with other companies in a very precise way. they have all of the needs and companies not only in vermont, but in the area then they went out and they looked at all of the total unemployment in the state they tried to match the skills and started putting people back together. when you are a state like mine you are the only state by the way before you pick on little delaware, five of you all are smaller than we are. [laughter] we are looking to use, the

governors. to identify those businesses that in fact have needs and literally physically bring them in. then there is $100 million available. the business of the employers why don't they go and train them? either member when dupont bought conoco. dupont needed a number of people especially that didn't have on site. they had some 8,000 additional employees. a lot of these outfits are not so sure. they are not so sure that the workforce is going to materialize. they are not so sure the people they are training are able to connect because of the new technologies in a particular

organizational structure like the community college. so this is about marrying them up in a lot of you have done that very well already. as a matter of fact, the governor in south carolina has created a central office. a central office within the community college system. they have the apprenticeship programs and they are the greatest guarantee. they are able to raise a family while they are learning the skill 89% if memory serves me correctly and i've asked the staff to correct me, ed 9% result in a programming job in the studies we've done. they had that job a year later

but it's the surest way and in the job average $60,000 a year in those jobs, those companies where they are prepared to have an apprentice. they aren't looking for an apprentice for the 22,000-dollar a year job. and so it is the best bang for the buck but it's about bringing together we can give you a lot of detail on this program and it's going to be you all that make it work, not us. if it works and suits the need. you haven't smiled the whole time. [laughter] i'm getting worried. [laughter] anyway. it's going to work like all

these programs you make them work and we will give you the detail. also i think what's going to help and it's presumptuous of me to say this because we are not doing it, i'm just -- luck the federal government doesn't do a lot of things really well and there are things they can do better in the states, but i'm being serious. buabout what we can do is we can identify best practices because we can grab and identify those things in all the states in the entire country. so he can be a clearing house in a way and i think what you're going to find remarkable is these medium-sized tech firms who are coming up because there is a market. there's a market outhere is a mo

help people get employed. they can make money and it is getting down to a granular capability that you will be able to have in your department of labor or not. this is what they showed me. there are 42 warehouse jobs in north philadelphia at the xyz plant. here's the phone number. here's the requirement. here's the application. if you can't go to philadelphia, do you want to stay in the state of delaware there are you are qualified based on the criteria that you have met as a warehouse operator you qualify for truck drivers. now i know that federal express needs to people. here they are. this is what they make. here's the outfit you can go get help in the training program

etc.. it's going to change but it's not coming from us. it's coming from the free enterprise system because there is an opportunity here and i think you will be able to benefit. thanks to you and the president for emphasizing the workforce initiative. every time we talk to a ceo, the top priority while they like tax incentives and the rate infrastructure that priority is a qualified skilled workforce and we are all working very hard to provide them with that. in kentucky we have developed a program called the skills initiative program that is an apprenticeship program modeled after the german model of dual education. having the child getting an education and at the same time

putting those skills to work in the workplace and earning money while they are doing it. how can the work that you are doing come together with things like that that we are doing in our states? >> some of the programs we are talking about you but qualify for funding to do that. i have been meeting with -- germany probably has the most successful apprenticeship program in the world and they do it extremely well so we have some folks over there. we've been dealing with them here and part of it as you point out is some of it starts in the schools and it starts even in your high schools you have programs where they are can be apprenticeship programs in the high schools. there is a different -- remember even those of you that are only in your 40s back when you were

in high school almost every high school in america had a shop program, had a program where people could figure out whether you took it or not if you had the need or capacity and there's an awful lot of the workforce out there today that is graduating, not workforce but an awful lot of folks graduating even if they do graduate that don't have the capacity to go on to college or the four year college or a community college that would make a hell of an electrician or auto mechanic, etc. but they never know if they've had a facility for that because they never work with their hands. the same works with new technologies if you have classes that have for example teaching photovoltaic technology. somebody thinks.

what you are changing into some of you are doing it in your high schools you are changing your high school curriculum and your curriculum so that some of the courses that you take in high school already not qualify you for it with me to the requirement in the college system so you fast-track a lot of these people. there are a number of programs in the department of education and anybody that is interested, contact me. you can contact me directly for real. contact me directly and i will give you and agenda of all of the programs that potentially could be useful for you in the kind of stuff that you were doing so well in kentucky because it's a -- you know, we start off there's almost a sense that since we don't have that capability our population is not

capable. they are capable they just have not been exposed because a lot of this is not rocket science. you are doing something in the mississippi. it's just about letting people know, giving them a sense of what they think they are capable of and that requires exposure but i will get anybody that wants this specific agenda programs that can be beneficial. >> one last question from the governor. >> by the way i failed to admit we are putting forward a program for $450 million for the apprenticeship programs so if you put them together you get a model and view gave any indication that it is worked, but the formula works there's about a half a billion dollars there to be of assistance.

>> [inaudible] >> good. i hope having a democratic vice president doesn't hurt your reputation. >> not at all mr. vice president. i'm going to hand over to the rehabilitation your shout out because i know that's made their day and that is a wonderful program that has made a difference in people's lives and in nevada. my question you've touched upon and it's similar to the governors, i would like to know how we can work with you in terms of improving and aligning the k-12 education and higher education so that our kids and students have pathways to a career opportunity and that high school graduation isn't adjusted the end. and that they have more opportunity as the moveon. >> well, first of all there is again i am preaching to the choir here some of you forgot

more about this than i know that this first one i know about. a lot of it has to do with public attitude. forget the dollars into programs. let me give you one concrete example. rochester new york. rochester new york is the home were used to be the home of kodak. i think that they had 38 or 39,000 employees. no minimum wage job, it's all good jobs and varying degrees kind of like dupont in my home state. and they also have a number of other would have become very high-tech operations relating to the citation and implements for being able to, like example the

mars rover is made by a small outfit in rochester. but, you know, kodak doesn't make film any more and they are not a thing of the past, but i think if i'm not mistaken -- there's closer to 10,000 employees today. and it is a load out of town. it was a very prosperous middle-class town. with a local college did in monrovia that he college it went out. it surveyed every business the three counties that had anything to do with topics. and it turned out what you would expect when kodak laid people off it had a terrible impact on

the economy, very positive impact on the instincts out of their. they found out that there are over 200 optic companies ranging from ten people. when they went out and surveyed with money from the state as a community college surveyed every one and said what do you need? do you need employees and it turned out they all needed employees. they actually have been designed programs that are as little as 12 weeks to two years there are over 6,000 people now with jobs and the average salary. they have the apprenticeships for the folks getting out of

high school. so they go to the high school and the community college and they talk about these programs and the jobs available for people that are not going on to four years of college or even two years of college. but they found it a phenomenal thing. they said i don't want my kids having any of those jobs. i don't want my kids doing that. and these were not for phd employees in the research department. these are ordinary people that have nothing to do with it because they said this is something where my kids can end up working with his hands and i know where that's gone in the past. my uncle did such and such and i don't want my kid working in that environment.

