Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, all of us have people in our lives, in these vocations, without whom none of this would be possible. Today, I want to say good luck and good-bye to one of those people.

Joyce Meyer, whom many of you know on my staff, is heading to the White House after being with me in this office for 18 years--and, yes, there are some gray hairs here. She and I go back even further than that.

Joyce and I started off as staffers together in the United States Senate. In many ways, we grew up together. We were just kids then, fresh out of college. She went by Joyce Yamat in those days. She was a good friend, but she was an equally good staffer, which is why she was, at that time, one of the first people I asked to come work with me when I, at 28 years old, got elected to the House of Representatives.

She has been at the heart of our team ever since--through every up and down, every adventure, every budget, every run for office. So much of what we have accomplished has been because of her--because of her leadership, because of her planning, because of her caring nature, because of her deep understanding of how this place works. She really is a person of the House.

Above all, she never, ever forgot and never let me forget whom I was working for: the people of the First District of Wisconsin. She is from Wisconsin. She is from Franklin, Wisconsin, which is a small town in southern Wisconsin, near Milwaukee. She is a Badger. Wisconsin is so much at the heart of who she is. She knows when the deer rut is. She knows that, on Sundays, there are only two things you do: Mass and Packers games in the fall. For all of her years here, she never forgot where she came from.

The truth is we have been through it all together. In fact, she has not just been a confidant or a friend--she is family. I often refer to her as my sister; and, to Joyce, family is at the center of everything. She treated all of our staff like family. She hosted wedding showers and baby showers. She made sure that everyone on our team put their own loved ones first. It is her own family that, through all of these years, has really been her source of inspiration: her parents; her sisters; her husband, Don, who, himself, was part of our team; and, of course, their beautiful and sweet daughter, Eva.

I know it is for a better life for Eva and her generation that Joyce has made serving government her life's work. She could have gone on and done something so much more rewarding to the pocketbook, but she is doing this because she believes in our country.

I will cut this short because, for anyone who knows Joyce, she does not like attention; she does not like the fuss. She is here to serve. She is the best of what we aspire to in public service. This woman has done so much to make us successful, has done so much to make me successful. I just want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, a person who has done so much to make this House successful, and she is Joyce Meyer.

Joyce, I wish you and your family the best of luck. Thank you for serving us so much. Joyce, you are always going to be considered a person of the House of Representatives. Thank you so much, Joyce.

And there is her mom.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

My colleagues, I rise to urge our colleagues in the House to support this resolution, and let me tell you why.

This provides Congress with the legislative tools that we need to repeal and replace ObamaCare. This is a critical first step toward delivering relief to Americans who are struggling under this law.

In the weeks ahead, several steps will be taken to provide relief. Some steps will be taken by this body. Some steps will be taken by the new administration, including, after he is confirmed as HHS Secretary, our own colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Our goal is a truly patient-centered system, which means more options to choose from, lower costs, and greater control over your coverage. And as we work to get there, we will make sure that there is a stable transition period so that people don't have the rug pulled out from under them; so that this will be a thoughtful, step-by-step process, and we welcome ideas from both sides of the aisle.

But today, I can't help but think back to, when we were debating this law in 2010, what was said at the time. I was a member of the minority then. I stood right here and pleaded with the majority not to do this. Don't take something so personal like your health care and subject it to a Big Government experiment. Don't do something so arrogant and so contrary to our founding principles.

But they pushed it all the way through, making all kinds of promises. People were promised that their premiums would go down, but, instead, they are skyrocketing. Look at the new premium increases announced just this year: Kansas, 42 percent increase in their premiums; Illinois, 43 percent; Pennsylvania, 53 percent; Nebraska, 51 percent; Alabama, 58 percent; Minnesota, 59 percent; Tennessee, 63 percent increase in premiums; Oklahoma, 69 percent increase this year in premiums; Arizona, 116 percent increase in their premiums.

People were promised: if you like your plan, you can keep it. Well, guess what? That was rated the lie of the year that year. People lost their plans.

People were promised all sorts of choices. You will have all these great menus of choices to choose from. A third of all the counties in America today, you get one choice. Five whole States, one insurer. If you have one choice, that is not a choice, that is a monopoly.

My colleagues, this experiment has failed. This law is collapsing while we speak. We have to step in before things get worse. This is nothing short of a rescue mission.

By taking this step today, we are doing what is right. We are stepping in and stopping the collapse from doing more harm to the working families of America, to bring the kind of relief and bring the kind of solutions that we need to really achieve the noble goal here.

Everyone in America should have access to affordable health care, including people with preexisting conditions. This is what we want to achieve, but that is not what is happening under ObamaCare. The law is collapsing. The insurers are pulling out. People can't afford it. The deductibles are so high it doesn't even feel like you have got insurance in the first place.

This is a rescue mission. This is a necessary move, and I urge all of our colleagues to do what is right because the time is urgent. On top of this, to my colleagues, we need to keep our promise that we made to the American people, and this helps us do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following memorandum regarding authorization of the Department of Homeland Security:

We, the chairs of the committees with jurisdiction over the

Department of Homeland Security or its components, are hereby

recording our agreement on the following principles for the

115th Congress:

1. The Department of Homeland Security (``the Department'')

and its components should be authorized on a regular basis to

ensure robust oversight and improve its operation.

2. Committees with jurisdiction over the Department and its

components will prioritize the authorization of the

Department and any unauthorized or expiring component in that

committee's authorization and oversight plan.

3. To the maximum extent practicable, the committees with

jurisdiction over unauthorized or expiring components of the

Department shall coordinate with the Committee on Homeland

Security to produce a comprehensive authorization bill for

the Department.

4. The Committee on Homeland Security shall coordinate with

the committees with jurisdiction over unauthorized or

expiring components of the Department in the development of

any comprehensive authorization bill for the Department.

5. The Committee on Homeland Security and the committees

with jurisdiction over components of the Department shall

jointly develop a process for the vetting and pre-clearing of

base text and amendments offered at subcommittee and full

committee markups of a DHS authorization bill in the

Committee on Homeland Security that fall within the

jurisdiction of a committee other than or in addition to the

Committee on Homeland Security.

6. The committees will expedite consideration of any

comprehensive authorization bill for the Department,

including timely resolution of any matters subject to a

sequential or additional referral.

7. To the extent that there are policy differences between

the committees regarding a provision of the comprehensive

authorization bill for the Department, the committees will

make best efforts to resolve any such dispute.

