.

I am intrigued by this debate and the so-called admonishment from the minority as to how this jeopardizes tax reform and how it is not being bipartisan.

Let me see if I can bring some clarity to this debate. I interpret what was just said as, if you don't agree with our higher taxes, if you don't--before negotiating tax reform--agree to our terms of the debate, then you are not being bipartisan.

Look, when we were in the minority, we made similar arguments as well, which were: surrender your beliefs, surrender your principles, agree with us, and then we can be bipartisan. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night. That is not how negotiations occur. That is not how you find common ground. Finding common ground isn't surrendering your ground and agreeing to the other ground. Finding common ground is saying, where do my principles and your principles intersect, overlay, and what can we do?

Just so you understand, Mr. Speaker, here is what this is about: the premise that the minority is offering is, these tax provisions that we all agree on, that we think are good, that we think help the economy, but that have, in law, expiration dates when they expire and those taxes go up, we don't think that is good.

And the minority is saying: If these things expire and go up, we don't want that to happen. So we will work with you and make sure that they don't expire on a year-by-year basis. And we are fine. But if you dare try to make these things that we all agree on, that need to stay in the Tax Code, permanent, you are not paying for it. It is a budget- buster. You are being irresponsible. You are jeopardizing tax reform. Process, process, process.

Here is the problem. What we are trying to do here, we are trying to grow the economy. We are trying to get people back to work. We are trying to increase take-home pay. We are trying to honor and respect the hardworking taxpayers who sent us here in the first place.

So what we don't want to do is tell all those small business men and women in America, wait until December, and then we will let you know what your Tax Code is going to look like. What we want to tell the small business men and women in America is: Washington is out of your way. You can go plan, and you can grow, and you can invest, and you can hire. That is what we are trying to achieve here.

And this idea that not raising taxes is somehow a big, giant tax cut is an idea and a premise that we don't agree with. What we are being told here is, if we don't agree with that, then we are jeopardizing tax reform. Baloney.

The irony of this issue is compounded by the fact that the minority is telling us already--in their statements from the White House, in their budgets--that there are temporary provisions in the Tax Code that they like that aren't bipartisan, that they are saying make them permanent and don't pay for them. So they are cherry-picking, selective memory. It is an argument, quite frankly, that I don't think holds water because what we are doing here today, we are bringing certainty to the Tax Code. We are helping job creators and taxpayers and families. And we are doing it in a way that we think is honest, we think is fair, and we think advances tax reform.

The way to find common ground is not to ask the other side to surrender their beliefs, surrender their principles, and agree with the other side, and then you can get along. That is not how you find common ground. That is not bipartisanship. That is surrender. Nobody is asking anybody to surrender, at least we are not.

So what I would argue to my colleagues is, support this. Just show the small business men and women in your district that you are there for them, that you don't want to keep doing this to them, which is projecting all this uncertainty.

The other point I would make--and my friend from Oregon, who really is my friend; he is a sincere legislator who does his job very well, cares very dearly about his district--the argument he makes about tax cuts expiring doesn't jibe with the spending argument he is making.

Let me give you a case in point. Trade Adjustment Assistance, the farm bill, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, all of these are spending programs that have expiration dates, just

like provisions in the Tax Code that have expiration dates. And when these things on the spending side of the ledger book expire and Congress extends them, it doesn't cost. It is not measured in the baseline as costing anything.

But God forbid if something in the Tax Code expires, you had better raise taxes on somebody else if you want to keep that provision.

So just understand the argument that is being brought to the floor here. They are saying, in order to keep taxes the same for charities and small businesses, you have got to raise taxes on some other hardworking taxpayer out there. That is the argument that is coming here. And if you don't agree with that, then you are not being bipartisan, and you are not facilitating tax reform. We just don't agree with that.

So we are bringing our ideas to the floor. We are bringing our proposals to the table. And in the interest of growing the economy and finding common ground, this is what we are doing.

We encourage the other side of the aisle to bring their ideas to the floor, to bring their ideas to the committee, to bring their ideas into the public sphere so we can see where they line up and what we can do and where common ground might exist.