they have the meetings and say let me explain. let me explain what's going on here. why this is a pathway. the kid may start off at 30,000 or $28,000 a year but in this route, you can get the point you can make 60, 70 to $80,000 by having to go back to the on-the-job training and it begins to change the attitude. so the first -- i know it sounds silly but the first thing is convincing ordinary americans that it's a good thing for the kids to do this kind of stuff. i think that you will find a those of you that already tried it in your schools as you change the curriculum i guess is some of you that put in computer programming you say i don't want my kids to be a computer programmer i don't want them doing that. they say well it's $86,000 a year and guess what you may end up running. i didn't know that many of them

lost their jobs. the jobs we are talking about now don't seem like they are real and when you start to change the curriculum they think that you are dumbing down what their kid occurred or should be. does that make sense? i know that's been your experience. it's been mine in the place i've gone. number two, i think you are going to have to deal with that as you move. second, there is a program and i will get -- i hope you think he's responsive to you. i know sometimes he drives you crazy like i do. but i think one of the best we have on the team is on the duncan, to put together to get the right people in the department of education that have actual programs that marriott the interest of the community college as the high school community college and the

four year college. look what some of you have already done in the states. 20 years ago if he went to where my wife is a professor at the delaware tech community college in delaware if you have your credits applied in the university of delaware because the community college was thought to be a vehicle that was not quite there and it was more like going to auto mechanic school afterwards in delaware. the curriculum offered and the training and professionalism. now there's a pathwa there is au go to the university of arizona you get to go to the university

of utah state or whatever. you get a pathway so that you also. you've already trespass on it too much. let me put it this way, 15 years from now. colleges are not going to be four years won't. while school is going to be two years and medical school is going to be shorter. the specialists will be more. you will have a whole lot. why? because of the cost. and there is no reason why you can't graduate from college in three years in the same capacity

based on a course of study you take and how long you go within that timeframe reducing the cost. so one of the incentives we are putting out to all of the universities is to incentivize them to come up with novel ways in which to deliver the same content and education in a short amount of time. the more expensive university, think about it. you think i'm joking i'm not joking. i hope you all did not make the commitment to your children that i made to mine which was whatever college you get into i hope you get there. what a mistake that was. there is a reason why that had to do with three children going to the undergraduate schools and schools that were not as good as mine. they went to yale and i went to

delaware. but all kidding aside there is a whole mechanism we have and like we did in the top deal there is a same program to get the universities to change the curriculum and modernize it as well as to deal with the cost and there is an entire program of the recommendations i want to make it clear that there's all these recommendations as to how the high school in 2020 should look like in order to serve the needs of the community and the kids but there is a lot of stuff i don't want to bore you with that now but i know that you all look at it with the critical eye is that you should invite will give you a call. i am taking too much of your time. thank you for all the time. [applause]

thank you everybody. ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> ladies and gentlemen, let's give that the vice president a great thank you. [applause] and move on to our committee meeting. our next meeting will be starting very shortly. they both start at three so we are running a little delay. our committee on economic and development, and also at the same time education and workforce committee. later on tonight we have the wonderful entertainment at the lime and auditorium. see you >> coverage of the annual governor's summer meeting continues tomorrow. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

bipartisana signing ceremony for the workforce innovation and opportunity bill. >> baseball does strike me -- i don't want to get metaphysical about this. i am of the anti-metaphysical school of baseball. but it's a good sport to be the national pastime of a democratic nation because democracy is about compromise and settling. you don't get everything you want, and baseball is like that. there is a lot of losing in baseball. every team that goes to spring training knows it's going to win 60 games, lose 60 games. you play the whole season to sort out the middle 42.

if you win 10 out of 20, you are mediocre. loaf,he sport of the half as is democracy. >> george will on his latest book on baseball and wrigley field and the recent controversy surrounding one of his columns, sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> house speaker john boehner was joined by nancy pelosi and a bipartisan group of signsentatives to formally the workforce innovation and opportunity act. this is about 10 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. thanks to the hard work of the members who are here, in a few minutes i will sign hr 303, a bill that will help americans have access to the skills needed in today's workforce. there are about 4 million job openings in america and about 4 million americans looking for work am a but the skills needed for those jobs are not held by the 4 million people looking for work. this bill does is consolidate job-training programs and provide flexibility at the local level. in addition to all of that, this is a great opportunity for us to show that we can get things done. we can listen to the american people and work together on their behalf because their priorities, frankly, are our priorities. with that i will turn it over.

>> thank you very much, mr. speaker, for bringing us together. inc. you for your leadership. -- thank you for your leadership. thank you senators for getting us to this place where we could come together in a bipartisan, overwhelming way to support this drops training bill. it's the recognition that the american people -- jobs training bill. it's the recognition that the american people are very talented and the private sector stands ready to work with the workforce to provide training. we have a talented workforce that needs the skills to match job vacancies. this is really important in making sure we have a workforce , skilled1st century and trained to meet the needs of

the private sector and entrepreneurial spirit of america. now we have to create more jobs to be filled by this trained workforce, but today is really a good day. chairman klein. >> thank you, speaker for bringing us together. been a really good week for america and a good week for this institution. it shows what happens when we come together and work toward a common goal. americans get the skills they need to fit the jobs that the speaker talked about that are open. i wanted and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. some of them are standing right here. , ifge miller is a real pal i could use that word, was a real ally when we got together to do this. our friends in the senate sometimes are hard to reach. in this case became together and worked with us. now i hope we can build on this success and do more things

together to put america back to work. i think now, miller. >> thank you, chairman klein, thank you mr. speaker. bill.s a remarkable this is been a long time coming but i think it was worth waiting for because this bill is forward looking. it's innovative, and it does our federal tie resources to dollars with local resources and employers who can customize the needs they have with community colleges, vocational schools, local high schools to develop the workforce their state. that is a very exciting proposal to see that kind of connection put forth in this legislation. again, i want to thank everybody who worked on this, republicans and democrats in the house and the senate. there is a remarkable number of staff hours in bringing this where we areoint

bringing it to the president's desk and i really want to thank remarkable staff on both sides of the i/o and the committee for the hours they put into this. i would like to recognize subcommittee chairwoman foxe. >> you won't often hear me say amen to something the george miller says, but i want to say amen, because i think his comments were right on. that have beens made a been very appropriate, and i want to add mine to that. the speaker pointed out to us in a leadership meeting the other day that this is something that came to his attention 20 some years ago, came to my attention 20 some years ago when i was a community college president, and i have been interested in this issue of consolidating workforce development programs and making sure we bring accountability to the program so that the money is going to read way

too services for people who need to develop skills for the jobs -- going directly to services for people who need to develop the skills for the jobs that are available. i also want to emphasize that nothing around here gets done without a lot of collaboration and cooperation, particularly by the staff. we get the credit. they do the work. i want to particularly knowledge -- acknowledge the staff of our committees for working on this. --lso want to thank the team thank the speaker for his interest in this and for putting me on the education committee. i was on the education committee and the legislature and we didn't get a lot done. this is a monumental achievement and i am glad to have paid -- played a very small part in getting us where we are. thank you very much. >> as i hear my colleagues make

their statements, i couldn't help but remember 1998, when our speaker was one of our leaders in the education workforce committee, and when we came to an agreement, he said this is the, long overdue, and goodness we were able to compromise, come together and ined -- and pass a bill 1998. and here we are, many years later, saying it again. it was long overdue. they have mentioned everybody getting an opportunity to get all,ing and education for and that is why we fight for. finally, i want to say that i in my freshman year that i wanted to be specific about minorities being mentioned be they hispanic,

african-american, asian pacific, all groups been named and specified that we are going to create programs in education and in job training through the department of labor so that they can get better paying jobs. and that is what is happening here today. so, mr. speaker, thank you for inviting us. we are honored to be able to make a statement like we have made. thank you.