8. The Committee on Homeland Security Committee shall not

include any provision in a comprehensive authorization bill

that the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means has

determined to be a revenue provision or a provision affecting

revenue. If the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means

makes such a determination, nothing in this agreement shall

be construed to preclude that chair from exercising an

additional or sequential referral over the measure, or a

point of order under clause 5(a) of Rule XXI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives.

9. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as altering

any committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the

House of Representatives or the referral of any measure

thereunder.

10. Further, nothing in this memorandum precludes a further

agreement between the committees with regard to the

implementation of a process to ensure regular comprehensive

authorizations of the Department.

Signed,

Gregg Walden, Chair,

Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Devin Nunes, Chair,

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Jason Chaffetz, Chair,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Bill Shuster, Chair,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Michael T. McCaul, Chair,

Committee on Homeland Security.

Bob Goodlatte, Chair,

Committee on the Judiciary.

Lamar Smith, Chair,

Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Kevin Brady, Chair,

Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest.

A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany for ten days from Friday, May 26-Sunday, June 4, 2017. During this ten day exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat Members, Bundestag and Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies.

A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for ten days Saturday, April 29-Sunday May 7, 2017. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington.

The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States.

Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events.

Please note that the U.S. participants are expected to plan and implement the meetings and program for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States.

Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange.

Members of the House and Senate who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated.

Applications should be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HC-4, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you a quote:

``Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations--if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side.''

That was President Obama in 2011, and he was right.

I am stunned at what happened last month. This government--our government--abandoned our ally, Israel, when she needed us the most. Do not be fooled. This U.N. Security Council resolution was not about settlements, and it certainly was not about peace. It was about one thing and one thing only: Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state.

These types of one-sided efforts are designed to isolate and delegitimize Israel. They do not advance peace. They make it more elusive.

The cornerstone of our special relationship with Israel has always been right here in Congress. This institution, the heart of our democracy, has stood by the Jewish state through thick and thin. We were there for her when rockets rained down on Tel Aviv. We were there for her by passing historic legislation to combat the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. And we have been there for her by ensuring Israel has the tools to defend herself against those who seek her destruction.

In every one of those instances, Republicans and Democrats worked together to get these things done. That is because our historic alliance with Israel transcends party labels and partisan bickering. We see that bipartisanship right here on the House floor today in condemning this anti-Israel resolution.

I want to thank our Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, and all of our Members on both sides of the aisle for speaking out on this issue and for helping assemble this legislation. It sends a powerful message, and it turns a page.

It is time to repair the damage done by this misguided hit job at the U.N. It is time to rebuild our partnership with Israel and reaffirm our commitment to her security. It is time to show all of our allies that, regardless of the shameful events of last week, the United States remains a force for good.

I ask the whole House to support this resolution on behalf of the American people.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 101,

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. 644, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015.

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

Here is what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation today: we are trying to provide some more certainty.

Small businesses, they have to be able to plan for the future. Charities who are serving those in need, they also have to plan for the future. Families need to know whether there is going to be help for them at the local food bank. A lot of them look to the Tax Code, ironically, when planning for the future. They need a tax code that is easy to understand. But that is not the Tax Code that we have today. Whether we make the Tax Code more complicated--well, if we do that, we are

making their lives more unpredictable. That is a disservice to the people we are trying to serve.

What would really help would be to fix our broken tax system. And ultimately, our goal is to get to a tax code that is simpler, that is flatter, that is fairer for everybody. But we have still got work to do on that front, and life doesn't wait for Washington. In fact, Washington has a really bad habit of letting really important provisions expire, only to renew them retroactively. This has got to stop, and we are trying to fix this.

So this bill would make several of these provisions permanent. Number one, it would encourage charitable giving. Number two, it would help people contribute to charities from their IRAs, Individual Retirement Accounts, tax-free. Number three, it would let people deduct food bank donations from their taxes, and it would make other changes that make giving less expensive.

The quick to the short, Mr. Speaker, is these are provisions in the Code that we know--because it has been demonstrated--make a big difference.

It is so important that we have a vibrant civil society, that space that stands between ourselves and our government, which is where we live and we lead our lives, that it is vibrant and that that space is there to help people in need. Private charity is the glue that keeps our communities together.

In so many instances, private charities thrive on the good will and the donations and the generosity of other people, of businesses, and those businesses are affected by the Tax Code. What we have to do is provide certainty to those businesses who want to be generous and to those people who want to be generous, but to these charities who need some predictability, so they can plan their charitable endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, knowing that this is a bipartisan notion, knowing that the good work that is done by these groups is absolutely essential to healing people in our communities, to getting people on to lives of self-sufficiency, getting them to where they want to be in life, the least we can do is provide some certainty so more of this can happen.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we waited until the end of the year to extend these provisions retroactive to the first of the year but only for that year--oh, and by the way, last year, we waited until December 11 to tell all of these charities, these donors to charities, Okay. Now, here is the benefit for the past year, but guess what, it already expired the beginning of this year.

I know that it sounds kind of complicated. The point is this is no way to run a railroad. We need to provide families with certainty. We need to provide charities with certainty. That is what this bill does.

The part that we are going to have a debate here, Mr. Speaker, is nobody seems to have a problem when we do this 1 year at a time. Nobody seems to have a problem suggesting that we ``pay for it'' which is, in my opinion, another way of saying raise taxes on other people just to keep them the same when we do it 1 year at a time, but when we say, Let's make this thing permanent, this thing that we do once every year that everybody is fine with, instead of doing it once every year and sometimes retroactively, let's just do it permanently so people in families and businesses can plan, then all of a sudden, there is a big problem.

I personally don't understand that. It makes no sense because who we are serving is not Washington, who we are serving are the people who are trying to survive, are the people who are the beneficiaries of these charities or the charities who are doing the good works. That is why we are bringing this legislation to the floor. I am very excited to be a part of this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in this area, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), the distinguished member from the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say I truly, sincerely want to say this.

I very much respect the majority whip. We have had a great relationship over the years. I very much respect the gentleman. He is a class act legislator. I look forward to his support of our coming work from the committee if he wants to be part of tax reform.

I yield to the gentleman.

That was the longest magic minute I think I have seen.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to keep on my time.

Let me ask about the time allotment, by the way. Who is where.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, normally, I don't try to get into these baseline issues because it is kind of arcane budget issues. But here is where I think there is an inconsistency or a problem, and so people listening to this debate, there is a lot of confusion here.

If we were talking about a spending bill--let's just say the highway trust fund or TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--and it expired and we said, well, let's just extend this bill, this law, and the spending in it at its current levels for another 5, 6 years, we wouldn't have to ``pay'' for that. It wouldn't cost anything. It is already in the baseline. So if we were basically talking about a spending bill here, none of these kinds of criticisms would hold merit, would be usable.

