ibutions. they'll also debate rules for a bill they'll take up tomorrow permanently extending the credit that allows small businesses to write off certain expenses. the white house has issued veto threats against both bills. in the senate today this afternoon at 2:00 eastern they'll vote on the nomination of ashton carter to be the next secretary of defense. follow the senate on c-span2, and now to the house floor here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered by our chaplain father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions and difficult times, with many forces and interests demanding their attention. in these days give wisdom to all the members, especially as they consider the most serious matter of engaging in military activity. bless as well those who inform them of the issues with honest frankness, knowing of the dangers implied in so many uncertain consequences. bless the men and women of this

chamber, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day, and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. brownlee. ms. brownlee: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, last week more than 80 million americans lost personal information when health insure

anthem was hacked. anthem customers started to receive suspicious email customers trying to con them. anthem home depot the hacks go on and on. those that had their information stolen did not receive notice of the compromise promptly. the best way for them to protect themselves. because of obamacare, the federal and state governments now host a massive trove of private information. in hearing after hearing last year, we heard about the vulnerabilities of these systems. in order to protect consumers the house passed my health exchange and transparency act which would require the federal government of inform consumers of a breach within two weeks. this went nowhere in harry reid's senate. i know reintroduced a bill, a commonsense measure to protect consumers if obamacare has a

hack. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to rrks my remarks. the speaker pro tempor the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to join my colleagues in urging the republican leadership to advance bipartisan legislation that will keep the american people safe by continuing to fund the department of homeland security. mr. schiff: on behalf of the dedicated men and women at the department of homeland security, those who screen passengers traveling into and out of the country, those who ensure that our borders and our shores are protected and those who enforce the deportation of dangerous criminals, let's put aside partisan politics and come together on one thing we can all agree on to prioritize the safety and national security of the american people. as the tragedies of recent events abroad have demonstrated, we can ill-afford another day of inaction by this congress. the clock is running out.

16 days. let's do our job. the american people expect better and they deserve better. let's vote on a clean spending bill today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker in july, 2008, then-senator barack obama said that president bush adding to the national debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. in february, 2009, president obama warned congressional leaders that the rate of government spending was unen sustainable and pledged to cut the deficit. his words didn't translate into action. the deficit has tripled since president obama took office. now, the president's recent budget last week provides for $8.5 trillion in new debt and does not ever balance. republicans led by chairman

paul ryan will produce a positive budget which balances. the current rate of government spending is putting america's youth at risk with skyrocketing interest payments. i will keep working to promote policies that reduce our debt, cut wasteful spending and create jobs while maintaining vital defense funding to promote peace. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i want to start by reading a quote from today's "politico." mr. israel: quote, a faction is pushing republican leaders to take the battle over the homeland security department to the brink. arguing the party would win the public relations war with democrats if a standoff over

immigration led to a shutdown of the agency. a public relations war? this is about the war on terror, and in 16 days the people who will protect us from that war will lose their jobs or have to work without pay. we're 16 days away from a shutdown of the department of homeland security, and instead of planning how to protect us from our enemies, d.h.s. is preparing contingency budgets in case this republican congress decides to shut them down. to protect themselves from their political base in a fight on immigration, republicans are willing to disrupt the protection of the american people in our communities, in our airports, our ports and our borders. mr. speaker, the bad guys have to be watching this and saying are you serious? we should be serious about our homeland security and our economic security. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina soak recognition? -- seek recognition?

ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. on february 7 the state of north carolina lost a legend both on and off the court when former university of north carolina basketball coach dean smith passed away. during his 36-year tenure as head coach, smith led the tar heels to 879 wins and 13 a.c.c. tournament championships. his teams reached the final four 11 times and won two national titles. he also coached the u.s. men's basketball team to an olympic gold medal in 1976. but smith was more than just a college basketball icon. he was a deeply religious man who placed a strong emphasis on education. more than 96% of his players received their degrees. an unwavering supporter of civil rights, he recruited the first black college athlete at u.n.c. while he never sought accolades for his actions, he received the presidential medal of freedom, which is the nation's highest civilian honor, in

2013. coach smith was a remarkable man, and north carolina was lucky to call him one of our own. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. speaker. i am so honored to serve a second term as ranking member of the house veterans' affairs committee on health. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help ventura county veterans and veterans across america access to v.a. health care -- access to v.a. health care and benefits and to break down bureaucratic barriers to care at the v.a. there is no commitment i take more seriously than to the men and women who have served our country. that is why i introduced the

veterans health care improvement act as my first bill in the 114th congress. my bill would help guarantee adequate resources for veterans' health care benefits by requiring the g.a.o. to continue varyfying the accuracy and adequacy of the v.a.'s budget for medical care. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation with me and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. hultgren: mr. speaker, i rise today on the birthday of a man whose name is synonymous with my home state of illinois, the land of lincoln. it's a time of year when we remember the great deeds of our presidents, their important actions in times of crisis. president lincoln knew crisis. generations note his firm resolve in the face of a house divided against itself.

his faithfulness in serving a country when half of it was bent and betting on his failure. his growing faith in the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us. our nation was on the verge of collapse but he never waivered, he never tired, he never backed down from the -- waivered, he never tired he never backed down from the challenge. he asked us to rise to the great acts before us and meet them head on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky ek recogon mr. yarmuth: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to call on my republican colleagues to not let their immigration reform politics weaken border security, paralyze our ports and shut down the department of homeland security, created in the wake of 9/11. if we do not pass a clean funding bill, more than 20% of fema personnel will be furloughed, crippling our ability to respond to

disasters. management and support of our entire homeland security infrastructure would shut down, and essential personnel would be forced to work without pay. that's 40,000 border patrol and custom agent officers risking their lives because of a political stunt. that's screeners guarding our national travel, keeping the u.s. safe without paid benefits because the republican leadership is putting politics ahead of security. and it's more than 40,000 active duty coast guard officers standing guard on our shores proudly serving a country whose political leaders don't seem to care if they get paid for their sacrifice. mr. speaker, the stakes are too high, the risk is too real. republicans need to stop their anti-immigrant tantrum and end this dangerous game. pass a clean d.h.s. funding bill and protect our great nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, when we send our soldiers into harm's way

we have a solemn obligation to back them with the full might and resources that our country can muster and to give them the widest possible latitude for action. mr. mcclintock: mcarthur was right, in war there is no substitute for victory. the president proposes something very different. war by half measure, war on the cheap war with dangerous restrictions on our troops war with no clear objective other than to pull out in three years. i will not vote for the authorization that the president's requested, given his obvious irresolution, i think the best immediate course for the united states is to ensure that regional powers currently engaged against the islamic state have the material support they require. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker i rise today to urge the

republican leadership to bring a clean funding bill to the department of homeland security to this floor. the department of homeland security provides vital programs and services that ensure the american public's safety. this congress must also ensure that d.h.s. has adequate funding to continue its important and effective work, protecting our borders, our ports, our aviation systems and all of our communities across the country. without funding d.h.s. will be forced to shut down critical countercrism and natural disaster programs that safeguard millions of americans. it is the height of irresponsibility for republicans to hold d.h.s. funding hostage for the sole purpose and the dangerous purpose of partisan politics. instead of putting forth a clean d.h.s. funding bill republicans put forward legislation that is littered with unrelated policy writers.