>> is there anything the president did that you actually agree with on the substance? >> the house has passed a business depreciation bill to allow businesses to deduct 50% of capital investments during the first year. the cbo estimates the measure will cost about $287 billion over the next 10 years. republicans argue it will spur economic growth. democrats say the measure adds to the deficit. the white house has indicated it will veto the measure. the floor debate on the bill was about an hour and 15 minutes. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] blanket on this economy. it puts our businesses, their workers and their products at a severe disadvantage. in this current climate, businesses aren't growing and hardworking americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer hours. adding insult to injury, the united states is the only country that allows important pieces of its tax code to expire. the result, businesses and their workers are left constantly guessing whether certain policies will be around next year, hurting their ability to plan for the future. the national association of manufacturers told congress that the expiration of bonus depreciation at the end of 2013 has had a chilling effect on the economy. this statement is sporpped clearly by the fact that during the months of 2014 total capital investment across the country fell by almost 12%. a major factor on why the

entire u.s. economy contracted by nearly 3%. a survey of nam members found that a third of business owners would not make any investments this year without bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing, which the congress voted to make permanent in a bipartisan basis in may. this bill would provide a permanent 50% bonus depreciation deduction and make the deduction available to more farmers and businesses across the country. in congress we always find a way to make things more complicated, but today we can enact a simple bipartisan provision that provides an immediate incentive for businesses to invest and hire new workers. bonus depreciation has received long-standing bipartisan support and has been renewed on a short-term basis nine out of the last 12 years. so after so many years of this policy being in place, it's time for us to agree that we should make it permanent so businesses can do what they do

best, invest in the economy and hire new workers. the effects of making bonus depreciation permanent are real. analysis done by the tax foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%, which would add 18 -- $182 billion to the economy, would increase capital stock by over 3%, would increase wages by about 1% or $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year and would create 212,000 jobs. growing a healthier economy, creating jobs and helping americans see bigger paychecks is exactly what this country needs. making 50% bonus depreciation permanent is supported by associations representing a variety of industries -- farmers, telecommunications, manufacturers, energy, construction, retailers and

technology. over 100 groups have voiced their support for bonus depreciation stating that it will provide an immediate incentive for businesses to make additional capital investments, thereby boosting the u.s. economy and job creation. this provision has gained strong bipartisan support in the past as have many of the permanent tax policies the house has voted on this year. by making long-standing features of the tax code permanent, we can facilitate a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. such an overhaul in turn will create an america that works with a strong vibrant economy. today's vote will bring the immediate economic relief so many businesses and hardworking taxpayers are asking for. i urge my colleagues to join us in making a stronger, healthier economy by passing this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i have a point of order

against the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i have in my hand a copy of the budget act of 1974. if you look at section 311, it's entitled enforcement of budget aggregates, and the bill before us, mr. speaker, violates that section of the budget act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth in the republican budget that was passed on this house floor with much fanfare on may 15. the bill before us does not keep the revenues at those levels, and i would like, mr. speaker, for the purposes of this point of order to point out that on may 15 of this year, chairman ryan, chairman of the budget committee, filed a statement in the congressional record reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the remainder of the budget window. and this is what he said when he filed that. and this is, mr. speaker, in the record of may 15, page

h-4428. this is what mr. ryan said. . this is needed to implement the section 311-a of the budget act which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. this piece of legislation, mr. speaker, as you can see, clearly violates that provision of the statute of section 311-a of the budget act, because it increases e deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this house. a clear breach of the rules. so, mr. speaker, i ask that the point of order be sustained and that the house republicans have

to live up to their own budget resolution, which, as i say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. camp: may i have be heard on the point of order. i would just say that the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit. after the failures of this administration to grow the economy and create jobs we have an economy that's contracting, we have more kids living at home than ever before, we have real wages declining. after the failure of the policies of this administration to get the economy moving -- i do not yield. mr. van hollen: parliamentary inquiry. parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan will suspend. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from michigan wish to direct his comments to the point of order. mr. camp: i do. after the failures of the policies of this administration, the house has spoken and the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit.

mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, further on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: the gentleman from michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues raised in the point of order. i would ask the gentleman about section 311-a of the budget act, which is what this point of order is based upon. let's talk about the point of order. the gentleman, chairman of the ways and means committee, voted for the house budget act. he voted for it. and now he's bringing to the floor of the house a provision that violates the same budget act that that budget was passed pursuant to. so, mr. speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order. what we have here is a situation where republicans came to this house floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the floor today with another bill that violates the budget act section 311-a. i would like a ruling on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair prepared to rule.

the gentleman from maryland makes a point of order against consideration of the bill. any such point of order is untimely at this point. the gentleman from maryland is free to engage in debate on the bill. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: is the point of order as a result of the fact that the republicans apparently passed a rule that waives the section 311-a of the budget act? the speaker pro tempore: the legislation before us is already under consideration. therefore the gentleman's point of order is not timely. the gentleman's point of order would have had to be made before the legislation was being considered. the point of order -- -- the point of order of the gentleman from maryland is not timely. van hollen: did the republican rule, did -- mr. van hollen: did the republican rule, the rule that was brought before the house, include a provision that waived section 311-a of the budget act? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may consult house resolution 661 to answer that

question. mr. van hollen: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. i'm looking at that and it does indicate to me that the house republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their own budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is free to motorcycle toes points on the debate on the rule or debate. mr. van hollen: i point out -- the speaker pro tempore: the not recognized. the gentleman from maryland will suspend. the gentleman from maryland is not recognized. the gentleman from michigan, mr. evin, is recognized. mr. leffin: -- i the gentleman is

recognized. mr. levin: mr. van hollen raises such an important point. what's being done here is totally inconsistent. and i'll come to that a bit later. you know what's really important today about this bill is not what's being done here but what's not being done here. this bill and mr. van hollen points out how inconsistent it is, but no matter how inconsistent, it's going nowhere. and it should go nowhere. essentially what it does is to make permanent what has always been considered temporary.

bonus greeshation, which has been tell pore rare -- depreciation, which has been temporarily enacted during the previous two recessions, to help assist the economy during the short term, that's what it has been. allows companies to write off investments more quickly than normal. providing them an incentive to make capital investments now rather than later. and that incentive actually disappears when the provision is made permanent. and that's why c.r.s. has said its temporary nature, and i quote, is critical to its effectiveness. secondly, it's unpaid for. talk about consistency. talk about a budget bill that talks about the importance of deficit reduction.

and here you have the republicans proposing a bill at would add $287 billion in debt. and that would bring the total of the bills that the republicans have brought forth here to over $500 billion. when all is said and done, house republicans will have added more than $1 trillion to the deficit. more than $1 trillion by permanently extending a select group of corporate tax cuts. but let me just say i must confess i'm amazed at the inconsistency of this position. it was five months ago in the chairman's and the republican ways and means draft that they

proposed to eliminate this provision entirely. bonus depreciation was gone, and now they come forth and they say let's make it permanent. that gives inconsistency a bad name. it's appalling. it's really also dangerous. let me indicate why. the more than $500 billion in tax spending that the house republicans will have approved today is the equivalent of what we spent last year on all nondefense domestic discretionary spending, which republicans have cut so deeply in recent years that it's at its lowest level on record as a percentage of g.d.p.