So here we are talking about taxes, and so I think people are getting the impression from this debate that we are talking about a tax cut here, that we are talking about doing something to businesses or individuals and cutting their taxes. These are laws that are already on the books. Charities, that is what we are talking about here in this particular bill. All we are saying is don't raise their taxes. That is what we are saying here.

The choice before us is fairly obvious. Either we raise taxes on small businesses and individuals with respect to charitable giving, or we keep them where they are today and just go raise taxes on somebody else, or we acknowledge reality for what it is: they have these benefits, they have had these benefits, we all agree they ought to keep these benefits, and every year we renew these benefits.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

But we do it in such an awful way. We wait until the end of the year, then we do it retroactively or we do it 1 year. Nobody knows what is going on. Nobody can predict the Tax Code. Nobody can make decisions. As a result, these charities, these families, these small businesses suffer. That is what we are trying to fix here.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say: I wonder what the reaction would be if we chose to change the way that the spending baseline is treated, such that, if any program in its authorization expired, then it would expire on the baseline, and you would have to offset the spending for renewing any program. I would be curious to see what the reaction would be for that.

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to say to the gentlewoman, the minority leader, that I appreciate the tone and the temperament of her remarks. I thought that was well done.

I disagree with the basic premise on baseline. I won't get into the details. I talked about that a little bit before.

So I have some differences of opinion on the facts as she laid them out. I see it quite differently. But I thought that was a good tone and temperament that speaks well to the need for tax reform that is comprehensive. We believe that this helps move us in the right direction toward tax reform.

I won't go to the baseline issues again, only to say I think this is a positive step in the direction toward comprehensive tax reform, which clearly the gentlewoman--meaning both parties--agree is something that we have to tackle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).

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

I guess I will just try to summarize this debate in a couple of ways. What I am hearing is, to paraphrase: We like this policy. We think there is a need. We just want to raise taxes.

Let me put it a different way. If there was a popular spending measure that came here to the floor that extended the same policy from last year to this year because it was expiring, I don't think we would be hearing these concerns.

In fact, with Trade Adjustment Assistance, something that is very popular among this committee and the Members on the other side of the aisle, that is exactly what happened in December. The law expired. A straight extension of the law, of spending, continued. It didn't cost anything. Why? Because that is how the baseline treats spending.

I didn't hear all the hues and cries about deficits when we extended the Trade Adjustment Assistance law, that spending program. So we hear all of these cries about it.

Actually, let me take that back. We don't hear all these hues and cries about the deficits when we extend these tax provisions for 2 years. We don't hear these concerns when we extend current law tax provisions for 1 year. And we don't hear these concerns about deficits when we retroactively extend it from last year, going forward. We only hear these concerns when we are giving people the certainty.

So the real actual question before us is: Do we have to raise taxes on other hardworking Americans just so that we can keep them where they are for everybody else? Do we take money away from charities and people giving donations or raise taxes on other hardworking Americans? Or, just like Trade Adjustment Assistance was extended this last year, do we treat these important provisions the same, which is: they are in the Code; they have been in the Code; we want them in the Code; we agree they should be in the Code--let's keep them in the Code. That is the decision here.

So the newfound concern about deficits, I find, is really more of a thinly veiled attempt to raise taxes. I think what this baseline argument is really all about is: Do we just want to have a Tax Code that raises more and more and more taxes? Do we want to put ourselves in this position of just always raising taxes? Or do we want to give taxpayers a break? We are not even saying give them a break. We are saying, just don't raise their taxes; just keep them where they are.

So this isn't costing anything, in that we are not lowering someone's taxes. We are just keeping their taxes where they are, and we are preventing them from going up. So let's just make it really clear.

I guess the new definition of preventing tax increases from hitting hardworking Americans is now a big tax cut. That is basically what we are hearing here.

We don't buy that logic. We don't want to raise people's taxes. We want to reform the Tax Code. And we want these kinds of provisions that are very important, that we know will stay in the Tax Code even with tax reform. We want people to know that they are there so they can plan accordingly.

We are doing 179 tomorrow. We want farmers to be able to buy tractors before December 11 in the year. We want people to make decisions to donate food to charities. Maybe you are doing well in retirement and you have got a little bit of money out of your Individual Retirement Account and you would like to donate it to a charity, we think you ought to be able to do that. We want foundations to be able to make donations for the greater good in their communities. Those are the things we are getting here and, more importantly, we are giving them the certainty they need to make long-term plans so they can do more of it. That is why we should pass this bill. That is why I think everybody should vote for this bill. That is why I think Democrats and Republicans should vote for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My friend got a little animated.

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot there. I will just say this. Here is the question before us: Do we want to give businesses and charities certainty or not? If we would pass this motion to recommit and it went into law, then we will be right back here at the end of the year with the same old problem. We will be right back here. We will be right back here in the same old problem.

They are saying, Let's just do 1 year. Let's just say it takes a few months to pass through the Senate and all of this, then we are back here at the end of the year saying, Oh, my gosh, all these charities are going to be in jeopardy in January.

Let's get off this merry-go-round, Mr. Speaker. It is ridiculous. We all know this is good policy. We all know this is the right thing to do, and we all know that businesses and charities need the kind of certainty that we are providing, and most of us believe that not raising taxes is not the same as cutting taxes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2, I am submitting the Ways and Means Committee rules for the 114th Congress. The rules were adopted during our Committee's organizational meeting, which was held January 21, 2015.

A. General

Rule 1. Application of House Rules

The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on

Ways and Means and its subcommittees so far as applicable,

except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion

to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or

resolution, if printed copies are available, is a non-

debatable motion of high privilege in the Committee.

Each subcommittee of the Committee is part of the Committee

and is subject to the authority and direction of the

Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. Written

rules adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the

Rules of the House, shall be binding on each subcommittee of

the Committee.

The provisions of rule XI of the Rules of the House are

incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to

the extent applicable.

Rule 2. Meeting Date and Quorums

The regular meeting day of the Committee on Ways and Means

shall be on the second Wednesday of each month while the

House is in session. However, the Committee shall not meet on

the regularly scheduled meeting day if there is no business

to be considered.

A majority of the Committee constitutes a quorum for

business; provided however, that two Members shall constitute

a quorum at any regularly scheduled hearing called for the

purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence. In

establishing a quorum for purposes of a public hearing, every

effort shall be made to secure the presence of at least one

Member each from the majority and the minority.

The Chairman of the Committee may call and convene, as he

considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for

the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before

the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business.

The Committee shall meet pursuant to the call of the Chair.

