Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of H.R. 1, the Tax Reform Act of 2014. This bill--which formalizes, without modifications, the tax reform discussion draft I released publicly on February 26, 2014--reflects the years of work undertaken on this critical issue by the Committee on Ways and Means during my time as chairman. I want to thank the members of our committee, on both sides of the aisle, for their tireless efforts and for their outstanding contributions to this legislation and to the transparent, inclusive process that produced it. While I will not be returning to the House of Representatives next year, I very much look forward to watching the ongoing work of our great committee as the tax reform debate continues to unfold in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the urgent need to fix our broken tax code--and the incredible progress we've made toward making tax reform a reality for the first time since 1986--has already been well documented, and I will not seek to recount all of that background and history here today. But I do hope that, going forward, Congress will continue to focus on the twin goals that have guided the tax reform process thus far-- strengthening the economy, and making the tax code simpler and fairer for all Americans.

When I set out to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill, I wanted to do it the right way. So, over the last four years, the Ways and Means Committee held over 30 public hearings, including the first joint hearings with the Senate Finance Committee on tax policy since World War II. Ways and Means Ranking Member Sandy Levin--my home state colleague--and I formed 11 bipartisan working groups to tackle different areas of the tax code. In that time, I also launched TaxReform.Gov, which received more than 14,000 public comments and suggestions, while Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and I left the confines of Washington, DC to talk with taxpayers all across the country. I am proud to say that we have done this in the most open, transparent, and bipartisan way--getting input from all sides. Now, the debate about whether to do tax reform is over; the only debate now is about how.

At its core, the Tax Reform Act of 2014 is about making the tax code simpler and fairer for hardworking taxpayers. I believe every taxpayer should be able to do his or her taxes without fear that someone with better accountants or lawyers is getting a better deal. This legislation does that by ensuring that virtually all taxpayers would pay the least amount of taxes without having to keep track of every receipt and record and live in fear of an IRS audit. This legislation makes the Code more effective and efficient by getting rid of narrowly targeted provisions to lower tax rates across the board. This will enable small and large businesses alike to expand operations, hire new workers, and increase benefits and take-home pay.

The proposal flattens the rate structure by reducing rates and collapsing today's seven individual rate brackets into two brackets of 10 and 25 percent for virtually all taxable income, ensuring that over 99 percent of all taxpayers face rates no higher than 25 percent. The plan also reduces the corporate rate to 25 percent.

By making America's corporate tax rate more competitive and by modernizing our anticompetitive international tax rules, which have not been reformed since the 1960s, we would encourage companies to keep their headquarters in the United States, so they can grow, invest, and hire here, instead of moving overseas in search of a better tax environment. We need a real solution to this growing problem, and I believe a significantly lower

corporate tax rate and a more competitive tax system is just the solution we need.

Independent economists agree: Tax reform results in stronger economic growth, more jobs, and higher wages. In fact, the independent, non- partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that this plan could increase the size of our economy by $3.4 trillion--that's equivalent to 20 percent of today's economy. Based on that stronger economic growth, we could see nearly two million new jobs created. JCT also estimates that this proposal could generate up to $700 billion in additional Federal revenues that could be used to lower tax rates even further or to reduce the debt. Indeed, based on calculations using data provided by JCT, the average middle-class family of four could, under this proposal, have an extra $1,300 per year in its pocket from the combination of lower tax rates in the plan and higher wages due to a stronger economy. This is the kind of growth America needs, and these are the kinds of policies that can produce a stronger, more robust economy that benefits all Americans.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the countless hours devoted to this effort by the Ways and Means Committee staff and the staffs of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Office of Legislative Counsel. A project this large--on an issue of this magnitude--simply could not be undertaken by this institution without the dedication, the policy know-how, and the technical expertise of the professional staff. We owe all of them our sincere thanks. Indeed, their contributions to this proposal extend not just to the legislative language of the bill itself, but to a set of helpful explanatory materials as well. For those who are looking for a fuller description of the legislation I am introducing today as H.R. 1, a section-by- section summary of the proposal prepared by the Ways and Means Majority Tax Staff is available at: http://tax.house.gov/. Similarly, JCT's technical explanation of the proposal--along with JCT's revenue estimate, distributional analysis, and macro-economic analysis of the proposal--has been published as JCS-1-14, available at https:// www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4674.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close by urging my colleagues who will be returning in January for the 114th Congress to keep pushing forward and to see this tax reform process through to a successful conclusion. It would undoubtedly be easier for Congress to hang its head and say that the problems with the current tax system are just too big, and that the work of tax reform is just too hard. But nothing worth doing is ever easy, and tax reform is even more necessary now than it was back in 1986. Indeed, today's generation of tax reformers should remember how the headline in the Washington Post captured the moment when the 1986 Act finally made it over the finish line--it called tax reform the ``impossible that became the inevitable.'' I would like to see that headline again, and with today's formal introduction of the Tax Reform Act of 2014, we take another important step down that historic path.