that includes spending more such vital domestic priorities as health research, food safety, and veterans health. and left unaddressed in this approach of the republicans are key domestic priorities such as the new market tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit, and the renewable energy tax credits. o here we are. fortunately this bill is going nowhere. there likely will be an extension of bonus depreciation in an extender package, if we ever get to it, but for a short period of time costing a fraction of this bill. so what's really important today is not a bill that is going nowhere and should go nowhere,

but for what is not being done. i just want to list what is not being done. immigration reform, a senate bill not being brought up here by the house republicans. unemployment insurance, a senate bill providing help for those looking for work, not brought up here. the employment nondiscrimination bill, the senate bill, not brought up here. paycheck fairness, not brought up. a minimum wage bill, not brought p. eximbank caught in the contest and the conflicts within the republican conference. a highway bill, we are going to get next week another patch. another patch. the inability of the house

republicans to face up to the need for a long term highway bill. and voting rights reform? you have a bill sponsored by a enior republican in this house and it has not seen the light of day. so, mr. speaker, what we have today is a bill, and i just want to finish by saying how appalling it is that the republicans come forth and say, ,et's make permanent unpaid for costing $287 billion, , when in the proposal that they put forth , this provision would have been eliminated. that's 180 degrees in a split

second. it just shows, i think, the hypocrisy of bringing this bill up. made especially hypocritical when there's been this utter failure to address all of these other legislative proposals. many of which have passed the senate. so we are going through the motions here today. it's really a sad moment for this institution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield such time he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, a member of the ways and means committee. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman camp, for your leadership on this

important issue. your leadership on the tax writing committee. if we would have had similar leadership in the senate and at the white house, we would have a different discussion today and that would be one on comprehensive tax reform. unfortunately, we are not having that discussion because there hasn't been leadership. there's been zero leadership from this white house. and after 5 1/2 years of this president being in the white house, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for this economy. taxes are higher. we have more regulations. we have economy, an economy that's sputtering along. in fact, the facts are the first quarter of this year our economy retracted. retracted. this bill is a jobs bill. it's that simple. it's a jobs bill. we have had bonus greeshation -- depreciation since 2002.

this isn't new. it's been in the tax code under temporary law since 2002. extended many times, many times retroactively. it expired, lainl, in december. i was talking to a -- ladies and gentlemen, in december, i was talking to a c.f.o. of a large american manufacturer this week, and he said to me, you understand when you retroactively do this it doesn't help our economy. and when you only do it in essence for one year, which is the narrative that my friends on the other side of the aisle are acquiescing to, this is a fruitless waste of time because of just accept the senate bill that passed out the senate finance committee at the end of the year, which will retroactively extend bonus depreciation back to january of this year for another year, next

year, 2015, that doesn't do a whole lot to grow our economy. it's better than a sharp stick in the eye for one year. but if you talk to a c.e.o., a business plan for several years, so when a business owner who's a manufacturer buys up piece of menry to make a widget, it -- machinery to make a widget, it costs a lot of money. guess what, you can make more widgets. you can hire a new employee. the new employee makes money, pays taxes to the city of columbus, pays taxes to the state of ohio, pays taxes to the federal government. more tax revenue. a job. more jobs. that's why hundreds, hundreds of businesses and organizations

are for this piece of legislation which has been around unpaid for for 10 years. i mean, think of the logic here, ladies and gentlemen. if we extend spending, we tell the american people that it don't cost them any more money. tax cut nd a current so stopping a tax hike, it cost them more money. that's washington, d.c., math. it makes no sense. that's the inconsistency. bottom line, mr. speaker, this is about jobs. this is about our economy. this is bipartisan. it doesn't need to be partisan, and i have said before i don't want to give up my voting card to the u.s. senate. let the house speak. let's have a good old-fashioned

conference committee. i don't expect i'll get my way. i know chairman camp expects he will get his way. we'll have a good old-fashioned compromise. i know that's a dirty word sometimes around here. but as my sixth grade daughter says, isn't it supposed to work, the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, then you kind of work out the differences and it goes to the president? yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. i wish the folks on the other side of the aisle would allow us to change this narrative that, well, the senate won't accept this so let's just take the senate bill. mr. speaker, i want to reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to another member of our committee, mr. doggett from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. doggett: republicans say they would like to help, but they claim we just don't have enough resources for medical research to address cures for alzheimer's and cancer,

parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and other dread diseases, diabetes, for example. wildfire season is approaching and there are not enough resources to begin planning to prevent those wildfires because there's not enough money to actually address the fires when they begin and delay is occurring. we have hurricane season, tornados all over the country, not enough money for the national weather service to give us all the details we need. and only yesterday we learned that republicans were refusing once again to correct the bankrupt transportation fund. the best they can do is postpone the bankruptcy into next year after the election. as our highways crumble, bridges literally fall down, and as for comprehensive safety inspection of our food and our drugs, like to do it but just not enough money. and there are not enough funds available to monitor effectively infectious diseases

or to produce vaccines to stop other diseases. not enough to adequately staff our federal prisons. not enough to fully fund federal law enforcement. certainly not enough to provide strong, effective foster care for the many children that are removed after abused and neglected from their homes. and work force development so we can be competitive with our friends abroad, well, there doesn't seem to be the resource to permit children from pre-k to postgrad to achieve their full god-given potential. but while there is so much of vital needs that we just don't seem to have the resources to address, these same republicans tell us today that we can afford to borrow from the chinese or the saudis or whoever will lend to us the resource to deliver bonuses to some people. they urge more public debt to fund more bonuses, and while they rightfully argue on every

expenditure program that we should be looking for evidence-based, that is programs that actually work and promise and pro-- and provide the promise to outcome and we ought to eliminate duplication and inefficiency, they have absolutely no interest in evidence-based tax expenditures, which is what is involved today. when the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they abandon evidence and pursue ideology. the evidence-based approach to this particular expenditure could not be clearer. what's involved here is that when any business goes out and obtains a machinery, a vehicle, a truck, a building, they depreciate it over the useful lifetime of that asset. standard accounting principles. and what's involved here today is washington math. it's washington manipulation of traditional accounting rules. it's a matter of violating

those traditional accounting rules, and we have learned from the economic studies that that is a very sorry, not evidence-based investment. indeed, even as a stimulus, the analysis shows that for every dollar that is invested we get 20 cents of growth. a fellow could go bankrupt with that kind of economics, and that's exactly what they would have the country doing and not meeting its other needs while funding something that doesn't work. both the federal reserve bank and goldman seahawks, not exactly a democratic organization, -- goldman sachs is, not exactly a democratic organization, says this treatment, if it expires, will not have any significant economic output. any economic impact. rather, today's bill is an example of the very kind of waste and inefficiency line items that they always say in campaign rallies they can

discover and eliminate but today they are perpetuating. i am for a pro-growth, pro-job creation set of government policies, including tax policies that promote competitiveness. it's competitiveness that involves an adequate transportation system, a trained work force, the research in medicine as well as in technology to help us compete, but we don't have the federal resources to hand out one bonus after another to corporations when we know it won't work, when it will not grow our economy at the same time that the same people that are advocating policies that don't work refuse to pay for policies that do work. we should reject this bill. it is not in the interest of the country. it may be good politics in an election year, but it is bad economic policy as near every economist who has looked at the issue in an objective way has concluded, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is