Rule 3. Committee Budget

For each Congress, the Chairman, in consultation with the

Majority Members of the Committee, shall prepare a

preliminary budget. Such budget shall include necessary

amounts for staff personnel, travel, investigation, and other

expenses of the Committee. After consultation with the

Minority Members, the Chairman shall include an amount

budgeted by Minority Members for staff under their direction

and supervision.

Rule 4. Publication of Committee Documents

Any Committee or Subcommittee print, document, or similar

material prepared for public distribution shall either be

approved by the Committee or Subcommittee prior to

distribution and opportunity afforded for the inclusion of

supplemental, minority or additional views, or such document

shall prominently display near the top of its cover the

following: ``Majority [or Minority] Staff Report,'' as

appropriate.

The requirements of this rule shall apply only to the

publication of policy-oriented, analytical documents, and not

to the publication of public hearings, legislative documents,

documents which are administrative in nature or reports which

are required to be submitted to the Committee under public

law. The appropriate characterization of a document subject

to this rule shall be determined after consultation with the

Minority.

Rule 5. Official Travel

Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such

additional expense resolution as may have been approved, the

provisions of this rule shall govern official travel of

Committee Members and Committee staff. Official travel to be

reimbursed from funds set aside for the full Committee for

any Member or any Committee staff member shall be paid only

upon the prior authorization of the Chairman. Official travel

may be authorized by the Chairman for any Member and any

Committee staff member in connection with the attendance of

hearings conducted by the Committee, its Subcommittees, or

any other Committee or Subcommittee of the Congress on

matters relevant to the general jurisdiction of the

Committee, and meetings, conferences, facility inspections,

and investigations which involve activities or subject matter

relevant to the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before

such authorization is given, there shall be submitted to the

Chairman in writing the following:

(1) The purpose of the official travel;

(2) The dates during which the official travel is to be

made and the date or dates of the event for which the

official travel is being made;

(3) The location of the event for which the official travel

is to be made; and

(4) The names of the Members and Committee staff seeking

authorization.

In the case of official travel of Members and staff of a

Subcommittee to hearings, meetings, conferences, facility

inspections and investigations involving activities or

subject matter under the jurisdiction of such Subcommittee,

prior authorization must be obtained from the Subcommittee

Chairman and the full Committee Chairman. Such prior

authorization shall be given by the full Committee Chairman

only upon the representation by the applicable Subcommittee

Chairman in writing setting forth those items enumerated

above.

Within 60 days of the conclusion of any official travel

authorized under this rule, there shall be submitted to the

full Committee Chairman a written report covering the

information gained as a result of the hearing, meeting,

conference, facility inspection or investigation attended

pursuant to such official travel.

Rule 6. Availability of Committee Records and Publications

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking

Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of Rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee

for a determination on the written request of any Member of

the Committee. The Committee shall, to the maximum extent

feasible, make its publications available in electronic form.

Rule 7. Committee Website

The Chairman shall maintain an official Committee website

for the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and

oversight responsibilities, including communicating

information about the Committee's activities to Committee

members and other members of the House. The ranking minority

member may maintain a similar website for the same purpose,

including communicating information about the activities of

the minority to Committee members and other members of the

House.

B. Subcommittees

Rule 8. Subcommittee Ratios and Jurisdiction

All matters referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

involving revenue measures, except those revenue measures

referred to Subcommittees under paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6

shall be considered by the full Committee and not in

Subcommittee. There shall be six standing Subcommittees as

follows: a Subcommittee on Trade; a Subcommittee on

Oversight; a Subcommittee on Health; a Subcommittee on Social

Security; a Subcommittee on Human Resources; and a

Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. The ratio of

Republicans to Democrats on any Subcommittee of the Committee

shall be consistent with the ratio of Republicans to

Democrats on the full Committee.

1. The Subcommittee on Trade shall consist of 16 Members,

10 of whom shall be Republicans and 6 of whom shall be

Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Trade shall include

bills and matters referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

that relate to customs and customs administration including

tariff and import fee structure, classification, valuation of

and special rules applying to imports, and special tariff

provisions and procedures which relate to customs operation

affecting exports and imports; import trade matters,

including import impact, industry relief from injurious

imports, adjustment assistance and programs to encourage

competitive responses to imports, unfair import practices

including antidumping and countervailing duty provisions, and

import policy which relates to dependence on foreign sources

of supply; commodity agreements and reciprocal trade

agreements involving multilateral and bilateral trade

negotiations and implementation of agreements involving

tariff and non-tariff trade barriers to and distortions of

international trade; international rules, organizations and

institutional aspects of international trade agreements;

budget authorizations for the customs revenue functions of

the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. International

Trade Commission, and the U.S. Trade Representative; and

special trade-related problems involving market access,

competitive conditions of specific industries, export policy

and promotion, access to materials in short supply, bilateral

trade relations including trade with developing countries,

operations of multinational corporations, and trade with non-

market economies.

2. The Subcommittee on Oversight shall consist of 11

Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4 of whom shall

be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Oversight shall

include all matters within the scope of the full Committee's

jurisdiction but shall be limited to existing law. Said

oversight jurisdiction shall not be exclusive but shall be

concurrent with that of the other Subcommittees. With respect

to matters involving the Internal Revenue Code and other

revenue issues, said concurrent jurisdiction shall be shared

with the full Committee. Before undertaking any investigation

or hearing, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight

shall confer with the Chairman of the full Committee and the

Chairman of any other Subcommittee having jurisdiction.

3. The Subcommittee on Health shall consist of 16 Members,

10 of whom shall be Republicans and 6 of whom shall be

Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Health shall

include bills and matters referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

that relate to programs providing payments (from any source)

for health care, health delivery systems, or health research.

More specifically, the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on

Health shall include bills and matters that relate to the

health care programs of the Social Security Act (including

titles V, XI (Part B), XVIII, and XIX thereof) and,

concurrent with the full Committee, tax credit and deduction

provisions of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with health

insurance premiums and health care costs.

4. The Subcommittee on Social Security shall consist of 11

Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4 of whom shall

be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Social Security

shall include bills and matters referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means that relate to the Federal Old Age, Survivors'

and Disability Insurance System, the Railroad Retirement

System, and employment taxes and trust fund operations

relating to those systems. More specifically, the

jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Social Security shall

include bills and matters involving title II of the Social

Security Act and Chapter 22 of the Internal Revenue Code (the

Railroad Retirement Tax Act), as well as provisions in title

VII and title XI of the Act relating to procedure and

administration involving the Old Age, Survivors' and

Disability Insurance System.