we all agree that withholding funding is bad for our nation's safe and security so let's pass a clean d.h.s. funding bill and pass them on their own merits. it's time for the house to pass a clean d.h.s. funding proposal and stop playing games with the safety and the security of the american people. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor of u.s. army corporal c.g. bolden, a clinton, arkansas, native and veteran of the korean conflict. in january 1951, corporal bolden was taken prisoner of war in korea. at that time, his wife geraldine and his 3-year-old son were notified he was missing. tragically that same year he

died of malnutrition in a north korean p.o.w. camp. in 1993, his remains were among those returned to the united states and through innovative d.n.a. testing scientists adecent -- identified corporal bolden's remains and determined his cause of death. on february 21 after decades of unanswered questions, corporal bolden will be laid to rest in his hometown of clinton, arkansas, and i am honored to join his family to remember him and welcome him home. mr. hill: corporal bolden gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country and his life is an example ff all americans and all arkansans. i thank him and his family for their service and sacrifice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> mr. speaker, 16 days. house republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken with america's security, threaten og to shut down the department of homeland security unless we give in to their extreme demands on immigration threatening to force d.h.s. employees on the front lines who keep us safe, people in the border patrol t.s.a., the coast guard, to go to work and risk their lives while they're not getting paid. mr. doyle: threatening to furlough d.h.s. workers who support the frontline folks by training new agents, purr chatsing new equipment and collecting intelligence. republicans are wasting our time on an unnecessary and dangerous showdown when they should be focusing on economic growth, creating new jobs and increasing hardworking americans' paychecks so that we can preserve and expand the middle class in this country. i call on my colleagues in the republican party to abandon these unacceptable tactics, pass

a clean d.h.s. funding bill for the remainder of 2015 and start focusing on creating new jobs and increasing americans' paychecks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, workers and small businesses across the country have suffered greatly in obama's economy. over 90 million people are not participating in our work forest and wages have remained stagnant. expanding the size of government by raising taxes and increasing regulations will not help america recover. mr. stutzman: instead working americans are counting on us to make it easier, not harder to find opportunities so they can earn a steady paycheck and provide for their families. i ask my colleagues to support america's small business tax relief act legislation that the

house will vote on tomorrow sponsored by congressman tiberi. i know from traveling in my district in indiana that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. this will allow businesses to deduct expenses for new equipment the year they are purchased. this could add tens of thousands of jobs and add billions of dollars in economic output. tomorrow, let's stand for commonsense and pass a bill that would help kick start our economy and make it easier for small businesses and workers to succeed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker new york 16 days house republicans are prepared to shut down the department of homeland security. once again, we are taking the american people on a reckless

and irresponsible legislative joyride that is destinned to crash and burn. we are taking the mesh people on a collision course that will damage the safety and security of the american people. mr. jeffries: at a time when terrorists across the world are determined to do us harm. why would you contemplate shutting down the department of homeland security at this time? or at any time. simply to satisfy the extreme right wing of your party. the american people want us to focus on bigger paychecks, on good-paying jobs they want us to focus on strengthening the middle class. but you're determined to shut down the department of homeland security. it is reckless, irresponsible, let's get back to doing the business of the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i thank the speaker. this house must address the defense department with urgency. the member and women in uniform are fighting bravely around the world and depend on the certainty that they've got everything they need for their mission. the way to achieve that certainty is made increasingly difficult because of sequestration and this indiscriminate cuts affecting our men and women in uniform. i respectfully remind my colleagues today that as we start this budget appropriations process that we have the opportunity to replace sequestration in the months ahead. last year, house republicans passed not only a budget in a timely manner but we incorporated increased defense spending to ease the burden of sequestration. regardless of which side of the aisle we're on today, we all have a deep obligation to pass on the blessings of liberty and

freedom to future generations and in order to accomplish that, we can no longer allow federal budget policy to be dictated by a process that neither side intended to go into effect. i encourage my colleagues to make ending sequestration the top priority in the 114th congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> national security, protecting our nation's borders airports and computer networks,ings should be a priorityful making sure the department of homeland security, created with bipartisan support in the wake of september 11, has what it takes to protect our nation from terrorism and other threats is a no-brainer. but the republicans are jeopardizing all of that just for the opportunity to tell millions of hardworking aspiring americans that they are not welcome here.

ms. chu: this tactic of my way or no way is dangerous and serves the interest of a few at the expense of the many. holding our top national security agenda hostage because the republican majority is unhappy with the president's executive action on immigration is illogical and counterproductive. in fact former d.h.s. secretaries from both parties have warned that this approach will actually weaken, not strengthen our borders. the american people deserve better. they expect us to set partisan politics aside and ensure that government has the resources it needs. i urge my colleagues to listen to the needs of the american people and bring a clean d.h.s. funding bill to the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in

support of national marriage week. it's an honor to promote an institution that's been the cornerstone of society for centuries and i'm blessed to celebrate this week with my husband of 30 years lowell hartzler. mrs. hartzler: when a man and woman join together in holy matrimony, they are not only starting a life together and creating a family they are also establishing the foundation of a healthy society. researchers document many benefits to marriage. better health. greater personal happiness. enhanced financial stability and positive impacts for children. boys and girls raised at home by a mom and dad perform better in school, have less addiction and see less trouble with the law. at a time when some question the future of marriage, i think it's wise to reflect on the unique benefits the intact married family provides. social science clearly tells us that marriage leads to greater wealth, health, longevity and happiness. it is something to aspire to. to treasure.

and to fight for. not only does society benefit, but most importantly, do the men and women who commit to a lifetime of love, laughter faithfulness and future generations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent for a one-minute speech. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gayay go: -- mr. gallego: there are only 16 days left until the department of defense runs out of money. they decided to pass a d.h.s. funding bill they knew the senate would not approve and the president would not sign. they decided deporting dreamers and the parents of american children was more important than funding the department that helps protect the american

people. thankfully there's an easy solution to this. -- to this manufactured crisis. the republican leadership could bring up a clean bill this afternoon and it would pass with strong bipartisan support. mr. speaker, our most critical responsibility as members of congress is to ensure that the men and women charged with protecting our nation have the resources to do their jobs. it's time for republican leadership to stop playing games and start living up to this obligation by bringing a clean d.h.s. funding bill to the floor. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise as a son, a husband, a father of two daughters a brother of three sisters and i am proud to stand with one billion rising -- one

tissue -- one billion rising gives mothers, wives daughters sisters, neighbors and friends who have suffered from the abuse the opportunity to be heard and to join a supportive community. mr. dold: together we must be the voice of those who cannot speak up and to take action to help those who are asking for help. we must take the lead on this issue and set an example for the world. ensuring that women everywhere can live and thrive without fear of becoming a victim of violence. i am committed to taking action to stop abuse no matter what form it takes and i ask everyone to join me and rise with one billion rising to stand strong against these disturbing crimes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous condition sent -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mrs. maloney: last week, america got some great economic news. businesses added over 267,000 jobs in january. extending the longest streak on record of consecutive private sector job growth to 59 months. we also set another record when the house, led by the republicans, voted for the 56th time to repeal the affordable health care act. our economy added three million private sector jobs in the last 12 months, including over a million jobs in the last three months alone. yet instead of capitalizing on this success in order to help grow the middle class and add more jobs, the majority just continues to vote to take away health care. enough is enough.

