Providing for Consideration of H.R. 644, Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015, And Providing for Consideration of H.R. 636, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule
for consideration of two important pieces of tax legislation, H.R. 644
and H.R. 636.
The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of each bill
and provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means on each bill. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit on each
bill.
Mr. Speaker, most of my colleagues will remember the House's
consideration of H.R. 5771, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, in
December of last year. At that time, more than 50 individual tax
extenders were retroactively extended for the 2014 tax year, giving
businesses just 12 days to make complicated investment decisions. That
is no way to run a business.
Every time I am at home I hear from Oklahomans who either work for or
own small businesses. Without fail, they tell me that certainty is what
they need most from Washington. But too often Washington tells
Americans who operate and work in small businesses to ``trust us.'' We
promise to extend X or Y or Z tax provision indefinitely.
Unfortunately, those Americans can't take that to the bank. They
can't take our word that we will actually be able to deliver on the
promises made by Congress. The only thing they can rely on is the law.
If our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty into the
business environment that inhibits economic growth.
Even though we were able to retroactively extend those tax provisions
at the end of last year, they are already expired again. Instead of
continuing this cycle of uncertainty, it is important to put these tax
cuts in place early so that we don't end up in a situation like we did
last year.
I applaud Chairman Ryan for beginning early with provisions we all
agree on.
This rule will provide for consideration of permanent extension of
seven different tax provisions, provisions like section 179 expensing
and provisions like extending the deduction of IRA distributions to
charities. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have supported these
measures in the past, at least on a temporary basis. These are tax
provisions that we retroactively extended less than 2 months ago. Why
shouldn't we make these popular tax provisions permanent and do it now,
not retroactively late in the year?
Mr. Speaker, some have criticized this legislation because it ``isn't
paid for.'' I think Chairman Ryan said it best in the Rules Committee
on Tuesday. These are provisions of the Tax Code which we routinely
extend, year after year. They are effectively part of the existing Tax
Code. Permanently reauthorizing them reflects the policy this country
has maintained for years, under both Republican and Democratic
administrations and Congress. And doing so provides business with the
certainty that they desperately seek.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to note that just
as we have had to examine and pare back the discretionary side of the
budget, we need to examine and pare back the tax side of the budget.
There are over 200 tax expenditures--or spending on the ``tax side'' of
the ledger--that, if all are extended, will cost the Federal Government
more than $12 trillion over the next 10 years. Many of these provisions
are worthy, but many others should clearly be eliminated. The sheer
complexity of the Tax Code and associated regulations should push us
towards reforms so that our Tax Code works for us all in the 21st
century.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Ryan for beginning this
process in earnest and look forward to the consideration of additional
measures at the appropriate time.
I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My good friend from Massachusetts covered a lot of ground. I am not
going to try to deal with every single issue that he raised in my
response. But let me point out a couple of facts.
First, my friend is concerned about the deficit, and I appreciate
that. But this is a rather new, novel idea for Democrats. When the
Republican majority actually took power, the deficit was $1.4 trillion
a year. It is under $500 billion, which is still way too high. But this
majority has taken deficits extremely seriously and has lowered them
every year.
Second, my friend is worried about the cost of these tax cuts. That
is amazing to me because when they were in the majority, they routinely
extended these same tax credits without paying for them year after year
after year. So the sudden conversion to paying for tax cuts is new and
remarkable and probably worth some consideration.
Third, my friend is worried about this coming to the floor under a
closed rule. Frankly, tax legislation always comes to the floor under a
closed rule. It is pretty hard to make calculations otherwise. And that
was true with Democrats. It is true with Republicans. In this
particular case, I am informed that the minority was offered a chance
to submit an alternative proposal in the form of an amendment and chose
not to exercise that right. That is certainly their right. But if they
wanted an alternative, it could have been made in order. They chose not
to do that.
My friend raised the issue of Homeland Security. And on this,
frankly, we all are concerned. I think all Americans are worried. I
think where we disagree is, this House has acted. It has fully funded
and passed, and we are waiting on the Senate to do something.
Now, what is happening in the Senate? My friend alluded to the fact
that the Republicans were somehow responsible for this in the Senate.
As he well knows, the Republicans on three occasions have tried to
bring the bill that we passed in this Chamber to the floor for
consideration. The Democratic majority on all three occasions have kept
them from reaching the 60 votes that Senate rules require. Why? Because
they simply don't want to vote on anything.
We lived through 4 years of a Democratic majority that never brought
appropriations bills to the floor. They have already had more votes
under the Republican leadership in the other body in a matter of weeks
than they had all of last year. The Democratic majority in the Senate
didn't want a vote. The Democratic minority in the Senate evidently
does not want a vote either. And that has frustrated, frankly, both
sides and has kept legislation from coming to be. That is just simply
the reality of it.