5. The Subcommittee on Human Resources shall consist of 11

Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4 of whom shall

be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Human Resources

shall include bills and matters referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means that relate to the public assistance

provisions of the Social Security Act, including temporary

assistance for needy families, child care, child and family

services, child support, foster care, adoption, supplemental

security income, social services, eligibility of welfare

recipients for food stamps, and low-income energy assistance.

More specifically, the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on

Human Resources shall include bills and matters relating to

titles I, IV, VI, X, XIV, XVI, XVII, XX and related

provisions of titles VII and XI of the Social Security Act.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Human Resources

shall also include bills and matters referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means that relate to the Federal-State

system of unemployment compensation, and the financing

thereof, including the programs for extended and emergency

benefits. More specifically, the jurisdiction of the

Subcommittee on Human Resources shall also include all bills

and matters pertaining to the programs of unemployment

compensation under titles III, IX and XII of the Social

Security Act, Chapters 23 and 23A of the Internal Revenue

Code, and the Federal-State Extended Unemployment

Compensation Act of 1970, and provisions relating thereto.

6. The Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures shall

consist of 11 Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4

of whom shall be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue

Measures shall consist of those revenue measures that, from

time to time, shall be referred to it specifically by the

Chairman of the full Committee.

Rule 9. Ex-Officio Members of Subcommittees

The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority

Member may sit as ex-officio Members of all Subcommittees.

They may be counted for purposes of assisting in the

establishment of a quorum for a Subcommittee. However, their

absence shall not count against the establishment of a quorum

by the regular Members of the Subcommittee. Ex-officio

Members shall neither vote in the Subcommittee nor be taken

into consideration for the purposes of determining the ratio

of the Subcommittee.

Rule 10. Subcommittee Meetings

Insofar as practicable, meetings of the full Committee and

its Subcommittees shall not conflict. Subcommittee Chairmen

shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman

of the full Committee and other Subcommittee Chairmen with a

view towards avoiding, wherever possible, simultaneous

scheduling of full Committee and Subcommittee meetings or

hearings.

Rule 11. Reference of Legislation and Subcommittee Reports

Except for bills or measures retained by the Chairman of

the full Committee for full Committee consideration, every

bill or other measure referred to the Committee shall be

referred by the Chairman of the full Committee to the

appropriate Subcommittee in a timely manner. A Subcommittee

shall, within three legislative days of the referral,

acknowledge same to the full Committee.

After a measure has been pending in a Subcommittee for a

reasonable period of time, the Chairman of the full Committee

may make a request in writing to the Subcommittee that the

Subcommittee forthwith report the measure to the full

Committee with its recommendations. If within seven

legislative days after the Chairman's written request, the

Subcommittee has not so reported the measure, then there

shall be in order in the full Committee a motion to discharge

the Subcommittee from further consideration of the measure.

If such motion is approved by a majority vote of the full

Committee, the measure may thereafter be considered only by

the full Committee.

No measure reported by a Subcommittee shall be considered

by the full Committee unless it has been presented to all

Members of the full Committee at least two legislative days

prior to the full Committee's meeting, together with a

comparison with present law, a section-by-section analysis of

the proposed change, a section-by-section justification, and

a draft statement of the budget effects of the measure that

is consistent with the requirements for reported measures

under clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives.

Rule 12. Recommendation for Appointment of Conferees

Whenever in the legislative process it becomes necessary to

appoint conferees, the Chairman of the full Committee shall

recommend to the Speaker as conferees the names of those

Committee Members as the Chairman may designate. In making

recommendations of Minority Members as conferees, the

Chairman shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member of

the Committee.

C. Hearings

Rule 13. Witnesses

In order to assure the most productive use of the limited

time available to question hearing witnesses, a witness who

is scheduled to appear before the full Committee or a

Subcommittee shall file with the Clerk of the Committee at

least 48 hours in advance of his or her appearance a written

statement of their proposed testimony. In addition, all

witnesses shall comply with formatting requirements as

specified by the Committee and the Rules of the House.

Failure to comply with the 48-hour rule may result in a

witness being denied the opportunity to testify in person.

Failure to comply with the formatting requirements may result

in a witness' statement being rejected for inclusion in the

published hearing record. In addition to the requirements of

clause 2(g)(5) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House regarding

information required of public witnesses, a witness shall

limit his or her oral presentation to a summary of their

position and shall provide sufficient copies of their written

statement to the Clerk for distribution to Members, staff and

news media.

A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a

statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting

written comments in response to a published request for

comments by the Committee must include in their statement or

submission, a list of all clients, persons or organizations

on whose behalf the witness appears. Oral testimony and

statements for the record, or written comments in response to

a request for comments by the Committee, will be accepted

only from citizens of the United States or corporations or

associations organized under the laws of one of the 50 States

of the United States or the District of Columbia, unless

otherwise directed by the Chairman of the full Committee or

Subcommittee involved. Written statements from non-citizens

may be considered for acceptance in the record if transmitted

to the Committee in writing by Members of Congress.

Rule 14. Questioning of Witnesses

Committee Members may question witnesses only when

recognized by the Chairman for that purpose. All Members

shall be limited to five minutes on the initial round of

questioning. In questioning witnesses under the five minute

rule, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member shall be

recognized first, after which Members who are in attendance

at the beginning of a hearing will be recognized in the order

of their seniority on the Committee. Other Members shall be

recognized in the order of their appearance at the hearing.

In recognizing Members to question witnesses, the Chairman

may take into consideration the ratio of Majority Members to

Minority Members and the number of Majority and Minority

Members present and shall apportion the recognition for

questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage Members

of the majority.

Rule 15. Subpoena Power

The power to authorize and issue subpoenas is delegated to

the Chairman of the full Committee, as provided for under

clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives.

Rule 16. Records of Hearings

An accurate stenographic record shall be kept of all

testimony taken at a public hearing. The staff shall transmit

to a witness the transcript of his or her testimony for

correction and immediate return to the Committee offices.

Only changes in the interest of clarity, accuracy and

corrections in transcribing errors will be permitted. Changes

that substantially alter the actual testimony will not be

permitted. Members shall have the opportunity to correct

their own remarks before publication. The Chairman of the

full Committee may order the printing of a hearing without

the corrections of a witness or Member if he determines that

a reasonable time has been afforded to make corrections and

that further delay would impede the consideration of the

legislation or other measure that is the subject of the

hearing.

Rule 17. Broadcasting of Hearings

The provisions of clause 4(f) of Rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives are specifically made a part of

these rules by reference. In addition, the following policy

shall apply to media coverage of any meeting of the full

Committee or a Subcommittee:

(1) An appropriate area of the Committee's hearing room

will be designated for members of the media and their

equipment.