recognized. mr. tiberi: i'd like to recognize and yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, a member of the ways and means committee and an outstanding member of the select revenue subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. we all know the short-term tax policy is bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for jobs. and yet we've heard today from our friends on the other side of the aisle that -- a couple of things. number one, some have argued we are too busy. there are too many other things to be dealing in congress and so forth and we ought to be doing other things rather than this. i guess are you could make that argument. i don't think it's really persuasive. we can do all these things and they're not mutually exclusive. there are some that argue that somehow this proposal is a manipulation. that's what the gentleman from texas described it. i think the manipulation is having something in the tax code that we know we need to make permanent and not making

it permanent. so let's manipulate the adverse effect out of the tax code. that's what we should be doing. there are some that have said this sin significant. i heard that a couple -- that this is insignificant. i heard that a couple of minutes ago. this is not insignificant. according to the tax foundation, they say this, permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%. that's not insignificant. it would increase capital stock by over 3%. that's not insignificant. it would increase wages by 1% and it would create over 200,000 jobs. that is not insignificant. that's according to the tax foundation. so what is the choice? the choice is to vote no and walk away from that type of growth, mr. speaker. now, who would do that? you get these types of numbers. according to the tax foundation by just pushing the green button. you get that type of growth by

voting yes and then getting out of the way and letting the economy come back and do the things -- the gentleman from ohio is not overcharacterizing this. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, who has great insight, by the way, is not somebody who's saying, well, this is the panacea and it goes away. that was the hype during the stimulus debate. the characterization, well, you just spend $1 trillion and it's all going to be roses after that. there is hardly anybody that says the word stimulus on the other side of the aisle with a straight arrow. it's been completely eviscerated from the talking points at the white house. but the point is we can do something significant today, not monumental, not colossal but to characterize the type of growth that the tax foundation has said this will yield to as insignificant is either not a clear view of economic reality or just too dismissive and too

much a view that we can just be save yors in this situation. we can do -- saviers in this situation. we can do some good things today. we can support the gentleman from ohio. we can move this economy forward. i urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: look, to the gentleman from illinois, i favor long-term tax reform. he helped produce a long-term proposal that eliminated this provision. it eliminated it. and now you come down and say you want to make it permanent. you are -- i guess i can't speak directly to you. mr. roskam: if the gentleman will yield? mr. levin: i'll be glad to yield. mr. roskam: so you make a fair point in that perm nancy is something -- permanency is

something we need to strive for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. mr. levin: i'll yield myself another 30 seconds -- another minute. mr. roskam: so i take your point that it's a good thing and you and i are -- mr. levin: i said long term. my point is you, six months ago, helped produce a package that eliminated this provision and now you come here and you say you want it permanent. this is acrobatics. this is congressional acrobatics. you are just spinning in an opposite direction. and you're making this place a circus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. kind: i thank my friend from michigan for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, this place is riddled with ironies from week to week and this week is no different. yesterday the ways and means committee was working on a

markup of legislation for another short-term extension of the highway trust fund. you know, the transportation infrastructure investment we desperately need in this country. we were scratching and clawing to try to find an additional $10 billion over the next 10 months to try to keep some of these projects moving forward, and yet here today we have another permanent change to the tax code at a cost of $287 llion over the next 10 years and not a nickel of it paid for. our roads are deteriorating, our bridges are falling down. i'm afraiding it's becoming an insult to third world nations today. we're becoming a fourth world nation. so having this fruitless debate on the floor yet again, knowing this legislation won't be moving forward, we ought to be having a hearing in the ways and means committee to develop consensus on a six-year

transportation bill that every needs in des pretty our country but we're not doing it. the only thing during an election year is support tax cuts without paying for it. yet, every economist and virtually every business owner will tell you that substantively this doesn't make any sense either. the whole point of bonus depreciation is to try to spur capital investment at a time when the marketplace has frozen up. and it is fear uncertainty preventing business owners from moving forward on their capital purchases. you take away na temporary nature of bonus de-- that temporary nature of bonus depreciation and you ruin the whole desired effect of what you're trying to accomplish. but i have a feeling that the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, and others on the committee, they already know this. and that's why earlier this ear when they introduced their comprehensive tax reform draft, they completely eliminated bonus depreciation. and not only that, they clawed back the accelerated depreciation, which is the basis of this as well.

in order to help pay for a lowering of rates overall. and i would submit of the 14 tax bills that would permanently change the code that have been reported out of the committee so far at a cost of close to $900 billion, none of which is being proposed, if we support those measures and they get enacted into law, we might as well kiss comprehensive tax reform goodbye because the tools that we'll need to be able to lower the rate and broaden the base and make our code more competitive are taken away from us. and if you permanently extend bonus depreciation, you take away an important tool when we do run into recessionary times, with business -- when businesses may need additional capital and get off the sidelines. but that hasn't been the problem here. since 2002 we've had bonus depreciation. we got a track record now. you look back on it. most economists will tell you it's been dubious at best. the 2000's were the worst job growth decade in our nation's history. when president bush left office in 2008, he had a net negative

job growth during those eight years when he was in office. . since bonus depreciation expired at the end of last year, we have been averaging every month close to 240,000 additional private sector jobs being created in our economy today. that's without bonus depreciation being in place. what we ought to be doing today is having a serious discussion of how we can come together as an institution and find a way to help pay for a six-year infrastructure bill that will create jobs, that will start spurring economic activity that we desperately need, that will lay the foundation for long-term economic growth with a viable infrastructure system that's there to sustain it rather than having another debate that we know is going nowhere. that's unfortunate, bus we do, i agree with my friend from texas, we need a pro-growth competitive economic policy for the american people. one that recognizes reform the tax code to help our businesses large and small to be more

competitive globally. one that also recognizes that there's important public investments that we have to make as a nation in order to ensure the type of growth in the future. part of that is the infrastructure investment that's being neglected or 23 extensions merely being kicked down the road with short-term measures. part of it is having a top flight quality education system and a work force development system so that we've got the best educated, best trained work force in order to compete with increased global competition. it's broadband expansion in every inch of our territory. it's basic research funding. it's these type of things that, yes, we are going to need resources in order to do an effective job. we keep coming to the floor week after week calling for permanent changes to the tax code without any ability to pay for it. that's going to hinder our flexibility in the future to really spur the type of economic growth and job creation that we desperately need. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this. let's start coming together on a

real pro-growth strategy and work on the jobs we desperately need. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i yield to mr. roskam. the american people it must be confusing. we have had bonus depreciation, this tax polcy, tell porery for over 10 years -- policy, temporary, for over 10 years unpaid for, supported by many on the other side of the aisle. unpaid for. temporary. many times retroactive. yet moving that policy forward for 10 more years the same way it's been paid for over 10 years costs money. bad policy. even though we are giving for the first time certainty, predictibility to people who actually create jobs in america who must have a business plan

and must make those big purchases. amazing. with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i just wanted to address two of the criticisms that i heard from my colleagues. the gentleman from michigan makes a fair point about permanency. look, permanency is a great goal. permanency in tax reform is an outstanding goal. in this current environment it becomes clear that the president of the united states has made raising marginal rates a precondition for tax reform. we are of the view that that doesn't help grow the economy. the president claims his orthodoxy that it does. so it's not likely that this is going to be a massive tax reform effort is going to be completed. then the alternative is, what do you do in the meantime? i think in the meantime what we do we make this provision permanent, it keeps opened the