I thank the Speaker for reserving the bill number H.R. 1 for this legislation, and I hope that the formal introduction of this proposal in the House today will help spur further action on this critical issue in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enormous contributions made by John M. Samuels to the development of sound U.S. tax policy over the last 40 years. John Samuels is retiring from the General Electric Company at the end of this year, where he has been the Vice President and Senior Counsel for Tax Policy and Planning since 1988. Before joining GE, John had a successful career in private practice and spent several years at the U.S. Department of Treasury, as Deputy Tax Legislative Counsel and Tax Legislative Counsel.

Most press articles about John highlight his distinguished career at GE. And while that is important, I want to acknowledge the work he has done behind the scenes to promote sound, effective, pro-growth tax policies for the benefit of the entire U.S. economy. The progress we have made in advancing the cause of comprehensive tax reform has benefited enormously from his efforts.

One example has been his support of academic research into international corporate tax issues through the founding of the International Tax Policy Forum (ITPF). John Samuels has served as the chairman of ITPF since it was founded in 1992. ITPF, which has been called the ``world's leading tax think tank,'' plays a unique and important role in sponsoring nonpartisan academic research, often by young, up-and-coming scholars, and hosting conferences at which such papers are presented, discussed, and debated. This gives tax policymakers in Washington access to a much broader body of research and thought than we would otherwise have, thus informing and elevating the policy discussions taking place in Congress, in the Administration, and at other think tanks.

In 2009, John received the Tax Foundation's Distinguished Service Award for his contributions to tax policy. In announcing the award, the President of the Tax Foundation said, ``John's leadership in facilitating a rational debate on international tax policy is without peer.''

While John is retiring from GE, he is not retiring from the world of tax policy. I know his leadership in ``facilitating a rational debate on international tax policy'' will carry on. I am confident his contributions will continue in the next chapter of his distinguished career. And I know that my colleagues who will push forward in Congress on the extremely important work we started in reforming our tax code will turn to John Samuels again and again for advice, ideas, and wise counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an important institutional issue. Under the Constitution, it is the prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate revenue measures. Article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that ``All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.'' This clause is commonly known as the Origination Clause. As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have a special responsibility in guarding this important House prerogative.

A recent court decision has caused me to come to this floor to re- affirm the House position on the Origination Clause. The rationale used by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their July 29, 2014 decision in Sissel v. HHS is at odds with consistent House Origination Clause practice. Specifically, the ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit held that because the primary aim of PPACA was not to raise revenue, but rather to ``induce participation in health insurance plans,'' it was not a ``bill for raising Revenue'' within the meaning of the Origination Clause. Sissel v. HHS, Op. at 13 (July 29, 2014).

Although some courts have taken a narrower view of what constitutes a ``a bill for raising revenue,'' the ``primary purpose'' test articulated in Sissel presents heightened challenges in interpretation that not only threaten the constitutional balance in Congress but invite subjective judicial scrutiny of the legislative process. This analysis may lead to confusion between the legislative and judicial branch on measures where the primary purpose is not easily ascertainable, measures that contain multiple, competing purposes, and measures that state a purpose that is in conflict with its content.

The House's traditional provision-by-provision review of a measure and the effect of each on revenue is the more sound approach. This interpretation has served the Congress well when resolving differences between the House and Senate on the Origination Clause.

I offer H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as a recent example. H.R. 4310, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012, was a lengthy measure that addressed nearly every aspect of our national defense. The Senate amended it on December 4, 2012 with its own version of the bill. Rather than attempting to assess the purpose of this diverse, multifaceted measure, the Committee on Ways and Means reviewed both the House and Senate measures in their entirety. This review of the Senate amendment revealed a subtitle that included import restrictions on Iran. Import restrictions invoke the revenue jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and have been the subject of Origination Clause action in the past. In response to this institutional infringement, I offered House Resolution 829, a measure returning H.R. 4310 and the offending amendment to the Senate. House Resolution 829 was adopted by the House unanimously on December 12, 2012. In response to the House action, the Senate, also by unanimous consent, stripped the Iran sanctions content from its amendment, and the measure proceeded to conference. The bill was enacted into law on January 2, 2013.

As chair of the oldest committee in the House, I have strived to protect this venerable institutional prerogative and clarify its application when needed. I am especially grateful to the majority and minority staff of the committee for their vigilance in this area. I hope these remarks will clarify the House position on this important constitutional issue.

Mr. Speaker, our nation encourages personal savings in a number of ways throughout the tax code and now with the ABLE Act we are adding one more, specifically for individuals with disabilities. As we acknowledge through this legislation the importance of saving for individuals with disabilities and their families, it is important to place this policy in context and ensure the public and policymakers appreciate the continued need for effective asset tests in means-tested programs.

The ABLE Act explicitly ignores ABLE account balances and withdrawals for purposes of determining eligibility for Medicaid and other means- tested programs; under the SSI program, the first $100,000 in account balances is not counted as resources and withdrawals, except for those relating to housing, are not counted as income. This treatment is designed to provide generous new incentives to save for individuals with disabilities and their families, which current policy limits.