(2) No interviews will be allowed in the Committee room

while the Committee is in session. Individual interviews must

take place before the gavel falls for the convening of a

meeting or after the gavel falls for adjournment.

(3) Day-to-day notification of the next day's electronic

coverage shall be provided by the media to the Chairman of

the full Committee through an appropriate designee.

(4) Still photography during a Committee meeting will not

be permitted to disrupt the proceedings or block the vision

of Committee Members or witnesses.

(5) Further conditions may be specified by the Chairman.

D. Markups

Rule 18. Previous Question

The Chairman shall not recognize a Member for the purpose

of moving the previous question unless the Member has first

advised the Chair and the Committee that this is the purpose

for which recognition is being sought.

Rule 19. Postponement of Proceedings

The Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record

vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or

matter or adopting an amendment.

The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request

at any time. In exercising postponement authority the

Chairman shall take reasonable steps to notify Members on the

resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote.

When proceedings resume on a postponed question,

notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to

further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the

question was postponed.

Rule 20. Motion to go to Conference

The Chairman is authorized to offer a motion under clause 1

of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives

whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate.

Rule 21. Official Transcripts of Markups and Other Committee Meetings

An official stenographic transcript shall be kept

accurately reflecting all markups and other official meetings

of the full Committee and the Subcommittees, whether they be

open or closed to the public. This official transcript,

marked as ``uncorrected,'' shall be available for inspection

by the public (except for meetings closed pursuant to clause

2(g)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House), by Members of

the House, or by Members of the Committee together with their

staffs, during normal business hours in the full Committee or

Subcommittee office under such controls as the Chairman of

the full Committee deems necessary. Official transcripts

shall not be removed from the Committee or Subcommittee

office.

If, however, (1) in the drafting of a Committee or

Subcommittee decision, the Office of the House Legislative

Counsel or (2) in the preparation of a Committee report, the

Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation determines

(in consultation with appropriate majority and minority

committee staff) that it is necessary to review the official

transcript of a markup, such transcript may be released upon

the signature and to the custody of an appropriate committee

staff person. Such transcript shall be returned immediately

after its review in the drafting session.

The official transcript of a markup or Committee meeting

other than a public hearing shall not be published or

distributed to the public in any way except by a majority

vote of the Committee. Before any public release of the

uncorrected transcript, Members must be given a reasonable

opportunity to correct their remarks. In instances in which a

stenographic transcript is kept of a conference committee

proceeding, all of the requirements of this rule shall

likewise be observed.

Rule 22. Publication of Decisions and Legislative Language

A press release describing any tentative or final decision

made by the full Committee or a Subcommittee on legislation

under consideration shall be made available to each Member of

the Committee as soon as possible, but no later than the next

day. However, the legislative draft of any tentative or final

decision of the full Committee or a Subcommittee shall not be

publicly released until such draft is made available to each

Member of the Committee.

E. Staff

Rule 23. Supervision of Committee Staff

The staff of the Committee shall be under the general

supervision and direction of the Chairman of the full

Committee except as provided in clause 9 of Rule X of the

Rules of the House of Representatives concerning Committee

expenses and staff.

Pursuant to clause 6(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the Chairman of the full Committee, from

the funds made available for the appointment of Committee

staff pursuant to primary and additional expense resolutions,

shall ensure that each Subcommittee receives sufficient staff

to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the

Committee, and that the minority party is fairly treated in

the appointment of such staff.

Mr. Chair, I will vote in favor of H.R. 240 and the amendments thereto, because the bill meets our nation's security needs while also maintaining fiscal discipline.

H.R. 240 prioritizes funding for border security at a time when it is badly needed and also checks the President's executive overreach. This bill holds the President accountable for exceeding his constitutional authority and upholds the rule of law.

Though I am opposed to the President's executive actions on immigration, I am committed to fixing our broken immigration system. The Constitution authorizes the legislature, not the executive, to reform our immigration laws, and that is why I will continue working with my colleagues to secure our borders and fix our legal immigration system. Rather than trying to go around Congress, I would encourage the President to work with Congress to achieve real, lasting reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting this statement to honor the extraordinary life of a proud Wisconsinite, an American hero, and a friend: Sergeant William J. Rossman Jr. Sergeant Rossman recently passed away at the age of 91. He was a husband and father, a decorated military veteran, and an outstanding member of his community. And despite his storied military career and numerous accolades, those who were fortunate enough to meet Sergeant Rossman know he preferred to go by the much more modest title of ``Bill.''

Bill was your typical World War II Veteran. He was proud of his service, but never one to boast or brag of his accomplishments. He understood the true meaning of service: that you put others ahead yourself. And he practiced this throughout his entire life, whether it was with his family, his work, or his community. But it was nearly 71 years ago, during his time fighting in the war, that Bill performed an act of service that still leaves me in awe to this day.

On February 14, 1944, after bombing the marshalling yards at Verona, Italy, Bill's B-24 Liberator was hit by a fierce concentration of flak that knocked out two of its engines. Unable to keep up with the bomber formation, six Messerschmitt ME-109s attacked the bomber, knocking out a third engine and starting a fire. The pilot, Lt. Robert Gernand, rang the alarm bell and ordered the crew to bail out of the aircraft. The bomber was in flames and falling in a tight spiral, quickly losing altitude. Under these dire circumstances, it would have made sense for Bill to follow the orders of Lt. Gernand and immediately do what was necessary to protect his own life. But that's not

what happened. Bill noticed that his crew member Sgt. Louis Vasquez, the aircraft's radioman, was wounded and immobile. With complete disregard for his own life, Bill attended to Vasquez, removing his helmet and flak suit and securing his parachute before finally pushing him out of the camera hatch. Finally, Bill, who was also severely wounded, secured his out parachute and exited the aircraft.

Bill's story does not end there. After touching down, he was discovered by Italian resistance fighters who gave him medical care and transferred him to a monastery, where he posed as a wounded French civilian and remained silent to avoid being discovered by the Germans. But after ten days, Bill was identified as an American and taken away by German forces. He spent the next 15 months in various POW camps in different countries. Throughout his imprisonment, he was starved, his life was threatened, and received no medical attention for his wounds. He was marched from camp to camp, and faced numerous near-death experiences. Finally, in April 1945, Bill and his fellow prisoners in Bavaria were liberated by the Thirteenth Armored Division, led by a name familiar to all Americans: General George Patton.