We will wait to see what the Senate does. I would not expect them to
pass exactly what we pass over here. If they would simply allow
consideration for a bill, something would emerge. We would go to
conference. We would hammer out our differences, and we could move on
and fund the Department of Homeland Security.
But right now, this is a Senate issue. This is not a House issue. And
this is a question as to whether or not Democratic Senators will allow
their own body to function. That is in their hands, not in ours.
Frankly, I think that we will, unfortunately, see a lot of this in
the course of this session. We will send legislation over. Democrats
will try to keep it from being considered. I think they will be offered
the opportunity to consider that legislation over and over again. I
hope we don't see this pattern repeated time after time after time.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me return the focus for a moment at least to the matter at hand,
the legislation in front of us.
In response to my good friend from Massachusetts' concerns, remember,
the provisions in the tax legislation that we are considering have been
routinely enacted for years under both Democratic and Republican
Congresses and Democratic and Republican administrations.
They are so automatic that they are essentially part of the existing
Tax Code. Frankly, I predict once we get to the legislation, probably we
will have dozens of my friend's colleagues vote in favor of these. That
certainly was the case last year when similar provisions were brought
to the floor. There will be a lot of Democratic votes for the very
bills that are under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend. We do need a larger overhaul of
the entire tax system. He is totally correct at that. We made some
progress in that regard last year. I have no doubt that is exactly Mr.
Ryan's intent.
The reason to act on these measures and others like them now that
will be part of any final package is to simply give our fellow
Americans--businesses, workers, and people that want to make charitable
contributions--tax certainty early in the year, so they can go ahead
and make their actions knowing that this legislation is in place.
I am not convinced that none of these will be taken up by the other
side in the other Chamber. We will see. It is an unpredictable body,
but we will see.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my friend from New York, the
gentlewoman who is the ranking member on Appropriations. We have gotten
95 percent or so of government funded in large part due to her efforts
in conjunction with our colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and she was a big reason that that got done and got done in
a bipartisan manner.
We passed legislation across this floor with the gentlelady's help,
quite frankly. So all of us, myself included, owe you a debt in that
regard.
I do point out that the legislation on homeland--we have acted on
that. Now, my friends have said, Well, perhaps you should sue the
President. That is a good suggestion. About 30-odd States are doing
that right now.
He is in court because the action he took, in their view, is going to
cost them millions and millions of dollars. My personal view is perhaps
the House should somehow associate itself with that lawsuit. That is
not my decision to make, but I think that is an appropriate thing to
do.
Mr. Speaker, this was an action that was extraordinarily provocative
by the President. The President has a long history of using immigration
as a political issue rather than viewing it as a problem to be solved.
When he ran for office in 2008, he said he would have an immigration
bill on the floor within 100 days. We had a Democratic Senate and a
Democratic House, and we never saw the bill.
Then we didn't hear much about it for 2 years because he was busy
running for his own reelection. Then later, we heard a lot about it.
The President said he was going to act before the election. Then he
pulled back from doing that because he thought, Well, electorally, this
may not be advantageous.
But the minute afterwards when he thought it was to his political
advantage, he rolled it out again. So let's be real here about how
serious this effort is, but it will be challenged in court.
In terms of this body, again, it has passed appropriate legislation
on funding. It has done exactly as my friend from New York suggests,
use some of the tools that are legitimately at its disposal. That bill
now rests in the Senate.
If the Democratic minority in the Senate will allow it to be brought
up, I would not expect it would come back exactly as this House
fashioned it. They simply just need to do their job, send something
back, go to conference, and we can act on it. They have had lots of
time to do this. This was moved over there weeks ago--or a couple of
weeks ago.
The real problem here, Mr. Speaker, is the United States Senate,
because of the obstruction of the minority, is simply choosing not to
act. As soon as they act, I think we will probably move pretty
expeditiously, find some common ground, and address my friend's
concerns because I think they are very legitimate concerns and very
appropriate in terms of getting the Homeland Security bill done.
It is a good bill. The underlying bill that my friend was part of
negotiating was an excellent piece of bipartisan, bicameral compromise.
If the Senate would simply take up the bill in front of them, I think
we could get to the point we could have an agreement in rather short
order.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to hope that the Senate actually does
its job.
In the meantime, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, let's go back over a couple of points in the process where my
friends and I disagree.
Again, tax legislation normally comes here under a closed rule--
almost always. Democrats do it; Republicans do it.
The second point: I bet you that these provisions that we are
discussing here today will at some point this year, if not in this
legislation, almost certainly--as a matter of fact, certainly--be
extended and placed. All we are trying to do is move them early so
people know for sure it is going to happen and can plan and act
accordingly--and, frankly, dozens of my friends who will vote for this,
almost certainly, when it is actually considered on the floor. Nothing
unusual or extreme here. It is just simply a way to try to give a break
and a little advance notice to hardworking men and women that run small
businesses all over America.