thanks to president obama and the democrats, this economy has recovered from the worst recession on record. as you can see, the blue shows when president obama took office. and then we grew out of the loss of jobs and have been gaining jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to mourn the passing of mike collins. mike collins epitomized what a true public servant is. mike was a marine, a city councilman, mayor, police officer. he epitomized that public service that putting yourself never above the people you

represent. mr. latta: he always put the people he represented first. with his passing northwest ohio has lost a great leader. mr. speaker with his funeral today, i want to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife and daughters and his family. with that, mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? . >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa:: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak on the importance of funding the department of homeland security . playing partisan politics with d.h.s. for ransom because you're unhappy with the president's executive order on immigration is inappropriate. there are only 16 days -- more importantly, there's only six legislative days remaining before the department of

homeland security runs out of money, and this is america's security at stake. the events of paris recently showed us that terrorism remains a threat around the world. and it's also a domestic threat. why in the world would we want to put american citizens at risk, in harm's way? yet, the majority seems to be content to risk our national security by defunding homeland security. it's either my way or the highway. the opposition insists that congress dismantle the administration's immigration priorities, but they have yet to offer or bring a solution to fix our broken immigration system. if you have a better approach then bring it to the floor for debate and we'll vote on it. in the valley that i represent, the san joaquin valuey this bill would have a devastating effect on farm workers, farming and farm communities. i ask us to come together let's fund homeland security and make american people first.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise as co-chair of the bipartisan congressional career and technical education caucus in order to recognize february as national career and technical education month. with my friend and co-chair jim langevin of rhode island, the c.t. caucus remains focused on ensuring individuals have access to high-quality career and technical education programs. in the previous congress, bipartisan c.t. caucus was successful in highlighting the need for robust funding for the perkins career and technical education act. now, as we begin working for funding for fiscal year 2016 again, our priority will be focusing on ensuring adequate funding for c.t. programming across the country. now more than ever our young people need assurances that the skills they attain will lead to good-paying, family-sustaining jobs. c.t. programming can make those

assurances. mr. speaker, as we celebrate national career and technical education month, i encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us as members of the bipartisan career and technical education caucus and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to join my good friend and colleague mr. thompson of pennsylvania in recognition of career and technical education month. as co-chairs of the congressional c.t. caucus, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that every student has the ability to achieve his or her career goals. mr. speaker, it is long past time to re-authorize the perkins career and technical education act and i certainly look forward to working with awful my colleagues on this important legislation. now, this year the c.t. caucus will focus on expanding

apprenticeship and employer partnerships as well as providing students information to make informed career decisions. i ask my colleagues to join us in the congressional c.t. caucus and also co-sponsor the bipartisan counseling credit act which will ensure that counselors will have the job training they need in order to advise students about the good-paying jobs that will be available to them in the future. with that i want to thank my good friend and colleague, mr. thompson from pennsylvania, for being such a strong partner on these issues and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the hundreds of court reporters and captioners in the granite state

and around the country as we recognize court reporting and cangses week next week. beginning with the scribes in the continental congress, in drafting our declaration and independence, drafting documents has been a pillar of our democracy. in fact, after their high school graduations my own parents met at court reporting school and later went on to start their own court reporting business. in 50 years -- and 50 years later my mother still is in the business. court reporters a ever present right now in this very chamber, in committee hearings, in capturing the spoken word and debate including michelle york formerly of new hampshire. the court reporting and captioning industry continues to grow, estimating 5,000 new jobs over the next several years. to the hundreds of court reporters and captioners in new hampshire and around the country, thank you for all you do, and to the future reporters and captioners, thank you for

continuing the legacy so paramount to our democracy and our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, myrick. there are 16 calendar days and only six legislative days until the department of homeland security shuts down on february 28. and let me repeat that. the department charged with keeping america safe is set to run out of funding in just two weeks all because the republican majority insists on pandering toon anti-immigrant -- to an anti-immigrant extremist in their party. in fact, when asked to take up a new d.h.s. response bill, the republican response is, why do we have to? well, my brazen colleagues across the aisle who won't do this here's why. keeping americans safe should be the first responsibility of

this congress. at a time of increased threats around the world, holding this hostage for a sake of a partisan stunt is the height of irresponsibility. without funding, d.h.s. would be unable to manage and support the homeland security infrastructure that was built following the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our country safe. mr. speaker, this is not leadership. the american people deserve much better than this. we must continue funding the department of homeland security immediately. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> -- mr. richmond: mr. speaker, i rise in recognize of one of the civil rights attorney. eli attended howard university, dillard university, and loyola.

he started the law firm of collins douglas and eli which became the most noteworthy firm in louisiana for racial equality. in 1960, the new orleans chapter of the congress of racial equality, or core, asked eli and his firm to represent them following a sit-in. eli and his firm defended core chapter president rudy lombard and three others who were arrested for staging a sit-in at the mccurry five and 10 cent store. their appeal to the united states supreme court which in its decision declared the city's ban on sit-ins unconstitutional. later in his career, eli was one of seven supporters of the freedom riders who met with attorney general robert kennedy in 1961 when kennedy encouraged them to shift their efforts to registering black southerners to vote. his son is a prominent writer and filmmakers. he still calls new orleans home and mentors the younger generation through his training

program for new black attorneys. through his example, many young black men and women are able to achieve much more than they ever thought possible. myself included. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 12 2015, at 9:09 a.m. that the senate passed senate 295. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 101 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 9 house resolution 101,

resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 644, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-5 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and two, one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 636, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-6 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and two, one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. cole: during consideration for this resolution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cole: mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee 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 days of debate equally divided between the chair 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 rit row actively extend -- retroactively extended for the 2014 tax year, giving businesses just 12 days to make complicated investment decisions. that's no way to run a business. every time i'm 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. and if our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty into business environment that inhibits economic growth. even though we were able to retroactively extend those tax provisions at the end of last year, they're already expired again. instead of continuing this cycle of uncertainty, it's important to put these tax cuts in place early so that we don't end up in the situation like we did last year. i applaud chairman ryan for beginning early this -- 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 for i.r.a. 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 two 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, quote, 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 re-authorizing them reflects the policy this country has maintained for years under both republican and democratic administrations and congresses. . doing so provides businesses with the serbity -- certainty they so desperately seek. finally mr. speaker, i want to take a few moments to note that just as we had to pare back the