Will the ranking member yield?

The budget resolution reflects law as it is. The budget resolution reflects the CBO as it gives us baselines and laws. What we are doing here are our policy preferences. What we are doing here is what we think that law ought to be, not what it is. The budget resolution is: here is the law, there it is.

What we are trying to do here is fix the law because we think the law is broken. We think the law doesn't work.

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

Last year, as we remember so well, Republicans reacted to the tax reform proposal from then-Chairman Dave Camp with a ``blah, blah, blah, blah.'' That reception, echoed in the overall chilly reaction of the Republicans, stemmed in part from that plan's honesty.

Chairman Camp had pledged not to increase the deficit with his proposal. To achieve that goal, he played it straight--at least within the first 10 years. He proposed a tax on banks that drew cringes from his fellow Republicans. He put forward a surtax on the highest earners--essentially, a third tax rate. And he eliminated one of the most widely used provisions in the Tax Code: the State and local sales tax deduction. In the process, he paid for making permanent tax provisions like the bill before us today, this single piece of legislation costing about $80 billion alone.

Like it or not, it was at least somewhat honest accounting. And so started a Republican ploy to get around the hard realities of tax reform. The gist of that ploy: take a number of provisions separately, make them permanent, and don't pay a dime for them. Not a dime. The reason? The expectation of needing to raise less revenue in tax reform would allow Republicans to more easily cut tax rates.

Republicans feared that by trying to pay for their tax cuts--and they still do fear this--by shifting to the highly uncertain dynamic scoring may not be enough. So they are further trying to rig the system with baseline games and making permanent tax provisions outside of tax reform.

Not having to pay for $800 billion worth of tax extenders made permanent would make it easier for Republicans to lower taxes, especially on higher income taxpayers, carrying out further their trickle-down tax policies. It would allow them to avoid having to end the abuse of tax savings and incentives to ship jobs overseas.

By massively increasing the deficit--this is so important--through permanent unpaid-for tax revisions, Republicans could later cite this debt that they created as a reason to take a hatchet to programs like Head Start or fail to adequately fund the vital research at the National Institutes of Health. The President blew the whistle on that scheme--the rigging of the system and sound policy--with support from Democrats. Last year, the ploy was stopped in the Senate.

But here, House Republicans are going at it again--before even hinting, by the way, what tax reform might look like; there is no H.R. 1 for tax reform this session--throwing to the wind the statement of the chairman of our committee, Mr. Ryan, about trying to find common ground on common aspects of tax reform, at the same time betraying the GOP preaching on fiscal responsibility.

As chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan never assumed tax extenders would be a permanent part of the Tax Code. Otherwise, he would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years.

So what the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is proposing now is the opposite of the approach he pursued as the chairman of the Budget Committee.

The bill before us on section 179 addresses an important subject. It is primarily available to small and middle-sized businesses. It will likely be part of any tax reform. And until then, it will be renewed. That is certain.

Republicans control this House, and they control when renewal would occur, absent tax reform, but this provision deserves not to be left out of a tax reform process. It should give careful and comprehensive consideration of all the tax provisions in our Code.

So maybe the best way to expose this Republican gambit is for editorial writers to use their pen and for others to

use social media, tweeting to Republicans this message: Stop your efforts at congressional alchemy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a very active and distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I shall consume.

I say to the majority leader: this isn't about small business. We favor 179. This is about monkey business, monkeying with procedure, doing the opposite of what the chairman did when he was chairman of the Budget Committee, of trying to rig the system. I wish the majority leader would have cited the entire Statement of Administration Policy. I assume he read it all.

Here is what it said on behalf of the President:

``If this same, unprecedented approach of making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013.

``The Administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. However, H.R. 636 represents the wrong approach.''

That is what the President is talking about, and it is really sad when the majority leader comes here and misrepresents what the administration has said.

We want to work together. We want to find common ground. The answer today is, from the Republicans: Forget about common ground, common elements; stop working together; we'll do it our way; don't worry about tax reform now, we'll worry about that later.