On the Homeland Security issue, again, this is now in the Senate.
This body has acted. The Senate can literally do whatever it chooses to
do. We have had several suggestions of what Republican leaders can do
or what Democratic leaders can do.
Right now, the Democratic minority has chosen not to allow debate to
occur, not to act on the bill. If they simply act on the bill, I
suspect it will change. It will not look exactly like what we sent
over. All they need to do is actually legislate.
Now, this is the oldest book, evidently, in the minority party on the
other body's playbook, because, again, they did it when they were in
the majority. They just simply refuse to vote on things. We don't have
a broken House. We certainly have differences of opinion in the House,
but at least we act and actually move legislation across the floor and
put it in the other Chamber.
All we are asking of Democrats and Republicans alike in the other
Chamber is just do your job. Just send us something. We will go to
conference with you. We will hammer out a compromise, and we will go on
from there.
So this sort of deja vu all over again, I agree with that. We saw a
Democratic majority in the Senate blocking action on almost any
legislation, didn't pass a single appropriations bill last year. We now
see a Democratic minority trying to do, in the same body, essentially
the same thing.
So, hopefully, that lesson will be learned at some point over there
and they will just simply pick up legislation and begin to move it. If
they do, I think we can find a lot of common ground on a lot of
important issues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's go back to the beginning of this debate and make
sure that folks are very clear about what we are talking about. We are
talking about extending tax breaks that have routinely been extended
for years--that Democrats have extended, that Republicans have
extended--that, frankly, have not been paid for in the past, and that
will most certainly be part of any overall package that is enacted.
We are simply saying let's make sure people that have a benefit
bestowed in these areas know and can calculate and make business
decisions accordingly early in the year instead of scramble at the very
end. It simply makes sense, and it is simply fair to the American
taxpayer. That is important to remember.
Also, it is important to remember that the underlying legislation is
extremely bipartisan. The only part of this process that will be
partisan is the normal procedural part, where it is almost a sort of
shirts and skins game where Democrats all vote against a Republican
rule--we do exactly the same thing when we are in the minority--and our
people mostly vote for that rule, and I think probably certainly will
today; and then we will actually have a vote on the underlying
legislation, and many, many, many Democrats will join almost all
Republicans and vote for it.
So we think it is a good piece of legislation, and we also think it
is part of an incremental effort. We think Mr. Ryan will bring other
bills like this to the floor but also will, in time, make an overall
proposal on tax reform. Then we will see if our friends are really
serious about engaging in that debate. I am not questioning my friends
on this side of the aisle, but I do have some serious questions about
how serious the President is about tax reform. But, again, we will see.
Finally, we have had a great deal of discussion about Homeland
Security. And, again, just to be clear, this House has acted and fully
funded Homeland Security. The Homeland is done. It is funded through
the end of this month. We have got legislation that we have agreed on.
The President, in my view, provoked a crisis by acting unilaterally.
That view, by the way, is not just a narrow view by a few people. He is
in court defending his actions. Over 30 States are involved in a
lawsuit against him because of what he did. He knew it was going to be
controversial. He waited until after the elections to try and pick a
fight and I think probably try to cover up a little bit for how poorly
his side did in that particular election, anything to change the topic.
So now we are here.
The House has reacted to that, I think, in an appropriate form and
has sent it to the Senate. In the Senate, the Democratic minority has
simply refused to allow any debate. They can do that under the Senate
rules--and I respect that process--but let's be clear about who is
stopping the funding of Homeland Security. It is actually Democratic
Senators, who won't allow a measure to even come up for debate.
Now, if that measure came up for debate, what this House passed, I
would suspect that it would be changed in some ways. I do not expect
the Senate will do exactly what we suggest and think they should do.
They very seldom do that. If they will just do that, we will arrive at,
I think, a common agreement; we will go to conference; there will be
the normal give-and-take in politics; and we will reach an agreement.
My friend is concerned about the openness of the process. Again, I
point out that, when we deal with this kind of legislation, it is
normally a closed rule, and this has been pretty routine stuff. I
commit to my friend on this point: we will actually be much more open
in the appropriations process than my friends were when they were in
the majority. They almost never brought bills to the floor, and when
they did, they actually, for the first time, brought them under closed
rules. We will bring our bills to the floor under open rules, and that
is normal in the appropriations process. I think, if you actually look
at the record of the two majorities side by side, you will find that
there were a lot more amendments made available to Members of both
sides under a Republican majority than has been the case when my
friends were most recently in power.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, I want to point out that the
legislation in question is routine, and it should be enacted on a
bipartisan basis. We have the potential, if the Senate will act, to
actually put it on the President's desk. I don't think he would
actually veto it if we did, but, again, that would be his call.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source