opportunity for us to revisit tax reform in the future, but we ought not to be leaving the types of numbers i mention admit ago, just to refresh your wreck check, mr. speaker, those numbers were by voting yes, according to the tax foundation, it grows the economy by 1%, increases capital stock by over three, increases wages by 1%, and creates over 200,000 jobs. now, the gentleman from wisconsin made an interesting point. there were several assertions, but one of them i found to be very, very broad. he says, substantively this doesn't make any sense. those were his words. those aren't my words. those were his words. now, think about that assertion, mr. speaker, in the context of dozens and dozens and dozens of business groups who say, this does make sense. including from his home state, the wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, the rhode island

manufacturers association, the american farm bureau, the associated equipment dealers. illinois manufacturers from my home state, and, mr. speaker, from the great state of kansas near and dear tow, the kansas chamber of congress. all of which say this makes sense. this is not dubious as the gentleman from wisconsin said that dozens of economists from all over the world have said, oh, this is a in fairous plot and it's completely not going to do anything? that's ridiculous. this is good. the gentleman from ohio has been working on this for months and months and months. while it's not about him, he brings great insight into this debate and there's an opportunity by voting yes according to the tax foundation to grow this commifment i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds, let the facts be shown in 2006 and 2007, bonus depreciation expired, and it was

renewed when the recession really took a hold. and c.r.s. has said, research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective. we'll renew it but not for 10 years costing $287 billion made permanent. i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, also a member of our committee, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. million davis: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member for yielding. the longer i listen to this discussion and debate, it reminds me of a game that children play. around and around and around and around we go, round the mull berry bush. because we keep going around and around and around. i strongly oppose the bill that is before us, that would make

bonus depreciation permanent. yes, i support bonus depreciation. a short term basis to boost is conomy if there is letdown. and to provide some incentives to do things that we might not be doing. $287 cannot support adding billion to our deficit for a permanent corporate give away while tens of thousands of my constituents and tens of millions of americans experience deep poverty, unemployment, and economic distress. h.r. 4718 is a corporate give away that even the republican tax reform bill repealed. there is a tremendous need to

incentivize economically distressed communities like many parts of chicago, other urban as well as rural areas. and those incentives have lapsed . they are threatened. we are not sure they are going to be coming. this bill continues the republican legislative focus on the wrong issues. ignoring the key programs that create jobs, strengthen our citizens, and grow our economy. just imagine what unemployment insurance does. it gives the person who does not have a job the knowledge that something is going to be coming to go to the grocery store and buy milk or bread.

or what happens when there is employment opportunities, if roads and bridges are being repaired. a person gets a sense of confidence that there might be work for them to do. i remember the song several years ago about get a job. the guy said that every day when he reads the paper, he reads it through and through. trying to find out if there is any work for me to do. ut his wife says, get a job. and individuals who have become because no matter what they seem to do, there is no relief. so how could i vote for this 3.3 when there are still

million long-term unemployed individuals who have not been aided? i can't go to church on sunday or walk down the street without when is sking me congress going to do something about our unemployment checks? are they going to come? or they ask when are the repairs going to be made on our roads and bridges? when are we going to get some new sidewalks? how do you fix the potholes? that are erupting all over our community. when are we going to really take care of the medicare physician, the doctors fix. when are we going to stop irrational budget cuts that strangle education, research,

and innovation? when are we going to provide confidence and hope? when are we going to stop the process where the rich continues to get rich and the poor continues to get poor, and the middle class gets squeezed in to where we almost create two groups and two categories of people. those who have much and those who have little. so i would urge that we vote no on this bill and give confidence to the american people that their needs will be taken care of. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: may inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 15 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. mr. tiberi: before i yield to the gentlelady from kansas, i

would like to submit for the record a letter from over 100 associations that represent thousands of employers and job creators, of whom represent hundreds of thousands of employees. in the letter they say, this piece of legislation that we are about to vote on today helps them create jobs and increases productivity. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: with that i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is ecognized for three minutes. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yeelingd and his leadership on this very important issue. i rise today to support this bill to make 50% bonus depreciation permanent, because it grows the economy and creates jobs. short of comprehensive tax reform, a permanent e. tension of bonus depreciation is our best option to grow the economy, create jobs, and lift wages. this bill is important to kansas manufacturers and kansas farmers

and ranchers. the tax foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%, adding $182 billion to the economy, increase wages, and jobs. over $210 thousand the -- 210,000 jobs. the joint committee on tax says this legislation could reduce the debt by as much as $10 billion. most importantly today's bill moves our tax code in the right direction. it is broad based in that it does not pick winners and losers and does not favor one type investment over another simply it favors investments and the types of capital that create jobs and puts more money in team's pockets. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas yields back. the gentleman from michigan,

mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts for three minutes, another distinguished member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: we are here for a faulty effort for one reason and one reason only, failure of fundamental tax reform. now, a good faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal but it really didn't go anywhere. now, i would note in this stitution, known for its emotions, that the response of the democratic minority to the camp draft proposal was fairly muted thinking that this might be a worthwhile start to an ongoing conversation that would be bipartisan and bicameral.

a good start we had. the model that we embraced over three years really worked quite well, without the glare of publicity, we actually had an adult conversation back and forth between the parties, the stakeholders and heard from virtually everybody you could hear from. well, when the proposal was response licly, the on the republican side was one s. historyonic let's not try this, let's not try that. even though an academic exercise had been undertaken that was worthwhile. so tax reform was killed in the crib before there was even an opportunity to have a

conversation. now, mr. roskam, my friend from illinois, he said everybody on this side is afraid to use the word stimulus. stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. i'm going to use it and i'm going to use it in the motion to recommit. stimulus has worked in america in economic history. when america actually did big things. mr. lincoln found time during the midst of the civil war to form the transcontinental railroad. mr. roosevelt did the panama canal. mr. o'neill and mr. reagan did the big dig in boston. these are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done and not to shy away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy that has dubious economic consequences. now, let me say this as well. and i intend in the motion to

recommit to speak to it. remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two parties? remember when there was a healthy give and take where we actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the ways and means room? still the most desired committee to sit on in the congress. mr. levin: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. neal: we start out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. this is not the way to do tax reform. we need to go back to the drawing table and draft a proposal that the american people will come to seen as competitive and highlight the role optimism has played in american public life. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, is recognized. mr. tiberi: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, distinguished member of the ways and means committee and health subcommittee chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. tiberi for

bringing this very important jobs bill to the floor. this is the slowest recovery most disappointing recovery in half a century. we're miss being five million jobs from our economy. we have a lot of small businesses struggling. the average family in america, average family of four is missing over $1,000 a month from their paycheck, their budget because of this disappointing recovery. so what's missing? well, it's not government spending. that's above where it was in 2008. it's not family spending. that's above what it was. what we're missing is business investment. when businesses along main street buy new buildings, new equipment, new software to make themselves more competitive, that's when jobs occur and that's what's missing in the economy. what this bill does is make it more affordable for our local businesses to immediately write off, deduct from their taxes a portion of what they buy in equipment and software and technology that makes it more affordable. it allows them to do more of it

and that creates jobs along main street. that's what this bill is all about, creating not government jobs, not temporary jobs, not stimulus jobs. this is about creating jobs along main street, by letting our local businesses invest. it has always been a bipartisan bill. this is an area republicans and democrats agree on. unfortunately it's an election year. you're going to hear all of the arguments against it, but the truth is our local businesses are struggling. they need this tax relief, and our economy needs the jobs because we're not going to get back to a balanced budget until we have more people working and more jobs created and more revenue coming in the door. i commend our leadership for bringing this very important business bill, jobs bill to the floor and i urge republicans and democrats to come together to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: could i ask the gentleman from ohio how many