Amazingly, Bill continued his career in the military after returning home to America. He remained in the Air Force and married his wife, Alice, in 1947 while attending Officer Candidate School. In 1949, he was discharged from the service after six years with the Army Air Corps and the U.S. Air Force. He returned to Racine, Wisconsin, where he and Alice raised their daughter, Pamela, and Bill worked in the private sector for 36 years until his retirement in 1986. In 2002, I had the privilege of presenting Bill with the Distinguished Flying Cross, America's oldest military aviation award. In addition to this and many other honors, Bill was also a recipient of a POW medal and the Purple Heart.

Bill was a true American patriot. I am submitting this statement for the record to honor his incredible life and help ensure that his story is remembered for years to come. His legacy sets a standard of what it truly means to serve. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Alice, his daughter Pamela, and his son-in-law Michael. He will be greatly missed by his friends, his family, the state of Wisconsin, and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 33) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 33, currently under consideration.

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

I am here bringing forward Mr. Barletta's bill, and it is really simple. One of the cornerstones of our civil society--one of the great pieces of the American story--is volunteerism but, in particular, volunteerism among our first responders.

So many of us represent congressional districts that thrive on and exist on and preserve their safety on volunteer firefighters and first responders. Unfortunately, in the Affordable Care Act, there is a huge glitch. Under ObamaCare, volunteer firefighters and first responders are counted in many ways as if they were full-time equivalent employees, and therefore, volunteer fire departments are getting hit with enormous fines, mandates, and taxes.

It shouldn't be that way. It is causing a huge paperwork burden, not to mention a fiscal drain on the budgets of these small fire departments and emergency responding agencies in our communities and in rural areas all across America. This legislation fixes this.

I want to thank Congressman Barletta for introducing this because he clearly understands as a former mayor and as someone who represents Pennsylvania, which I know has a lot of volunteer firefighters just like we do in rural Wisconsin, that these are the lifeblood of our communities.

The last thing that they need to do when they are so concerned about preserving public safety and health is to worry about all of these ObamaCare mandates. Mr. Barletta's bill preserves the freedom to operate for our 780,000 public service volunteer firefighters. It removes this mandate and exempts them from this onerous mandate, so they can continue providing the public service that they have been right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta), the author of this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I

appreciate the kind words from the gentleman from Connecticut.

This is bipartisan. It is wonderful when we can work together and find common ground to get things done and find common ground where the completion of a pass is the completion of a pass, it is a rule.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Reclaiming my time, all in good jest.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time other than to close.

May I inquire of the gentleman from Connecticut?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just a few moments to say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), I appreciate him for his comity, for the bipartisan nature of this.

I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), first, they have to get through some tough luck--Andrew Luck, in particular-- in order to make it to where they want to go.

With that, for the purpose of closing on his own bill, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 19, I call up the bill (H.R. 30) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours, 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. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first firm step on the ladder of opportunity is a full-time job, and for too many Americans, this first step is moving out of reach thanks to ObamaCare. Right now, the law says that every large employer must give health insurance to its full-time employees. Here is the catch: it defines full time as 30 hours or more.

So guess what is happening--businesses are cutting workers' hours. They are keeping them below 30 hours to avoid the penalty. It is commonly known as the ObamaCare 29ers. And what is more, community colleges are laying off their professors and they are cutting their hours, so they have to cut their class offerings as well. In other words, the law is making it much harder to learn new skills and to find a better paying job. I can't think of a worse way to support working families: taking opportunities away from them, cutting paychecks, cutting hours.

Who are the people who are most at risk with this 30-hour rule? Well, by and large, it is young people in low-paying jobs--probably their first jobs. One study said that over half of them have, at most, a high school degree.

These are the people who are just getting started in life, who need those extra hours, who want to move up the ladder of economic opportunity. ObamaCare is holding these people down. That is why we are here today.

This bill changes the law's definition of full time to 40 hours a week. That is the way most people define full time. That is the way it has been done for decades in other parts of law. That way, businesses will no longer fear letting their employees work a full workweek. That way, people can get the experience they need. That way, we can get people working again and build a healthy economy.

Mr. Speaker, it is really clear. There are so many parts of this law that are holding back the country, that are raising health care costs, that are putting us further behind and deeper in the hole on fiscal responsibility. But this rule is costing people jobs; this rule is knocking people out of full-time work. It is no wonder that CBO is telling us the equivalent of over 2 million people will not work because of this law.

I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to say that the gentleman's criticism basically makes our point. The average workweek is 34.6 hours. So if you go to 30 hours, you are cutting people's hours. If you go to 39, you are not. We don't want to cut people's hours. We don't want people to work less. We want people to work more.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me inquire about the distribution of time, the time remaining.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to the time distributions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Speaker, I have 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman has 11 minutes remaining. Is that where we are right now?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a new member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. I have been listening to this debate. I think what is happening here is that it is the fantasy land of ObamaCare.

The proponents of the ObamaCare law, on the other side of the aisle, speaker after speaker are coming to the well with this fantasy of what ObamaCare ought to be, what they think it is. It is this mythical idea in their minds, which was all the rhetoric that was used to sell the law in the first place on all these good things it is going to do. The problem is: reality. Look at what is actually happening in the real world.

This is the problem with ObamaCare, when the myth of ObamaCare clashes with the reality of what is going on in America. People are losing their hours. People are getting jobs cut back. It is not big corporations; it is small businesses.

Look, I talked to a retailer in the First Congressional District of Wisconsin who was telling me--tears coming down her face--of how she had to cut back hours, about how she had to take all of her full-time employees at her retail business and knock them down to part time. Why? Because her competitors are doing the same thing.

This is happening throughout America. The last speaker basically proved the point by saying, if you go to 40, they will go down to 39. Well, 39 is a lot better than 29. And guess what? The majority of Americans are at 34 hours. Going to 40 puts them above that; going to 30 puts them below that, putting people out of work.

The fantasy land of ObamaCare, the fatal conceit of the central planning behind this law is that, in reality, it just doesn't work. Let's give people relief.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for the closing on his legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say. Paychecks. Guess what. It is happening across America today. Even before the employer mandate kicked in, businesses across America are cutting workers' hours down to 29. That doesn't help a paycheck.

So think about what is going on in America today and look at what has already been happening, and this is before this costly employer mandate even took place. It is happening in every congressional district. We heard about cafeteria workers, firefighters, teachers, community colleges, retailers, restaurateurs, all of them being forced to cut the hours of their employees down to part-time work. If you want to help a person's paycheck, give them the opportunity to have a full-time job. That is what this does.

It is really kind of amazing. I hear a lot of talk about the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation and the costs and the costs of this bill. Here is the bulk of the costs. What we are saying is don't impose these costly, punitive mandate taxes on hardworking taxpayers.