discretionary side of the budget, we need to examine and pare back the tax side of the budget. there are over 2,000 expenditures on the tax side of the ledger that if all 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 eliminate thsmed esheer complexity of the tax code and associated regulations to push us toward reform so that the 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 consideration of additional measures at the appropriate time. i urge support for the rule and underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma, my friend mr. cole, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for as much time as the -- as he wishes to use. mr. mcgovern: today we are considering two pieces of tax legislation under closed rules, the 10th and 11th closed rules of the 114th congress. this is becoming the standard proceed wrur in the republican house. in 2011, when republicans took the majority, speaker boehner promised, quote the right to a robust debate and open process, end quote. he promised many open rules. instead we have just ended the most closed congress in history. if these past six weeks are any indication -- indication of where we are headed, this leadership seems intent on breaking its own record for denying open debate on the house floor. i also want to point out that the department of homeland security runs out of money on february 28. 16 days from now.

press reports indicate that the republican leadership is scrambling to gather the votes necessary to pass the bill. mr. speaker, i have some advice for my friends in the majority. instead of yelling, instead of pouting and swearing, bring to the floor a clean department of homeland security appropriations bill. the bipartisan negotiated compromise has been ready to go since last november. this is a bill that could and should be sent to the president as quickly as possible. especially considering the international and national homeland security situation facing the u.s. and the world at this very moment. so i have to say that i'm a little perplexed as to why the majority has chosen this week to bring to the floor a package of tax breaks that are not paid for that are going nowhere, five legislative days before the department of homeland security is going to be forced to shut down because of republican

dithering. and i say going nowhere because senate republicans have said quite clearly that these bills will not likely be considered in committee or by the full senate. let me repeat that. this -- these bills are going nowhere because of the republicans in the senate. they've made it pretty clear. so the clock is ticking on funding our homeland security programs mr. speaker, are the republican leaders planning to let the clock run out? planning to create another crisis? we should be debating a clean department of homeland security bill right now. we ought to vote in a boish way to pass it, have the senate do the same thing, send it right to the president, and actually accomplish something. i'm also concerned, mr. speaker work the partisan approach taken by the ways and means committee and the ways and means republicans i should say, in advancing these particular tax measures. we went through this same exercise last year with -- with a similar set of bills only to

pass in the final weeks of -- 113th congress a one-year tax extenders package they have republican leadership in the house is setting the stage for a similar confrontation this year. instead of working in a productive, bipartisan manner on tax reform. that's something the american people, democrats and republicans, all want. they want us to be working on it and want us to pass a bipartisan comprehensive tax reform bill. the seven tax provisions before us today packaged into two bills will add more than $93 billion to the deficit. there was a time when my republican friends actually cared about the deficit. i guess those days are gone. while i support the goals of many of the provisions contained in these bills, i cannot vote for legislation that targets only a handful of tax provisions, chooses to elevate them and make them permanent at the expense of other tax priorities, and then refuses to pay for them. absolutely refuses to pay for them.

this republican package does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address key priorities like the work opportunity tax credit and the new markets tax credit. it fails to address the long-term status of the child tax credit. and the earned income tax credit that works to reduce poverty. if these provisions are allowed to expire in 2017, as currently scheduled, many working poor families would lose their child tax credit and many low income married couples and larger families would see a cut in their eitc. the center on budget and policy priorities estimates that if the eitc and c.t.c. provisions were to expire more than 16 million people in low-income, working families, including children, would fall into, or deeper into, poverty. the piecemeal deficit spending approach taken by this majority puts these working family tax

provisions at risk. mr. speaker, i was pleased to see members of the republican leadership at d.c. central kitchen yesterday, talking about hunger. d.c. central kitchen does incredible work to feed the hungry and help people get become on their feet. but count me as a little skeptical because time after time after time after time republicans have targeted poor people and the programs that help them. if my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about ending hunger they need to do much more than encourage donations to food banks. first and foremost they should stop targeting snap, the nation's premiere anti-hunger program. they should stop treating snap as an a.t.m. machine for other programs. instead they should work with us to increase the minimum wage or at least give us a vote on increasing the minimum wage. they should work with us to expand job training programs and make child care more affordable.

they should work with us to fix the major flaw in our social safety net, namely that when someone gets a job that doesn't pay very much they tend to lose all their benefits and end up struggling once again to put food on the table. find kay dare for their kids. keep their house warm. and pay the rent. we need, desperately to have a serious and thoughtful discussion about the long-term sustainability of our safety net programs. the fighting hunger incentive act makes permanent the enhanced deduction for contributions of food inventory. i strongly support our food banks and charitable organizations that work each and every day to feed the hungry in this country. i support efforts to provide incentives to donate food to these organizations. but one tax break does not constitute a plan to address hunger. and it certainly does not make up for the cuts to snap and other safety net programs that have been proposed and enacted

by this republican majority. so in closing, again i would urge my colleagues to -- well, let me urge my colleagues to pay attention to today's national journal daily. the headline. "so far, a congress about nothing." that's what this congress is becoming known as. a congress about noog. well, work with us in a bipartisan way to change this headline and you can do that by allowing a clean department of homeland security appropriations bill to come before us, we can pass it in a bipartisan way and meet the national security needs of our country and actually do something before we go home on another break. with that, i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. cole: my good friend from

massachusetts covered a lot of ground i'm not going to try to address it all. but let me point out a couple of things. my friend is concerned about the deficit. i appreciate that this is in for the democrats. when the republicans took power it was $1.4 trillion a year. now it's under $500 billion this majority has taken deficits extremely seriously and lowered them every year. second my friend is worried about the cost of the tax cuts. that's amazing to me because when they were in the majority they routinely extended the same tax cuts without paying for them year after year after year. so this sudden conversion to paying for tax cuts is new and remarkable and probably worth some consideration. third mitigating circumstance friend is worried about this coming to the floor without -- under a closed rule. frankly, tax legislation always comes to the floor under a closed rule. it's pretty hard to make calculations otherwise. that was true with democrats, it's true with republicans.