speakers do you have left? mr. tiberi: i'm prepared to close, mr. levin. mr. levin: we may one more speaker. let me yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i'd like to read the statement of administration policy. administration strongly opposes house passage of h.r. 4718 which would permanently extend bonus depreciation rules that allow corporations to speed up deductions for certain investments and thereby delay tax payments. this provision was enacted in 2009 to provide short-term stimulus to the economy and it was never intended to be a permanent corporate giveaway. moreover, h.r. 4718 includes no offsets and would add $287 billion to the deficit over the

next 10 years, wiping out more than 1/3 of the deficit reduction achieved by the american taxpayer relief act of 2013. the deficit increase in 4718 is more than 20 times the cost of the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits urge offset cans house republicans are also making clear their priorities by rushing to make business tax cuts permanent without offsets, even as the house republican budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working families and students. and by letting important improvements in the earned

income tax credit, the child tax credit and education tax credits expire. the administration wants to work with the congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. however, making costly business tax cuts permanent without offsets represents the wrong approach. if the president -- and this is underlined -- were presented with h.r. 4718 his senior advisors would recommend that e veto the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, is recognized to close for debate. mr. tiberi: may i ask a question. the gentleman said he had one

more speaker. mr. levin: i yielded back. tier tier sorry. the speaker pro tempore: you have 11 minutes remaining. mr. tiberi: the choice is very clear. as the gentleman from massachusetts said, a friend of mine who i agree with on a lot, we should be here to talk about comprehensive tax reform and not temporary tax policy. my years here in this united states congress, in my years more importantly on the ways and means committee, there hasn't been a chairman that has been more bipartisan, more inclusive and made a stronger effort to comprehensively, comprehensively reform our tax code than chairman dave camp. if he would have had a partner in the white house and a partner in the senate to move the ball along as far as he did , quite frankly in a very

bipartisan way, we wouldn't be here today. but here's the facts. for the past 5 1/2 years barack obama has been the president of the united states of america. here's a fact. the first quarter of this year 2.9%. nomy retracted this bill is about a jobs bill. simple enough. and in fact during my time on the ways and means committee, putting chairman camp aside, without chairman camp, with other chairmen, we haven't had any bipartisanship. we haven't had tax bills. we didn't have an effort to comprehensively in a bipartisan way have a tax code rewritten. it's only been chairman camp. so we can talk about theory and academics, but here we are today with one choice.

in an economy where it's not where any of us want to be in 5 1/2 years with barack obama as president, we have a piece of legislation that we know creates jobs, that for 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. and no benefit to job creators for long-term certainty. none. zero. ladies and gentlemen, we've already submitted for the record hundreds of associations that represent thousands and around s of employers the country who create jobs for hundreds of thousands of employees who say this is one of the best job creating tools they have. i know people who want a job.

they'd rather have a job than unemployment insurance. they want a job really badly. something my dad said something to me a long time ago when he lost his manufacturing job of 25 years, most important thing is a job. and that's how simple this is, ladies and gentlemen. that's how simple this is. 5 1/2 years, we have higher taxes, more regulations. this is about jobs. this is what job creators want. let's give them what they want. let's go to the senate. let's have a conference committee. let's work it out the good old-fashioned way. i know the gentleman from massachusetts and i, if we got locked in a room, we could work it out the good old-fashioned way. let's do it. i urge my colleagues, let's not make this partisan. let's make this bipartisan, as it should be, as it has been and go work with the senate to get this done and help americans get a job. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired on debate, pursuant to house resolution 661, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on -- the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. neal: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the bill? mr. neal: i am opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4718, to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendments -- page 3, line 22, strike or. page 3, line 24, strike and and insert or. page 3, after line 24, insert the following --

mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading? the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to waving reading of the motion? without objection, the reading is waived. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to direct my comments to the other side. mr. tiberi, who is indeed my friend and a terrific guy, said that there is no partner at the white house. when we undertook this very significant proposal on tax reform, it wasn't the white house. it was the speaker of our house, the speaker of this house who said blah, blah, blah. now, i want to tell you, i am not bilingual, mr. speaker, but would you -- when you tell me blah, blah, blah, i get it. it ain't going anywhere. to blame the white house when the speaker of the house poured

cold water on it is outrageous. now, we've heard of several companies that have been proceeding with inversion. force those of you paying attention -- for those of you paying attention to this, it means a company moves offshore, is not a corporate citizen of america but instead they will reincorporate to a foreign address for the expressed purpose of avoiding american corporate income taxes. so the proposal that we have here is pretty simple. . as they line up the dam is blaking. i hear in the next few weeks that up to 47 companies as congressional research service has pointed out, are lining up to leave. they include manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and financial service sectors. we should be doing fundamental tax reform as mr. camp laid out the proposal. but the issue of inversions and depreciation before us today while seemingly unconnected are intimately connected.

given the republican opposition to chairman camp's proposal, we cannot move forward on a house bill that reforms our tax code in a current or meaningful mode at the moment. but we can do it without changing the nature of the legislation. we can in fact address the issue of by linking inversion to the purpose of bonus depreciation. through that we can suggest that any company that moves offshore cannot take advantage of corporate inversion and bonus depreciation simultaneously. that's what we are proposing today. now, i have a history with bonus depreciation. remember nancy johnson, a republican member, bill english, a republican member? i supported with them the use of bonus depreciation, as mr. roskam wanted to hear me say, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. on a short-term basis, bonus

depreciation makes some sense. but not to make it permanent at the cost of $867 billion. friends, to do bonus depreciation separate from fundamental tax reform is economic nonsense. we need a comprehensive look at the code and reminding ourselves that bonus depreciation is but the following. a tool in the toolbox to make economic repairs. now, this proposal that our republican friends have said with this cost attached to it is the least offenseible of all the extended proposals that they have offered. our own congressional research service says, you do bonus depreciation for a short-term purpose to provide an economic stimulus during a recession. it's, quote, a temporary investment subsidy that is expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus.

its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. now, this is important to remember here today. chairman camp repealed bonus depreciation, period. now we are bringing it back to be made permanent on a friday morning with no thoughtful or deliberative discussion other than the speaker of the house saying, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. what i'm suggesting here today is that we cannot afford to hit $825 billion on this or miss chance that we are taking to do fundamental tax reform in this way. let me get right to the nub of what we are proposing. what this motion to recommit does, it keeps bonus

depreciation as always intended, a temporary tool in our toolbox in an economic downtown. this is a common sense piece of legislation that extends bonus depreciation for two years, in a thoughtful and deliberative way. and then we go back to fundamental tax reform. then we take it up in a much more integrated way. now, lastly, if you voted yesterday for the delauro amendment, you need to be consistent today and vote for this motion to recommit which addresses the delauro amendment -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: thank you. i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: while i'm pleased to hear my colleague on the other side actually agrees with me that we need bonus depreciation,

because this motion to recommit extends that policy for two years. but the reason why i oppose this motion to recommit is because, again, this is temporary tax policy. we are the only nation in the world that allows important tax provisions to expire. we are alone on that. nobody else does that. that's why it's so important we make this policy permanent. let me just say, the economy is contracting. 2.9% in the last quarter. it's not growing. we are growing the wrong direction. we have people whose real incomes are declining. people out of work. more kids are living at home than ever before. we need to do something permanent to get this economy growing. look, families are struggling in america. let's do something pro-growth. something permanent. certainly we agree on the policy. you just don't want to do it for as long as we do. we want to make this permanent.