It would be a mistake for the public and future policymakers to argue that similar treatment should be afforded all low-income individuals under existing means-tested programs. Indeed, recent advances in administering resource limits suggests that such tools should be used more aggressively in making proper determinations about whether other individuals have sufficient personal means of support before asking taxpayers for government benefits. These advances rebut recent claims that administering resource limits is overly time consuming and burdensome, and suggest that State and Federal agencies are increasingly able to apply these limits in a cost-effective and efficient manner. For example, on March 11, 2011, the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee heard testimony from the Social Security Inspector General about the use of electronic tools such as the Access to Financial Institutions (AFI) program, which allows the Social Security Administration to automate the process of checking for assets, limiting the burden on recipients and field office employees who administer the program.

Another argument for ensuring the use of effective resource limits for non-disabled individuals involves program cost. Especially if able- bodied individuals have significant assets or other resources on which to depend, they can and should be expected to use those resources first to support themselves before turning to taxpayer support. The alternative would be a significant expansion of taxpayer spending on able-bodied individuals who have significant personal resources they can and should turn to first for support. Recent years have seen examples of that through significant degradations in the effectiveness of the resource test in the food stamp program.

As of November 2010, thirty-three states and D.C. excluded the value of all vehicles in making food stamp eligibility determinations and in the last five years nearly every state has chosen to not have an asset test for food stamp benefits at all. Not surprisingly, due to these changes and other factors, the food stamp program has grown from 17 million recipients in the year 2000 to nearly 48 million recipients today, at four times its former cost to taxpayers. In July 25, 2012 testimony before the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, Professor Doug Besharov of the University of Maryland described this phenomenon as ``eligibility creep,'' or ``The process through which programs are successively expanded through a series of small steps, many of whose impacts are imperceptible at the time.''

Future policymakers need to protect against such eligibility creep and continue to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are properly targeted to individuals needing assistance. Just as the ABLE Act allows parents to ensure sufficient resources are available to support their disabled children after they no longer can do so, we need to be good stewards of taxpayer-funded programs to ensure they are sustainable in the future. Continuing to effectively and efficiently administer income and resources limits, especially with regard to able-bodied individuals, is critical to achieving that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5806) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and make permanent certain expiring provisions related to charitable contributions.

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 the subject of the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves here today to once again address a group of tax provisions that need to be made permanent, this time for the sake of those who give to and ultimately benefit from charitable organizations.

Every day, selfless Americans nationwide decide to donate in support of an array of causes, be it finding a cure for cancer, helping underprivileged children succeed in school, or simply providing a meal and shelter that, for some, is hard to come by.

Countless Americans dedicate their lives to these causes and serving their friends and neighbors in need. The three charitable policies in this legislation can provide tremendous support for those good works. However, because these policies are only temporary, they are not nearly as effective as they can or should be. It is well past time that Congress takes the necessary action to support America's charities and those that benefit from their work and make these policies permanent.

What our charities do in America is beyond the power of government to give.

Now, we were close to reaching a bipartisan deal with the Senate that would have made them permanent, but the President decided to play politics and issue a veto threat. Just 2 days before Thanksgiving, the President announced that he considers a policy that encourages donations to food banks to be a giveaway to big corporations. I would like to see the President travel to see the West Midland Family Center food pantry in my district and tell them that they are a corporate giveaway.

The Supporting America's Charities Act, H.R. 5806, fixes what the administration and some Senators decided not to. This legislation will ultimately increase charitable giving by making these policies permanent and enabling charities to better serve those in need.

These bipartisan proposals previously passed the House in July of this year as part of the America Gives More Act and continue to experience unrivaled support from organizations nationwide. In fact, more than 1,000 charitable organizations--1,032, to be exact--have written every Member of Congress in support of the permanent tax incentives.

Take, for example, a joint letter authored in July by five of America's leading charitable organizations. In discussing their unanimous support for the America Gives More Act, they said:

``The charitable giving incentives being considered by the House have encouraged individuals and small businesses to actively support the development and sustainability of our society. They have spurred contributions, for example, to build health centers, develop counseling programs for at-risk youth, provide nutrition assistance to hungry children, conserve land, and offer art therapy for people with developmental disabilities.''

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I am alone when I say this: policies that prompt donations to health centers, youth counseling programs, and therapy for people with disabilities are not giveaways to corporate America.

Mr. Speaker, just today, I was at Walter Reed Hospital visiting the brain trauma center there that was built for our wounded warriors. It was made possible through private donations and then made as a gift to the United States Government for those men and women who have served so valiantly in our military. That is the kind of giving we need to encourage. That is the kind of giving this legislation would encourage.

As I said last week, the end of the year is fast approaching, and a new tax-filing season is just around the corner. Now is not the time for those who selflessly donate to wonder what tax

surprises are waiting for them, no more than it is the time for charitable organizations to grow uncertain about their futures.