and this particular -- in this particular case i'm informed the minority was offered a chance to submit an alteshtive proposal in the form of an amendment and chose not to exercise that right. certainly their right. but if they want an alternative it could have been made in order they chose not to do that my friend raised the shb 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. we're waiting on the senate to do something. what's happening in the senate? my friend alluded to the fact that the republicans were somehow responsible for this in the senate. as he well know, 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 live through the four years of a democratic majority that

never brought appropriations bills to the floor. they've already had more votes under 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 to vote. democratic minority in the senate evidently does not want to vote either. that has frustrated both sides and kept legislation from coming to be. that's the reality of it. we'll wait and see what the senate does. i would not expect them to pass exactly what we passed over here. if they would simply allow consideration of a bill, something would emerge, we would go to conference, we would happener out our differences and move on and fund the department of homeland security. but right now this is a senate issue. not a house issue. s that question as to whether or not democratic senators will allow their own body to function. that's in their hands not in ours. frankly, i think that we will unfortunately see a lot of this in the course of the session. we'll send legislation over, democrats will try to keep it

from being considered they'll be offered the opportunity to consider that legislation over and over again. i hope we don't see this pattern repeated time and after time after time. with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i again remind -- urge my colleagues to read the national -- the "jarble journal daily" and pay close attention to the headline, "so far a congress about nothing." that's what we're doing here today. the tax provisions we're talking about here today, the republicans over in the senate are saying they don't intent to bring any of these before the relevant committees or intring them to the floor. they're trying to work on a more long-term comprehensive tax reform bill, as we should be here. so can't blame the democrats for that. it's the republicans that have said in the senate that they aren't going to take this up. then the question arises, why

are we doing this? why are we doing something that is more urgent and -- why aren't we doing something more urgent and more pressing like passing a department of home lan security appropriations bill. let's be clear about what the problem is. there's a bipartisan bill that democrats and republicans agree on on funding the department of homeland security. some of the more extreme elements in the house of representatives on the republican side have done is loaded it up with all kinds of anti-immigration provisions. they decided that that's where they want the debate on immigration. and so all of a sudden this bill has been loaded up with extraneous issues that don't belong on this bill and quite frankly we think that that's wrong. democrats in the senate think it's wrong. we're say -- what we're saying is actually bring before both bodies a clean bill. what is so wrong with that? you know if you don't like what the president suggested on

immigration, bring up a different immigration bill. or sue him again. because that's what my republican friends like to do all the time. but don't hold up a department of homeland security bill for a political battle on an issue, quite frankly that does not belong on an appropriations bill. mr. speaker, again there are only 16 days left until the funding of the department of homeland security expires. and 16 days but five legislative days only. if it expires, it would shut down many of the crucial operations to keep our country safe. mr. speaker, we despeet the freeves we i will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow for consideration of a clean department of homeland security funding bill. with such serious consequences it is time to put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect american families, and to discuss our proposal, i will yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on appropriations ms. lowey.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. . mrs. lowey: i rise today to urge the house to immediately take up and pass the bipartisan negotiated clean funding bill for the department of homeland security. by defeating the previous question on the pending rule we can immediately make in order the bipartisan clean negotiated homeland security bill and stop the theatrics over the president's use of executive orders. my colleague, ms. roybal-allard, and i made a similar attempt yesterday which was unfortunately defeated on a party-line vote. it's my sincere hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle have further discussed this issue amongst themselves and that he they are now prepared to end -- and that they are now prepared to end this standoff. mr. speaker, as of today we are

135 days into what should have been the start of the fiscal year. the situation this house has caused is completely unacceptable. we simply cannot wait one day longer, one more day to do the right thing. the responsible thing. and fund these critical agencies tasked with protecting this nation. as the ranking minority member of the appropriations committee, i was involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus spending bill that passed the house and the senate and was signed by the president last december. that package could have contained all 12 annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference and every one of them was ready to go. we thank representative price for his role in negotiating the

homeland bill last congress, but an unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to omit the homeland security bill not because there were outstanding issues or continued disputes, that bill was stripped from the omnibus because some in this body were up-to-the-set by the president's executive order on immigration. they even admitted the president's actions had little to do with the homeland security appropriations bill. yet that was the choice that was made on how to proceed. so the homeland security appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution instead of having a full year bill. ironically it meant the customs and border protection and immigration and customs enforcement, two of the agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our immigration laws had to do

without the nearly $1 bill increase -- $1 billion increase they would have gotten in the full year bill. delaying the full year bill limits the department's ability to advance the secretary's unity of effort initiative. designed to improve coordination if our security missions. limits the ability of the secretary to move ahead with the southern border, create some certainty regarding isis capacity to detain and deport dangerous criminals, complicates the department's ability to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border stations. delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the white house and hiring increases of the u.s. secret service. delays terrorism preparedness and response grants to state and

local public safety personnel. i understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel quite strongly about the president's use of executive orders on immigration policy. but i'm compelled to remind those colleagues that they have every tool at their disposal to pass legislation changing the president's proposal, but this stunt has gone on too long. it's time to admit these immigration policy decisions have little to nothing to do with the appropriations process. the homeland security bill should never have been held hostage in this fight. mr. speaker yesterday i put a statement by secretary of homeland security jeh johnson into the across-the-board d.d. congressional record because i thought it was so important for my colleagues to read. in it the secretary laid out the

consequences of operating under a continuing resolution and summed up the dangerous situation we face with the sobering message. mr. mcgovern: yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. mrs. lowey: border security is not free. i couldn't agree more. yesterday as a result of the party-line vote in the house on bringing up a clean bill, many of my majority colleagues insisted it was the senate's turn to act. but it is clear for all those watching that the senate cannot pass a homeland security bill with the house's extraneous riders attached. further, the president has made it abundantly clear he would veto the bill if these riders remain. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what now? hasn't this gone on long enough? isn't it time we abandon the failed strategy and pass a clean

bill funding the homeland security department? to that end i urge this whole house to join me today defeating the previous question so that my colleague, mr. mcgovern, can offer an amendment to provide a clean, full year appropriations bill for the department of homeland security. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. and the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. 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's concerns, remember that 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 they are essentially part of the existing tax code.

and frankly i predict once we get to the legislation probably we'll have dozens of my friends' colleagues vote in favor of these. that certainly was the case last year. there will be a lot of democratic votes for the very bills that are under consideration. the reap for acting now -- reason for acting now -- i agree with my friend. we made some progress in that regard last year. i have no doubt that's 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 alike, 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'm to the convinced none of these will be taken up by the other side, the other chamber. we'll see. it's an unhe predictable body.

we'll see. i want to compliment my friend from new york, the gentlelady who is the ranking member on appropriations we've gotten 95% 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, and we passed the legislation across this floor with the gentlelady's help, quite frankly. so all of us, myself included, owe you a debt in that regard. but i do point out that the legislation on homeland security -- we have acted on that. my friends have said, well perhaps you should sue the president. that's a good suggestion. about 30-odd states are doing that right now. he is in court because of the action he took in their view is going to cost them millions and millions of dollars. personal view is perhaps the house should somehow associate itself with that lawsuit.