So by removing these mandate taxes, yes, I suppose it costs the government some money. It puts that money back into the paychecks and back into the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers who give us the money in the first place. It says to businesses: Go ahead and hire, add hours, and increase wages. That is the so-called cost of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we want more people working. We want the people who are in 30- to 40-hour jobs, hourly wages, high school educations, just getting started in life, we want them to keep climbing that ladder of life. This law puts a huge roadblock in front of people working. What this motion to recommit does is it is just designed to kill the bill.

With respect to the veterans issue, we solved that yesterday with our Hire More Heroes Act, which we passed in a big, bipartisan vote. So make no mistake. This recommit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to simply kill this bill.

Look, if you want to impose this mandate, if you want to knock people into part-time work, and if you love ObamaCare, then vote against the bill. But if you want more jobs, if you want more hours, if you want more people working, if you want more people having better opportunities, and if you want to give some relief on these mandate taxes, then vote for this bill.

This bill is the right way to go. And I have just got to tell you that, at the end of the day, we haven't even seen the full force of this punitive move because the employer mandate is just beginning to kick in. All of these things have happened in anticipation of this new mandate. We haven't even seen the worst of it yet. That is why we should pass this now and prevent this from happening and getting worse before this mandate kicks in.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken into account for purposes of determining the employers to which the employer mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within to which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 22, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, only a law as bad as ObamaCare would penalize a small business for hiring a veteran.

Madam Speaker, right now, the law says if you have at least 50 full- time employees, you must give all of them health insurance even if they are already getting health insurance elsewhere. In fact, over 9 million veterans are already getting health care through the VA, but they are not exempt. Every employer has to cover them anyway.

So here is what is happening. Businesses have an incentive to turn away veterans, not because they don't want to hire them, but because it is too expensive to hire them. This is serving as a penalty to hiring our Nation's veterans.

Madam Speaker, nobody works harder than our men and women that serve us in our military. They fought for our country, and they sacrificed. The least we can do is remove this penalty from putting a veteran on your payroll. The way I see it is we owe it to them. We should make it as easy as possible for them to find a job. That is what we are trying to do with this legislation.

What this bill says is that if you are already getting health care through TRICARE or the VA, then you are exempt from the mandate. Anyone can hire you without any fear of this penalty. I think we can all agree that more veterans on the payroll means a healthier economy for all of us.

Now, I think all families need relief from ObamaCare. All of us need relief from this law that we think is going to collapse under its own weight, but I consider this bill as an installment plan, as one piece of our ongoing efforts to fully repeal and replace this law.

Madam Speaker, we have an enormous generation of talented men and women who have served this country so honorably overseas in the recent years. The least we can do is make it easier for an employer to hire them and remove this penalty that puts a price tag on hiring the bravest among us.

Most of all, I want to thank Congressman Rodney Davis for bringing this issue to our attention. I want to thank Congressman Davis for introducing this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Topeka, Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the author of this legislation.

We have four additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

This basically is how it is supposed to work. A constituent in central Illinois, Brad Lavite, approaches his Congressman, Congressman Davis, and says there is a problem with the law affecting our Nation's veterans. So his Congressman goes to work, does the research, and then writes legislation to fix the law, and here we are. This is how it is supposed to work. This is how the Founders intended the Congress to work.

Here is what we are fixing. We are saying there will not be a penalty based on the health care law affixed to our veterans. We have got a new, great generation. We have all read the books and heard the stories, and it is true, of the Greatest Generation, the World War II generation. We now have a new great generation, the men and women since 9/11 who have bravely fought for this country and sacrificed for us are a generation of people who have developed the kinds of leadership skills, the kinds of courage, the experiences, the sacrifices their families made, and they are bringing that home to serve our country even further. They are bringing this great experience and talent and skills to our economy. We need to remove every conceivable barrier that exists that prevents them from sharing these talents with us.

This bill takes us a big step in the right direction to removing this barrier that disincentivizes a small business from hiring a veteran and instead turns it into an incentive so we can hire our heroes, our veterans.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time only to say that our constituents have been very clear to all of us on both sides of the aisle that they want to see us come together to find

common ground to make a positive difference in the lives of Americans, particularly our veterans, and this bipartisan effort reflects that.

I am very proud to be here with Congressman Davis, with Congressman Levin, to be doing this.

With that, I simply ask all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair.

The reason I came down here is to speak in favor of this legislation, to suggest that I wish we could have gotten where we were with the bipartisan negotiations that occurred before White House involvement. This is obviously something that is necessary that has to pass.

But here is the reason that I came down. I came down to say thank you to Dave Camp for being an absolutely stellar chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. This is a man who spent 24 years in this room making a difference in the lives of the people from Michigan and the lives of the 300 million Americans in this country. This country is so much better off because of the dedicated service of this man, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He came in at a young age, reforming a lot of different programs, but one of the biggest marks he made in his early days in Congress is welfare reform.

Dave Camp was one of the principal architects of that 1996 welfare reform, which did so much to move people from welfare to work, to reduce child poverty, to help single moms get back to work, to get people lives of dignity. And he went from there to trade, to tax reform, to health care reform, on and on and on.

I only hope that I can do somewhat of the job that he has done in being a stellar steward of this magnificent committee and being a fantastic chairman. Mr. Speaker, I simply wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, this past week, we lost one of our former colleagues, Bill Frenzel. Bill served in the House for 20 years, during which he gained a vast amount of knowledge and an even greater amount of respect. He was a leading voice for fiscal responsibility, serving as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. He also served on the House Ways and Means Committee, specifically the Subcommittee on Trade. He took on the work with relish, serving as a congressional representative to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva for 15 years. He was so knowledgeable on the topic that he was indispensable--so much so that after he left Congress, three successive presidents sought his counsel.

Bill's hard work won him respect in the House and around the world. After he retired from the House, he kept active on fiscal issues, serving as co-chair of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. In 2000, the emperor of Japan awarded him the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star. And just this year, Bill received the Mexican Order of the Aztec Eagle. I think other countries saw in Bill the same thing we did--a man who loved his country and wanted it to be a force for good in the world. He understood that trade wasn't a form of competition so much as a form of collaboration--of countries working together to build a better life. He understood that the free world was stronger when we banded together, and he wanted to strengthen those bonds.

We'll remember his know-how. We'll remember his wit. (He once called gridlock the best thing since indoor plumbing.) But most of all, we'll remember his character. He served his country in both war and peace. He spent his life in public service. He was a Midwesterner, a man of the House, a voice for fiscal responsibility--an American through and through.