There is no goodwill like that of an American, and as Representatives of this great Nation, we should do everything in our power to encourage individuals to give more and help charitable organizations expand their reach nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, as the giving spirit of the holiday season is around us, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle and both Houses of Congress to look at the policies--not the politics--look at the policies here and support those who give and support those who are in need by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 5806.

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

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

I would say, Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what the gentleman from Michigan said. I have listened to the statement that he read. I have actually read the statement of the administration's position myself. I see nothing in that that gives any Member a reason to vote ``no.''

Let me just say Feeding America estimates that H.R. 5806, this bill we are debating tonight, would create 100 million new meals a year. Frankly, I would say to my friend from Michigan: if you are hungry, you can't wait. Let's do this now.

Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to reading a statement of administration position that the President has repeatedly said, ``Send me bipartisan measures that we can work on together,'' there is no more bipartisan issue than helping America's charities help the needy, help those who are hungry, and help those without housing.

In Michigan, our home State, we have a pilot program with a cereal manufacturer that is capturing excess breakfast products. Over 20,000 pounds of food per week are donated. If the tax law was changed, H.R. 5806, seven times that amount would be donated by the company, by the private sector, filling a need that the government is not meeting. A lot of hungry kids don't always get meals outside of school, so they take this cereal home in their backpacks for weekends.

There is no reason to wait. Let's do this now. Look, we passed a 1- year measure on all these other things. That only gives us 2 weeks. For a lot of these charitable provisions, they need a longer window. They need more certainty to put these programs in place and to put the distribution systems in place to get the food and the resources to people in need.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say briefly, actions speak louder than words. While technically, yes, we are going to make sure that for the last couple of weeks, as my colleague from Pennsylvania so eloquently stated, these tax policies will be in place, we need more than that. I mean, whether it is food inventory or conservation easements, these are long-term policies that we are asking people to get involved in.

Let's talk about southeast Michigan. The gentleman raised it. We know who is doing a lot of the work in Detroit--a lot of foundations are. They are setting up plans and processes to help rebuild that city. They need more than 2 weeks of policy. They need permanent policy. These are simple, bipartisan measures, whether it is food inventory, charitable IRAs, or conservation easements.

Look, we know that the watershed of New York City was protected by conservation easements. They couldn't do that in 2 weeks. The things that we can do with conservation will last decades into the future. They need the intergenerational long-term policy to put these kinds of plans in place.

Even as I mentioned earlier with regard to food inventories and charitable IRAs, those aren't decisions you make on a whim. Whether you are going to turn your IRA over to charity is a decision that you may be looking at the next 20 years of your retirement, do you have the ability to do that or not. It is not something you can do based on just a couple of weeks.

Look, we are the only nation in the world that lets these things expire. I mean, what the gentleman hasn't said is these items were expired for all of 2014. We are going to put them in place for the final 2 weeks, and retroactively we are going to say you are going to be able to make a conservation easement contribution? Well, you can't, and you are not probably going to do it in the next 2 weeks because immediately when the clock hits 2015, you are not going to have the tax policy.

Look, I would ask people, don't just vote in lockstep. Really examine your conscience and whether at this time of year, with the great needs this Nation is facing and has faced really for the last decade, what can we do to make a difference now? Why do we need to wait?

As the gentleman has said, look, we have tried to make these things permanent. That hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in a comprehensive tax overhaul; it hasn't worked in trying to make a lot of these extensions permanent in an agreement between the House and Senate. But these are important, and these will make a difference where government doesn't go.

It is our foundations and our charities that actually innovate in this area and find out what works. As we know, government isn't the most innovative in this area. That is why these are important to do now.

I think especially in this season of giving we shouldn't just vote because our leaders tell us to or because we have gotten some letter from the administration. We should really look carefully at how we can make a difference, how we can make a difference by this vote that we are going to take and what that will mean for people's lives and the countless families who depend on selfless Americans to make it from day to day. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues to pay tribute to the distinguished member of the Michigan Delegation: the Honorable John Dingell, as we mark the end of his long and dedicated service to this body and, more importantly, to the constituents of Michigan's 16th, 15th, and 12th Congressional Districts.

However, Mr. Dingell's service to this country dates back well before he began his Congressional career in 1955. At the age of 18, he enlisted as an infantryman for the U.S. Army during World War II. He entered the military as a Private and was discharged as a Second Lieutenant while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. For his service defending our country, he received a medal presented by Oscar winning actor Tom Hanks as part of the ``Salute to the Citizen Soldier'' in 2004.

After serving in the Army, Mr. Dingell was elected to fill the seat and the shoes of his father, who passed away while still in office. Together, he and his father have served the citizens of Southeast Michigan for well over 80 years. Blazing his own path, Mr. Dingell has personally impacted every major piece of legislation for over half a century. Even though we come from different political parties, we can and do agree on many issues that concern the people of Michigan. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or its Ranking Member, he has always pushed for solutions to the problems Americans face. Impressive in both stature and tenacity, Mr. Dingell has lent his life to public service. It has truly been an honor to serve alongside such an outspoken advocate for not only his constituents, but the state and country as well. And I must add that the dignity and respect he has shown his colleagues--and including this colleague--even as a brand new Member of Congress--is a testament to the respect he has for his fellow Members and this institution.