That is what really this is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I say to my friend from Ohio, you are running this railroad. If you want to wait until December, that is your decision. It wasn't ours.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who heads up one of our subcommittees as ranking member.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are not suggesting you surrender your ground for 1 minute, not for 1 second. What we are saying is, let's search for common ground, and don't you come here and cut out pieces of it, piece by piece. That is what we are suggesting.

In terms of a 1-year basis, we are saying, do things comprehensively like your predecessor did.

This isn't a matter just of process, process, process. It is a matter of policy, policy, policy. That is what this is all about.

You come forth, and you then talk about wage inequality. What have you brought up here that relates to that? We are trying to get a vote, for example, on minimum wage. You won't even allow us a vote. Give us a vote.

You talk about TAA. The rules apply there. And we could go into the details in terms of whether it is authorized for a certain period of time, and after that, then if it is permanent, it becomes part of the baseline.

What you are trying to do today is essentially rig the system. You want to do it with dynamic scoring. And now you essentially want to take each of these pieces, make them permanent, unpaid for, to put them in the baseline. You did not do that when you were chairman of the Budget Committee.

You talk about honesty. I won't use that word because I totally respect your honesty more than that. I think it is hypocritical.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, here is the problem: you took the baseline in the budget, and you don't want to take it for this. You want to squeeze $800 billion permanently unpaid for, change the baseline, and that increases the deficit by that amount, and then you use that deficit to squeeze out needs, whether it is NIH or whatever it is. Infrastructure has been mentioned here also.

We don't have the money for that. It is hypocritical to do one thing in one committee and another thing in another committee. It is not only hypocritical, it is a very dangerous approach.

That is our answer. I am not suggesting you surrender for 1 minute, but don't take pieces out of ground that we want to be common. That is what you are doing, and that is why it is antithetical to tax reform. That is why Dave Camp came here with a comprehensive program, and you guys didn't like it.

You said, ``Blah, blah, blah, blah.'' That was the Speaker, and others of you did not like it--the bank tax--so you don't want to do it comprehensively at first. You want to do it piece by piece. That is bad policy, it is bad for the deficit, and it is bad for the hopes for tax reform.

If you want me to surrender time, I reserve the balance of my time.

I say to the gentleman from Ohio, I favor 179, not doing it piecemeal unpaid for this way.

By the way, this is not the worst job recovery. There has been an increase in jobs in the last month, month after month. The problem is it hasn't lifted the incomes of middle-income families. Let's get together to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who has been working on small business--maybe you will tell us how many years--a few.

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

We have debated this now for 2 days. The issue isn't whether 179 is a useful provision. It is. It will be continued. That can be sure. It should not be continued essentially forever unpaid for, adding to the deficit, eroding the chances for tax reform, but this really isn't about 179.

The purpose of bringing up this and other provisions outside of tax reform is really essentially to rig the system. It is to play games with the system. It is to try to change the rules so that essentially, if you make it permanent unpaid for, it goes into the baseline; and therefore, after that, you don't have to pay for it.

That is what this is really all about. It means you can do other things like reducing tax rates mainly for the very wealthy, having more room to do that, not having to worry about the money to pay for that because you haven't used the money to pay for the extenders. That is really what this is all about.

It wasn't done in the Rules Committee by Chairman Ryan. It should not be done now. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are trying to adjust the rules, to change them, so that they can proceed with their approaches. It isn't forthright, and it isn't honest.

They are worried the dynamic scoring won't be enough, so essentially, they are trying to do dynamic things--so-called--with the basis. All of that really is contrary to sound policy, it is contrary to the rules, and it is really contrary to the search for bipartisanship.

We will sit down tomorrow and talk about 179 as an important part of tax reform. We will do that tomorrow. We haven't even started on tax reform. Now, you essentially want to say we will cut some pieces, and we will do that. That is not sound policy. As Mr. Neal said, it really abrogates sound practice. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge very much that we vote ``no.'' There will be, one way or another, enough votes if this ever got through the Senate--and it won't--to sustain a veto. Don't play games. Let's address tax reform and responsibility in terms of the deficits.

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