not my decision to make, but i think that's an appropriate thing to do. 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, a democratic senate democratic house, never saw the bill. we didn't hear much about it for two years because he was busy running for his own re-election. later, we heard a lot about it but, frankly, the president said he was going to act before the election. then he pulled back from doing that because he thought, well, elech torely this may not be -- elechtorily this may not be advantageous. he rolled it out again afterwards. let's be real here how serious this effort is. it will be challenged if 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 in this house fashion. they simply just need to do their job, send something back, go to conference. we can act on it. they had lots of time to do this. this was moved over there weeks ago or a couple weeks ago. the real problem here 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 probably move pretty spirbles and find common ground,-- expeditiously find common ground, and get the homeland security bill done. it's a good bill. the underlying bill my friend was part of negotiating is an excellent piece of bipartisan,

bicameral compromise. if the senate would take up the bill in front of them i think we could get to the point where we would have an agreement in short order. i will reserve, mr. speaker -- i will continue to hope that the senate actually does its job. in the meantime reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me just respond to the gentleman on a few points he's made in his speech on the floor here. first of all about the process. these are closed rules that we are dealing with here today. and, yes, while it has been traditional to give tax provisions closed rules, there were members who actually brought amendments to the house rules committee to help pay for some of these that i think might have been able to earn bipartisan support, because there are some members on your side of the aisle who would like -- would like these paid for. do not want to add to the deficit. but they were not made in order in the rules committee, and they

made the other ideas how to pay for this so we can truly have a bipartisan vote on this and not add to the deficit. we will not have that opportunity because of the rule. again, these provisions that we are talking about would add $93 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. and, yes, maybe republicans and democrats in the past have extended these -- without pay fors. that doesn't make it ry. it just means -- right. it just means we both added to the deficit. we ought to get serious about pay as you go. my friends on the other side of the aisle insist that emergency unemployment benefits have to be paid for. but when it comes to a tax cut they don't believe anything has to be paid for. we should have a more open process on this. my friend talks about certainty. all we are trying to do is give people certainty. that's not the case. it's not the case because of what the president has said that he would threaten to veto these

bills if they were unpaid for. it's what republican leaders in the senate have said. roy blunt, our former colleague in the house made it very clear. he says, i quote, as long as the finance committee in the senate feels there is an opportunity for overall tax reform, i think you're going to not see a quick response to individual bills coming over here. he said, we may deal with them later on down the aisle but there's no sense that the senate's going to act on this any time soon. when we talk about providing people certainty, that's not what we are doing here. this is about just kind of going through the motions for the sake of going through the motions. and finally, on the department of homeland security bill yes, the house acted. and attached all these radical anti-immigrant riders to the department of homeland security appropriations bill.

and mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader told reporters on tuesday, i quote, i think it's clear we cannot go forward in the senate. so the next move obviously is up to the house. end quote. and today is thursday tomorrow we leave for a break, and it doesn't seem like republican leaders feel the same sense of urgency we do over here that we need to get this business completed, and republicans are obviously lee fusing -- refusing to admit the reality of this dangerous anti-immigrant grandstanding. in fact, when reporters asked house majority leader kevin mccarthy whether the house would take up a new d.h.s. funding bill, he said why do we have to? . let me respond to that. why do we have to? our primary job here is to protect the people of the united states of america. by letting this bill lapse, we are failing in our

responsibility. at this time, i would like to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from california ms. roybal-allard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. roybal-allard: i too rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question on the rule so it can be amended to make in order house consideration of h.r. 861, the clean, bipartisan, homeland security appropriations act for fiscal year 2015. as we have been reminded by previous speakers, today is february 12, 135 days into fiscal year 2015, and there are only 16 days remaining until the current c.r. expires. of these days, the house is scheduled to be in session only five. if some of my colleagues have a sense of deja vu when they hear that, i can sympathize. i get the same feeling when i wake up each morning and find that congress is still -- is

still spinning its wheels on a full-year funding bill for the department of homeland security. i know some of my colleagues believe the onus to act now lies with the senate, as we have heard. and aagree the senate should act. while it has had multiple failed attempts to bring up the house bill containing the poison pill riders, the senate republican leadership has not tried to bring up the clean, bipartisan funding bill. i feel confident that a majority of the senate would support the bill without the poison pill riders added to the house on the floor. and there is only one way to find out. the real question is, why isn't the house republican leadership willing to bring the clean homeland security bill for a vote? why wait? why not take the initiative and make h.r. 86 in order today?

we can quickly resolve the funding dilemma facing the department of homeland security and the house could then work its will on immigration policy and border security by debating the legislation reported to the house by the authorizing committees. that's the way our process was intended to work by our framers. the fact is mr. speaker, the clean full-year d.h.s. funding bill was negotiated in good faith on a bicameral, bipartisan basis and it addresses the most pressing needs of the department to protect this country from harm. the president would sign that bill today and we should send it to him. i urge my colleagues to put the safety of our country first and defeat the previous question to make in order the consideration of h.r. 861, the clean homeland

security funding bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: let's go back over a couple of points in the process where my friends and i disagree. again, tax legislation comes here under a closed rule almost always. democrats do it, republicans do it. second point, i bet these provisions we are discussing here today will at some point this year, if not in this legislation, almost certainly will be extended in place. all we're trying to do is move them early so people know for sure it's going to happen and can plan and act accordingly. and frankly, dozens of my friends who would vote for this almost certainly what is actually -- when it's actually considered on the floor. nothing unusual or extreme here it's just simply a way to try to get 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 do whatever it chooses to do. we've 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. this is the oldest book, evidencely, in the minority's party, in the other body's playbook. they did it when they were in the majority. they simply refused 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're asking to democrats and republicans alike in the other chamber is just do your

job. send us something. we'll go to conference with you. we'll hammer out a compromise and we'll 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 majority -- 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'll simply peck 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. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has? mr. cole: i'm prepared to close whenever my friend is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the remainder of my time. as i said earlier, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and if we defeat the previous

question, i'll bring up an amendment that will allow for there to be a clean vote on the department of homeland security appropriations bill no controversial anti-immigrant riders, just the bill that a bipartisan group of members an the appropriations committee has agreed on and an up or down vote. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: while i have great respect for my friend on the rules committee, and i sometimes get frustrated by the senate as well, the fact of the matter is, at least in the senate they're voting on a lot more amendments than we are in the house. we don't have an open process here. we have one of the most closed processes, if not the most closed pro-- process in history. and that's where a lot of the frustration comes from. on these tax provisions, i think there's broad bipartisan support on the policy. i support, i mean, mostly all of

them. and if we worked in a bipartisan way to make sure they were paid for, i think we could get a unanimous vote here in the house. but for some reason, this notion of working in a bipartisan way is something that my friends on the other side of the aisle just refuse to do. it's their way or the highway. it's one political message vote after another after another after another. and i think people are getting sick of it. i go back to the headline in the national journal daily, so far a congress about nothing. the reason why it's about nothing is that this chamber is not working. there is no bipartisanship here when it comes to legislation. there is no give and take. routinely we have -- we are being forced to vote up or down on bills that quite frankly work a few tweaks and improvements would pass. and the bills we're talking about here i think would pass