Mr. Speaker, the good citizens of Michigan's 12th district and colleagues on both sides of the aisle are all better for Mr. Dingell's long and steady tenure in the House of Representatives. I congratulate him again on his remarkable career and join my colleagues today in paying tribute to the gentleman from Trenton, the Honorable John Dingell.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 766, I call up 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, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 647.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of us know the joys and responsibilities of being a parent. We spend years ensuring our children have the skills and education to reach their full potential as they grow and enter adulthood.

Many of these everyday responsibilities parents face can and often do increase tremendously when they have a child with a disability. Today, we have an opportunity to ease some of those challenges.

The Achieving a Better Life Experience Act, commonly known as the ABLE Act, will allow those with disabilities and their caregivers to have the stability and security of knowing that they can save and provide for their education, housing, and medical expenses in the future.

In short, the ABLE Act lets those with disabilities set up tax-free savings accounts to help them manage the costs of medical care, housing, transportation, and continued education. This will allow those who are on Medicaid and SSI to work, earn, and save more while still receiving these important benefits.

It is important to note that these savings accounts will be available to all individuals with disabilities and their caretakers, not just those on Medicaid and SSI.

This is a commonsense bill that will aid those with disabilities and their caretakers so they can live more fulfilling, happy lives and have the ability to provide for a better future.

At the same time, this will not burden taxpayers since the cost of the ABLE Act is fully offset by the savings provisions in this bill. These offsets are a balanced and fair mix of savings provisions that all Members should be able to support.

This bill is supported by more than 70 leading organizations and health care professionals, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Autism Society of America, Autism Speaks, the Brain Injury Association of America, Easter Seals, the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, the National Disability Institute, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Federation of the Blind, and The Arc.

They support this bill because they know it will help more disabled individuals help themselves. That is all I can ask for--that is all anyone can ask for--and it is something I am pleased this legislation provides. This is why the ABLE Act has 380 cosponsors in the House and 74 cosponsors in the Senate.

I want to particularly thank the sponsor of this legislation, my good friend from Florida, Representative Ander Crenshaw, as well as Representatives Sessions, McMorris Rodgers, and Van Hollen for their diligence in helping us bring this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that we have a chance to clear major hurdles in front of people who simply need a hand up. That is what this bill does, and I encourage all Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the distinguished chair of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee.

I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington control the remainder of my time.

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 continue to 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, this November, I am proud to celebrate National Adoption Month and also National Adoption Day, an important time to recognize those wonderful parents who have adopted children in need of a permanent, loving home. It's also a time to remind ourselves of the thousands of children across the country who still remain in foster care, waiting for a family to call their own.

Earlier this year, I was honored to recognize Midland County Probate Judge Dorene Allen as the 2014 Angel in Adoption award recipient from my district. In her 14 years as a judge, she has finalized nearly 700 adoptions, and through this and her prior work she has dedicated her career to serving Michigan's most vulnerable children. There are many incredible advocates like Judge Allen around the country, and I am grateful for their efforts and for the opportunity we have to recognize them today.

Adoption is not something I'm speaking about just today, but something I have focused on throughout my career in private practice as well as my years in Congress. As an attorney before coming to Congress, I worked with parents and children in the foster care system. In Congress, I have been privileged to meet many adoption advocates as well as youth who have benefitted from adoption. Those sorts of experiences provided much of the background for legislation I have helped craft that has contributed to the landmark changes in adoption policy Congress has approved in recent years.

In 1997, my colleagues and I on the Ways and Means Committee crafted the Adoption and Safe Families Act. That legislation streamlined the adoption process to help more children in foster care quickly move into permanent adoptive homes. It also, for the first time, offered incentives to states to safely increase the number of children adopted from foster care.

It worked. In the decade following that legislation, the number of U.S. children adopted from foster care increased by 71 percent. In the years since, adoptions have continued to remain higher even as the foster care caseload started to decline. Overall, almost 300,000 children have been adopted as a result of the increase in adoptions starting in 1997. One study estimated the federal government saved $1 billion over eight years by ensuring children were adopted instead of remaining in foster care.

In 2001, I worked with my colleagues to pass the historic 2001 tax relief package that expanded the adoption tax credit to $10,000, easing the financial burden of adopting a child. In 2012, we made the adoption tax credit permanent.

In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law my legislation, the Adoption Promotion Act, to create new financial incentives for states that increase adoptions of older children from foster care.

In 2008 as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, my proposal to provide equitable access to foster care and adoption services for Indian children in tribal areas became law. This allowed tribal governments to receive funding to administer adoption and foster care programs directly.

And just this year--after many months of hearings, public comment, and bipartisan work between the House and Senate--the President signed into law the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act. This law is designed to reduce child sex trafficking as well as increase adoptions, including among the hardest-to-place children.