we have done it for 10 years, for all practical purposes, with the uncertainty we have agreed that the policy should be permanent when you do it for that long. but let me just say, look, temporary policy never works. we have more than 100 associations and businesses, representing millions of workers that have come forward and said, please make this policy permanent. we support what you're doing. we need it so we can have the certainty that we need to make investments. look, the tax foundation has said that if we do this, if we make this permanent, we'll grow the economy by 1%. that we'll add $182 billion to the economy. we'll increase stock. we'll increase wages by 1%, which is $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year. let's give america a raise. let's vote for this bill. let's vote against this motion to recommit. let me just also say, a lot of

americans know that the country's going in the wrong direction. but what they are really concerned about is, they don't see us doing anything to make it better. we can restore the american dream, not have it be some remnant of the past, if we support permanent tax policy, reject the temporary nature of this. vote no on the motion to re california congressman kevin mccarthy will take over as the majority leader. he discussed the schedule for the week ahead. this is about 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. 'm pleased to now yield to i suppose the majority leader-elect. a few weeks from now. but we'll be doing the colloquies and i appreciate his

stance. we had the opportunity to have lunch. i'm hopeful we can have a very productive rich: as i'm sure this house and -- relationship as i'm sure the house and the country hopes. i'm pleased to yield to the majority lead hrn elect. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i look forward to a very strong working relationship with you. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at 12:00er to morning hour and 2:00 prime minister for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:0 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5016, the fiscal year 2015 financial service and general government appropriations act sponsored by chairman crenshaw. members are advised that the debate on the bill and amendments will begin monday night after the 6:30 p.m. vote series. members are further advised that it is possible that we will have an additional vote series monday night on amendments to the financial service appropriations bill. for the remainder of the week, the house will consider a package of five tax bills from ways and means that will help foster charitable giving. these five bills that will be included are h.r. 2807, the conservation easement intendtific act of 2013, authored by representative gerlach. h.r. 4619, making the rule allowing certain tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes permanent,

authored by representative schock. h.r. 4719, which will permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory authored by representative reid. h.r. 3134, the charitable giving extension act authored by representative kelly and h.r. 4691, modifying the tax rate for excise tax on investment income for private foundations authorized -- authored by representative paulsen. the house will also likely consider the highway extension bill to ensure that the vital transportation projects continue during the busy summer construction season. and, finally, members are advised that the house may also consider an extension of the terrorism risk insurance act. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i would ask him, we have now completed six appropriation bills, the gentleman has announced we'll have a seventh

appropriation bill, financial services, on the floor next week. does the gentleman anticipate doing the balance of the appropriation bills the remaining -- bills, the remaining five bills, before the september 30 end of the fiscal year? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman noted, as of last night the house has now acted on six appropriations bills, which is halfway through. and as i mentioned in the schedule announcement for the next week, the house will begin consideration of the seventh bill, the financial services appropriation act, starting on monday evening. and that's as much as i see for the next week. but as we move forward to the july calendar, i will keep you notified as we continue through. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. hopefully, i know he has the expectation, i hope that we would be asked to pass the appropriation bills individually, in a manner that we've considered the previous bills on this floor. i note that the labor health

bill has not been marked up in subcommittee and would simply ask him if, in light of the fact that that has not moved through subcommittee yet, would that be one of the bills that he would anticipate bringing to the floor before september 30? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do not anticipate that bill coming up next week, but as we look towards the remainder of the july schedule, we will certainly notify the members for the consideration of the house. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. of course from our perspective and i'm sure from his, very, very important piece of legislation. the highway bill that is coming to the floor, we know that that is critically important. it passed out of committee i think on a voice vote, although as the gentleman knows, there was substantial disdepreement on the length of term of that -- disagreement on the length of term of that. we're disappointed that we haven't given a longer term or either done a short-term so we could do a long-term bill,

giving confidence to contractors and jurisdictions around the country. but we find ourselves in a situation now where there are more than 100,000 transportation projects that could be delayed. so we look forward to working to not only move this process forward in the short-term, but we would like to and would urge , notwithstanding the fact it appears it's going to be a longer term, until may of next year, that we continue to focus on a long-term, confidence-building, we believe economy-growing effort at a longer term re-authorization of a highway program. the gentleman doesn't need to comment on that. i just wanted to make that comment to him. unless he wanted to say something on that. mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman will yield. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do want to thank the gentleman and the other side of the aisle because as you did note, it did pass out of ways

and means on a voice vote unanimously. we are committed, we want to bring the bill to the floor. fill the hole that we are committed to looking long-term, as many of the ideas that we have brought forth in the past. and we look forward to working with you on working on the highway bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we passed, as the gentleman repeated and that extended -- it was not an extension from that standpoint, but the tax credit for vestments and equipment, depreciation allowance, we palsed that today. that was -- passed that today. that was a $287 billion cost. i would call the gentleman's attention, as i have with mr. cantor, we are still concerned on this side of the aisle, i know the gentleman knows this, that the unemployment insurance bill that lapsed in december of 13 is still -- has still not

been funded. there's some three million people who have fallen off that. d part of your new responsibilities, you will be focused on scheduling legislation. i would urge the majority leader to consider very seriously bringing that unemployment bill to the floor for a vote. we believe that it does have the votes on this house floor and we believe that the three million, and it's growing by thousands per month, who have run out of unemployment insurance, it's slowing our economy, but also obviously from their perspective giving them no support to support themselves and to help support their families. so i would urge the gentleman to look again at the unemployment insurance status. originally proposed to be retroactive, even if we look at it prospectively, we would hope that the majority leader would look at that and consider

whether we may move forward on that on this house floor. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his input. as i said earlier, in next week's schedule, i do not anticipate that coming up next week. but as we look towards the rest of july, i will keep all members posted. mr. hoyer: i appreciate not only keeping us posted but the focusing on that to see whether we might do that. tria, the gentleman has announced that tria is going to be under consideration. we believe this is a very important piece of legislation. it however passed out of committee on a party-line vote, as the gentleman knows. and there are still concerns that need to be addressed and i would hope that we could work on those before it comes to the floor. does the gentleman know whether that will come under a rule and whether or not that rule will amendment an open

process? mr. mccarthy: i thank for yielding and bringing up this issue. as i mentioned, the schedule announcement for next week, members should be prepared for a possible consideration of the terrorism risk insurance act. but once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce the hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows, we only have 12 days remaining until the august break, of legislative days that we'll be in session. and only 22 days before the end of the scheduled session, prior to the election. the scheduled date is october 2 for us to adjourn. we believe this legislation is critical, again, for the economy, for confidence in the marketplace, to be passed. and so we would hope that to facilitate that, we could pass it through this body in a boip way, which would make it he's -- boip way which would make -- bipartisan way which would make

it easier for the senate to facilitate pass and get that bill president. so i look -- bill to the president. so i look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we might overcome the partisan vote that came out and replace that with a bipartisan vote, make some accommodations on both sides to accomplish that objectivive. and i appreciate his being willing to work on that. last -- next to last, the export-import next to last the export-import bank, i know there's work being done. i know the gentleman indicated it's not ready at least for passage. but we know -- this expires at the end of the year. we are very concerned about the adverse impact it will have. could the gentleman give me any information on where he thinks that consideration of that bill may be at this point in time? mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i