overwhelmingly if we open up the process a little bit. a little give and take. you know. so let's also be clear, we're not providing anybody with any certainty about anything. the senate leaders of the relevant committees that would take up this tax legislation have said clearly they're not going to take it up. not any time soon. so it's not urgent that we be debating and doing these bills here today. what is urgent is the department of homeland security appropriations bill. and for the life of me, i don't understand why the republican leadership can't override the views of a handful of extremists in their party who are insisting on maintaining these anti-immigration riders, holding the department of homeland security appropriations bill hostage, thereby jepardidsing the security of the people of the united states of america. we have five legislative days left to deal with this and we're

leaving tomorrow for a break. and again, what -- we go home and tell our constituents when they ask what have you accomplished? the answer is, nothing. we've done nothing. yes we've had debates. we've had votes. but on things that are going nowhere. not only because the president has threatened vetoes on most of the legislation but because the house republicans are saying the stuff you're sending over to us is too extreme, you know. what have we done? we voted to repeal the affordable care act for the 57th or 58th time. another waste of taxpayer money. going nowhere. voted for -- on the keystone bill tee twice closed rules. you know. voted on a bill to basically deny women essential reproductive rights that was so over the top and so extreme that the republican leadership had to pull it.

and substitute it with something else. so that has been the total amount of work that has been done here. and i don't know how my republican friends can go home and brag about or even talk about what we've been doing here when it has amounted to nothing. let's do something. let's defeat the previous question, allow me to bring up an amendment that would allow for a clean vote on a department of homeland security appropriations bill, we could come together in a bipartisan way, pass it overwhelmingly in the house pass it overwhelmingly in the senate, you'll all be invited down to the white house when the president signs it into law we all could agree on it, and show our constituents, democrats and republicans alike that we can work together and we can get something done. that we're not a congress just about nothing. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back me balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i yield

myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. cole: thank you mr. speaker. let's go back to the beginning of this debate and make sure that folks are very clore about what we're talking about. we're 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, quote, paid for in the past and that will almost certainly be part of any overall package that is enacted. we're 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's simply fair to the american taxpayer. that's important to remember. also it's 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 almost a sort of shirts and skins game, republicans -- democrats vote against the republican rule, we do she same thing then we're in the minority and our people mostly vote for that rule and i think probably certainly will today and then we'll actually have a vote on the underlying legislation and many, many, many democrats will vote will join almost all republicans and vote for it. so we think it's a good piece of legislation and we also think it's part of an incremental effort, we think mr. ryan will bring other bills like this to the floor but also will in time mick an overall proposal on tax reform. then we'll see if our friends are really serious about engaging in that debate and not questioning my friends on the other side of the aisle, but i have some serious questions about how serious the president is about tax reform. but again, we'll see. i think we've had a great deal of discussion about homeland security and again, just to be

clear, this house has acted and fully funded the homeland security -- homeland security -- homeland -- is done. it's funded through the end of the month. we've got legislation we agree on. the president frankly, 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 geng to be controversial. he waited until after the elections to try and pick a fight. 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're here. the house has reacted to that, i think in an appropriate form and sent it to the senate. the senate, the democratic minority has simply refused to allow any debate. they can do that under the

senate rules. i respect that process. but let's be clear about who is stopping the funding of homeland security. it's actually democratic senators who don't allow a measure to even come up for debate. if that measure came up for debate what this house passed, i suspect it would be changed in some way. i do not expect the senator will do exactly what we suggest or think they should do. they seldom do that. my friends -- and so they'll just do that, we'll arrive at a common agreement, go to conference there'll be the normal give and take in politics and we'll reach an agreement. my friend is concerned about the openness of the process. again, i again i point out when we deal with this kind of legislation it's normally a closed rule, and this has been pretty routine stuff. i will commit my friend to this 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. when they did they actually for the first time brought them under closed rules. we'll bring our bills to the floor under open rules. that's normal in the appropriations process. i think if you look at the record of the two majorities side by side, you'll find there was a lot more amendments made available to members of both sides under republican majority than have been the case when my friends were most recently in power. mr. speaker, in closing, again i want to point out the legislation in question is routine, should be enacted on a bipartisan basis, and we have the potential if the gnat will act, to actually put it on the -- if the senate will act to actually put it on the president's desk. i don't think he'll veto it, but that will be his call. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all

time has been yielded back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately.

"washington journal is quote continues. host: guest: [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, ♪ -- host: we are joined by congressman dana rohrabacher. what is your impression of this authorization of the president sent over? guest: i have not read it yet so i hate to give a specific decision on the language. it's going to have to have some very tough language, or definable terms that would give me comfort that the president is not going to use this as an excuse to put large numbers of combat troops, you know

regiments or divisions of troops , in that area again. host: we've been fighting isis for six months now. what changes with this debate happening in congress? does anything change with what is happening, in terms of over there? guest: yeah, well, first of all there are many people who want to get totally out of that region, which is we've heard some callers say. but we do know we've got to support those people and those elements in the region who are opposed and offer a different alternative to the islamic people who live there in the middle east. and i think that isil has crystallized that, that we have to offer an alternative. that is not mean we pick up the sword and fight their fight for

them -- that does not mean we pick up the sorted by their fight for them. but we should be behind the alice-asisi and others who are willing to fight. and we can draw others into the coalition, so we don't have to send american combat troops. but we should be supporting them with backup air support, etc. host: one of our collars in the first segment was advocating for more support of the kurdish peshmerga fighters. guest: exactly. host: do you think they are our best option right now? guest: well, they, and the jordanians. king abdulla and the crown prince of abu dhabi.

as well as egypt. we've got people there. just focusing on what we can do to help those people defeat this evil force. and isil, you have jury remember -- you have to remember, this seems like a new force, but it's nothing more than radical fanaticism. the words that our president does not seem to be able to utter, islamic terrorists, but that is what they have been for over 10 or 15 years. this is the same group, really. it may not be the same organization, but the same group of people who slaughtered 3000 americans on 9/11. we make mistakes when we are not giving wholehearted support to those people in the region to fight the fight themselves.

host: if you want to talk to congressman dana rohrabacher this morning as we have this conversation, the phone lines are open. the numbers are on the screen. and as those viewers are calling in, i want to ask about your recent trip to northern iraq and what your spirits was. guest: i visited irbil which is in the kurdish region. i believe we should recognize the kurds as an independent country. many of our problems stem from the fact that we have british colonialists, these imperialist of 150 years ago responsible for drawing a lot of these lines. and a lot of these countries were not countries. they were just the creation of some british imperialists 150 years ago. the kurds deserve their own country. they are a national entity.