Together, these efforts have resulted in more children living in loving, adoptive families. I am grateful for the support I have received from my colleagues in these efforts during my time in Congress, and I am grateful that today we can recognize and honor the most important people in this process--the parents who adopt children, the children who have been adopted, and those children still searching for a loving family.

Children in foster care deserve a place to call home, not for a few months or years, but for good. We have already seen great progress in increasing adoptions in recent years, and I hope that we will continue to see progress in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer praise of and appreciation for my friend and former colleague Congressman Phil Crane. I had the honor of serving alongside Phil on the Ways and Means Committee for many years, allowing me to witness first hand just what an exceptional leader he was. Phil was a true conservative that strived for real solutions that worked for all Americans near and far.

Never shying away from the tough conversations, Phil was a leading reformer, pioneering significant efforts like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during his time as Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade. He was a staunch advocate of free-market policies and remained dedicated to simplifying the tax code. Phil was an influential member of the Committee and helped pave the way for meaningful reform that we are still fighting for today.

What's more, Phil was just as personable as he was outspoken, two qualities that forged friendships on both sides of the aisle. It is no secret that Phil was an undeniable presence in any room he entered, often remembered for his knack for storytelling and entertaining punch lines.

Phil was a one-of-a-kind force to be reckoned with, and I am honored to have known him, both personally and professionally. I am deeply saddened by his passing, but know his legacy will continue to impact Congress for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 727, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to make revisions to Federal law to improve the conditions necessary for economic growth and job creation, 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. 4.

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

Every day, honest, hardworking men and women are struggling. Far too many families haven't seen a pay raise in years, and many have lost hope and stopped looking for work entirely. H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act, will strengthen the economy by creating more jobs with higher take-home pay.

The House has already passed dozens of bipartisan solutions that will break down burdensome regulations and promote policies that allow businesses, large and small, to do what they do best: grow, innovate, and hire new workers.

The bill we have before us today, the Jobs for America Act, includes provisions that have strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

The research and development credit, which has been around for over 30 years, is a proven way to incentivize U.S. companies to innovate, create new products, and invest in the U.S.

The United States is the only country that allows important pieces of its Tax Code to expire on a regular basis. Businesses cannot grow and invest when the Tax Code is riddled with instability and uncertainty.

Making the R&D tax credit permanent also supports good-paying jobs. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 70 percent of research and development credit dollars are used to pay salaries of R&D workers.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that making the R&D credit permanent could increase the amount of research and development American companies undertake by up to 10 percent. That translates into more workers, higher wages, and increased innovation here in the United States.

This bill would also make permanent bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing at higher levels, allowing businesses, farmers, and ranchers to plan for the future and expand their businesses. The result of that is more jobs and higher wages for hardworking Americans. The Tax Foundation analysis found that permanent bonus depreciation would add $182 billion to the economy and increase wages by 1 percent, which creates 212,000 jobs.

Additionally, the bill would make permanent several expired tax provisions that benefit S corporations, a popular and important business structure that is used by millions of small businesses across the country.

This commonsense effort will give small businesses some much-needed relief from the burdens of the Tax Code, allowing them to invest and create new jobs.

This bill would also repeal some of the job-killing provisions of the health care law. The current 30-hour rule in the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate results in fewer jobs, reduced hours, and less opportunity for Americans.

By changing the definition of ``full-time work,'' ObamaCare places an unprecedented government regulation on workers. As a direct result, Americans across the country are having their hours cut at work and seeing smaller paychecks. At a time when the cost of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, lower paychecks are simply unacceptable.

Worst of all, the law hits lower-income Americans the hardest: 2.6 million workers with a median income of under $30,000 are at risk of losing jobs or hours; 89 percent of workers impacted by the rule don't have college degrees, 63 percent of which are women; and over half have a high school diploma or less.

So simply restoring the definition of ``full-time work'' to 40 hours will ensure the hardest-working Americans don't see their hours and wages cut as a result of the health care law.

This bill also ensures that small businesses that hire veterans returning from service overseas, who already have coverage through TRICARE or the VA, are not counted under the employer mandate.

And we repeal the onerous medical device tax, which is stifling medical innovation and hurting jobs. According to a survey by AdvaMed, the medical device tax has already resulted in 14,000 jobs lost in the industry and prevented 19,000 jobs from being created. This tax is contributing to lackluster job creation and hampering medical innovation.

We have strong bipartisan support for repeal of this tax, and for repealing it before even more detrimental harm is done to the workforce and medical community.

These are only a few among a long list of policies that will ultimately get Americans back to work and increase their quality of living. With better jobs, higher take-home pay, and a stronger economy, we can offer a brighter future for our youth and ease the everyday burdens felt by individuals nationwide.

It is time to create an America that works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

I would just say my friend from Maryland mentioned the Hire Our Heroes Act. That received virtually every Democrat vote and Republican vote on the floor but one. I certainly trust that the gentleman from Maryland has urged his two Democrat Senators in the Senate to take this bill up and pass it. It has been sitting in the Senate. It is blocked.

Certainly, we don't think those who fight for our country should be penalized when they come back to the United States in terms of getting their health care. This would certainly help tremendously, and it is something that has received large bipartisan support.

Every one of these provisions help create jobs, and certainly all of them have bipartisan support:

R&D, the research and development credit, 62 Democrat votes;

Section 179, extending, 53 Democrat votes;

The S corporation reform, 42 Democrat votes;

Bonus depreciation, 34 Democrat votes;

Repealing the 30-hour work week rule, 18 Democrat votes.

All of these have bipartisan support. They are all sitting in the Senate.

I heard the gentleman say maybe nothing is being done. Well, I would submit, my friends on the other side, other than voting for these bills, have done nothing to urge their colleagues who have the majority in the Senate to move something that will actually get people back to work and really bring the American Dream back in reach for millions of Americans, and it isn't now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

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

I would just say to my good friend from Wisconsin that that was part of the story. Many of these provisions that are bipartisan job-creating provisions have been extended time and time again without being ``offset,'' without being ``paid for.''

Look at the research and development tax credit. It has been extended 15 times over a 33-year period. It has never been paid for, but it is temporary, so it doesn't have the impact on innovation and research and development. That is what drives economies. That is what grows jobs.

Let's make this permanent. Let's not be the only nation in the world with a temporary tax policy. Then we wonder why we are not growing. Then we wonder why median incomes are flat or are declining. Then we wonder why people aren't achieving the American Dream.

Some of my friends have talked about the Senate. They didn't pay for this. What did they do? They extended some of these policies backwards a year and forward 1 year. How can anyone decide to hire a worker, to build a new building, to buy equipment, to start a new production line on 1 year of policy? This is about permanency, and it is about growing jobs.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from New York for those kind remarks and also for the work we have been able to do together over the years.

I remember the first legislation that we really worked together on was the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which was signed into law and has done a lot to move children from a temporary situation into a permanent loving home. And I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on that and other issues on the committee.

And as a former chairman of the committee, you have sat in the chair I am sitting in right now and know what a challenge it can be at times. But we have done some great work together.

I do happen to believe, though, that this legislation would create jobs. And it is not just my opinion. These provisions have been analyzed by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, and that indicates that these are all important provisions.

There has been some reference to the fact that we are close to an election. And I think clearly what most Americans are sick of is the dysfunction in Washington, the lack of ability for the two parties to get together, whether it is the Republicans and Democrats in the House or Democrat majorities in the Senate and Republican majorities in the House. And these are all bipartisan provisions. These are all tax provisions that have had significant Democrat support and votes. In the case of the Help Hire Our Heroes Act, I think every Democrat but one voted for it. Clearly these are things that will help create jobs.

And not only do Americans want to see the dysfunction in this body end, but they would like to see something that will help move the economy forward, that will help make their lives better.

If you look at polling--there is certainly a lot of polling out there right now--a lot of Americans know that things are not as good as they should be. I mean, it clearly comes across in the polls how dissatisfied they are. And there are lots of reasons for that, largely because median incomes are declining.

But what is really troubling is that Americans don't believe that things are going to get better. They are worried that, for the first time, their children or their brothers and sisters or their family members or they will not have the same opportunities that many of their parents or some of their friends have had. That is a very troubling situation.

This is legislation that will help move the ball forward on getting some economic growth, some job creation, a stronger economy. And with that stronger economy comes more jobs, comes higher wages, comes benefits so that people can pay for food and gas and put something aside for their retirement and for their kids' education.

These are all things that have been extended repeatedly with bipartisan support. As I mentioned, R&D, 30 years; section 179, expensing for small businesses, 10 years; some of the S Corp perform, 12 years--seven times since 2006.

So let's not have a temporary policy. Let's make this permanent. Let's get this country moving again. Let's restore that faith that people have had in this country and in the American Dream. Let's vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the West Midland Family Center in commemoration of the organization's 40th anniversary.

The West Midland Family Center (WMFC) first opened its doors in 1974. Originally an abandoned school, in 1931, WMFC founder Phyllis Breedlove and several other dedicated community members began the transformation

of what was to become a thriving community center. Founders had a vision for the community of Midland and its families where local citizens both young and old could come to learn, socialize, and participate in recreational activities.

It is this vision that has helped the West Midland Family Center continued to grow and expand throughout the years. By the generosity of multiple donors and foundations, the WMFC has added a 20,500 square foot building for classrooms, an outdoor pool, a playground, baseball diamonds, and a soccer field. These facilities have enriched the lives of thousands of children, adults, and families throughout the area. After the completion of its most recent expansion project, the WMFC now offers licensed childcare, family support, and afterschool programs. It is because of the guidance and support of countless volunteers and generous individuals that the Center continues to fulfill its mission today.

On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, it is with great honor that I commemorate this 40th anniversary of the West Midland Family Center and congratulate the organization for its many years of success within Midland County. I offer my deepest appreciation to the organization for all it has done and wish it continued success in the future.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the House passed their version of highway funding more than 2 weeks ago. The Senate acted last night. Because of their rush, there was actually a drafting error in the Senate version of the highway bill that either creates a $2 billion hole in the deficit or only funds the program through early October.

The House is not scheduled to be in session in October, so I would suggest to my friends that I think the best thing to do at this stage of the game is to accept this proposal and send the House bill back to the Senate, which does a couple of things: it certainly does not increase the deficit, as the Senate bill does, because of their mistake; but also, it gets us through May 31.

I have committed to the distinguished gentleman on the other side that the Ways and Means Committee will have a hearing on transportation funding in September when we return, but this gives us the time to look at the competing proposals to finance our infrastructure.

Those disagreements don't necessarily follow along partisan lines, as the previous speaker might have suggested. Not everybody agrees with the gas tax. Not everybody agrees with miles driven. Not everybody agrees with tolls. We are going to have to work through those alternatives and see what other proposals might be there to see where we can move forward.

I believe we can move forward in a bipartisan way on this issue because our infrastructure needs--I would agree with the previous speaker--are dire. They are important. We do need to move forward on a long-term funding bill, but if we don't get past October and if we don't do this today, August 1 is the day the contracts start ending. I think that would be completely irresponsible to allow that to begin to occur.

So let's have continuity in transportation projects and funding. Support the House bill. Send it back to the Senate. I am certain, given the mistake in their legislation, that will be accepted when it gets to the other side.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 680, I call up the bill (H.R. 4935) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make improvements to the child tax credit, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4935.

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

Mr. Speaker, if one thing has been consistent about the Obama administration, it is the failure of its economic policies. The President's economic policies make it harder for American families to get by every day. A record number of Americans are unable to work, and those who can find work are unable to secure full-time employment and instead are forced to accept only part-time jobs. This last quarter, the economy actually shrunk, and real wages--what Americans use to pay their mortgages and put their kids through school--are continuing to fall.

Worse yet, the cost of raising a family is only getting more expensive. The cost of clothing, food, child care, and schooling all continue to climb. According to the Department of Agriculture, since 1960, the cost of raising a child has increased by about 4.4 percent per year. But more recently, since 2004, the cost of children's clothing has gone up 89 percent; the cost of food since then 21 percent; and the cost of child care since 2004 107 percent. And since then, the child tax credit has remained unchanged.

Currently, our Tax Code helps ease some of this burden by providing a child tax credit. The credit, which has been around since the 1990s, now provides a $1,000 tax credit for each child. Unfortunately, that credit is not, and has not, been indexed for inflation. So while the cost of raising children continues to rise, the value of the child tax credit actually decreases.

Today's legislation, H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, will fix this problem by indexing the child tax credit to inflation. Making a commonsense change like this will ensure that families can make every dollar count. The current child tax credit also disadvantages those who file jointly compared to those who file as single individuals, creating what is known as a marriage penalty. This

bill would eliminate the marriage penalty embedded in the child tax credit, helping millions of families across the country.

The Family Research Council, which supports this bill, notes the importance of the child tax credit. They say:

This tax credit recognizes the important contribution of

the family and children to our country and starts to address

a problem with our Tax Code today, the marriage penalty. A

fair system of taxation does not penalize marriage and

family.

In addition, this bill contains strong antifraud provisions to ensure that the child tax credit goes to those who are truly deserving. The bill would require one parent to submit a Social Security number to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. According to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the number of filers for the additional child tax credit without a Social Security number grew from 62,000 filers--claiming $62 million in benefits--in 2000 to 2.3 million filers--claiming $4.2 billion in benefits--in 2010.

This is a commonsense provision that will help safeguard taxpayer dollars from fraud and put it in line with other refundable tax credits, like the earned income tax credit, which requires a Social Security number.

I hear too many stories about families struggling to afford basic necessities to care for their children. It is time we make some simple improvements to the child tax credit so it keeps up with the cost of raising children.

Improving the child tax credit would give moms and dads nationwide needed relief at a time when their budgets are tight and they are forced to make difficult choices about how to spend their money. This provision has earned bipartisan support for years, so let's vote ``yes'' on this opportunity to help American families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I feel compelled to correct the record here. The opponents make a false claim that somehow this bill eliminates benefits for millions of low-income families, and that is just wrong because the provision he is talking about is, frankly, the failure of the Obama administration to make that provision permanent. The provision he refers to does not expire until 2017. So what they are saying is, in a word, ``nonsense.''

At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that Ms. Jenkins control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us actually evens the playing field. If two people are single and have children at the income levels the previous speaker just mentioned, they get the credit. Under current law, if they are married, they don't get the credit.

So what this bill does is actually extends the benefit that goes to singles to married people. We do away with what is called the marriage penalty.

I don't know why the other side is opposed to people getting married, but what is really important about this credit is that it helps middle class families who have seen the credit erode over the years as the cost of food, clothing, housing, and schooling have gone up.