we have been trying to bend over backwards and placate groups of people who are not necessarily our friends. we are trying to calm in a people -- to accommodate people who we don't know if they are friends. stick with your friends. find out who they are. give them as much support as you can, and let's forget about baghdad. let's deal with the kurds. host: and that includes military legal aid to -- guest: the kurds? absolutely. host: what about arming syrian rebels will stop at the place you have expressed concern in the past. -- what about arming syrian rebels? it is a place you have expressed concern in the past. guest: the president needs to get it right. using the words islamic

terrorist might indicate a mindset that might give him the wrong directions as far as who to support and who not to. for example there were demonstrations early on in his presidency. they called it the air spring. welcome he was very supportive. and guess what, in a ron -- in iran where he should have been supportive of the democratic elements, he couldn't bring himself to support those people against the mullah regime. i think the president has some judgment problems based on his own perceptions of who is the good guy and the bad guy. we should be doing what we can -- we can determine that, all of us. who is our friends? and get behind them. the good not localized to get solidly behind president a

l-assis and provide him helicopters at a time that we know egypt is just teetering on becoming radical. if we lose egypt, it's gone. in our present has a link of a halfhearted support to the non-fanatics in egypt. -- our president has only given halfhearted support to the non-fanatics in egypt. host: go to our first call. caller: we gave wholehearted support in iraq. i remind you of the transportation minister who was put in there by officials. his name is al-amari. he is pro-radicalization and has been leading militias and he is a shiite.

i would like to know, give me the names of those syrian moderates that you are so blatant on arming. guest: i never use the word moderate. you used the word moderate. we are talking about people who are freely to the interest of the united states and are not engaged in fanatic, radical islamic terrorism. yeah, there are a lot of forces there that may not be considered democratic or moderate that we could get behind to defeat this enemy which threatens our security as well as the security of every person in that area. -- in that area who is not a fanatic muslim who will not join their team. for example, this is more controversial. i don't see any reason why we should not be trying to enlist assad. he has an army and an air force.

his armies never going to join forces with the radicals to attack western interests there. at the very least, we know that. these other people are trying to help what has happened. -- are trying to help and what has happened yet we have been giving our weapons to the bad guy. and by the way, let me just note -- when i come down on the president about his shortcomings in being able to deal with radical islam and make the right decisions to position us toward overcoming the challenge, i do not say that the republicans should be growing -- crowing. we have to remember, it was george w. bush and his invasion of iraq that got us into this situation so deeply in the first place. host: on assad for a moment, do

you seem as a legitimate actor in a process? guest: yes power military -- in world war ii, we helped joseph stalin, for pete's sake. this is really the thing group that brought these are radical fanatic islamists and we need to make sure we can work with those people who will help us defeat that which is our primary enemy. host: how you are on with congressman dana rohrabacher. guest:caller: my biggest concern is that if we central out there that they weren't taking care of the troops a first time. i am a disabled vet and have been waiting a long time for my

v.a. claim. the president is in charge of the v.a. and i have to admit i talked to jeff miller and bipartisan support and i have concerns they are not taking care of us now. they haven't built hospitals and 45 years. we are not getting our benefits. i would like to hear your comments on that. thank you very much. guest: you are rightfully worried. i just have to say with this administration, we know there was a cover up of the condition of the actual of the lack of efficiency going on. this administration oversaw a covering up of that and adequacy

of them doing their job at the v.a. i think veterans -- i do think we need to take care of our veterans. we need to make sure we understand and we republicans understand that it was george w. bush and his father who sent all of these americans over there. i think that was one of the great mistakes our country has ever made. now we have to make sure that those brave americans who stepped up, took those orders from the republican presidents are taken care of. i think you are worried about that and have every reason to worry, especially since we are spending more money to send more troops in. i don't believe in major deployments in the gulf anymore. host: let's head out to colorado.

charles, go ahead. caller: i agree with you that we need to support the forces over there with king abdullah and people like that to create a stable middle east. one thing in this issue we always have to keep in mind is that radical islam is an ideal. they are coming after us. one of the biggest rallying cries for al qaeda was we had a base in saudi arabia, the holy land of the muslims. that was how bin laden recruited thousands of these radical islamists. we also have to address guantanamo bay as another big rallying cry. it is the biggest rallying cry

-- and the biggest rallying cry whatsoever is our supporting israel. and not going to the two state solution. guest: i don't care about trying to answer their battle cry or their organizational cry. these are a bunch of masochistic murderers using their religion as an excuse or as a motive. it is also a recruiting tool for them to conduct themselves as animals. let me just say that we should not be having policy based on what will prevent people from attacking us in the islamic world. we should do what makes sense to us to make sure those people in the islamic world who are muslims and are willing to work.

i believe 90% of the muslim people certainly don't go along with these radicals. the radical islamic terrorists are motivated by their religion. they are trying to radicalize all their fellow muslims. the worst thing we could do is make this a muslim versus christian battle. right now we have many muslims who -- the northern alliance that defeated the taliban in afghanistan, they are all muslims. we should have been backing them all along. our government was basically backing the taliban during the 1990's. and when we should have been supporting those people who ultimately became the northern alliance -- then we ended up having to send troops into afghanistan to do their

fighting. we didn't have to do that either. i was all for making sure we provide those people like the northern alliance the air support they need or the weapons they need to be able to defeat these radical islamic fanatics. for us then which is what george w bush did, that is when things go haywire and put our people in jeopardy. we have more veterans to take care of because they are putting their lives on the line rather than have the local people do the job they are supposed to do. host: jan in orlando, florida. good morning. caller: i only have a couple of comments to make. the first thing this representative said, i did not

read the speech. i don't know what is in the papers of president obama and what he asked for yesterday. he had that from yesterday until this morning, but he hasn't read it. he was probably trying to make his plane tickets to go home because he only has five more days. guest: look, ma'am. those type of personal insults are unnecessary. the fact is that i plan to study this with the -- i plan to study what the president suggested. i was busy doing work in washington yesterday. you don't have to insult people who were care thinking we don't care as much as you do. i find that my colleagues care a lot about their job. they are good people. i have my disagreements with them, believe me. i am an outspoken guy.

you just heard me criticized the republican party and i am a republican. i don't doubt people are trying to do what they think is right. i think in many areas we disagree. you didn't have to try to insult me. host: it is a spec to go through the foreign affairs committee in the house. when it -- would it come to your subcommittee first? guest: not my subcommittee, but my committee. and it know it would not -- and no it would not. it would go directly to the full committee. host: what is your expectation of when a final vote might happen? is it months? weeks? guest: within a matter of weeks or sooner. i don't have a read on this particular president's offer.

host: that back and forth, are you expecting it to go on? guest: yes and i want to take a look to make sure there are some real limitations on the type of military forces we can put into that region again. i do not want to see the major deployment of tens of thousands of american troops go back into that part of the world again. that is wrong. it does not work. i will look at what the president is asking us to do. host: what about a specific time limit? there is a three year time limit that could be renewed by congress. is that something you would be ok with? guest: it sounds ok to me. i want to see to what extent the limitations are that he is

putting on the actual deployment of large numbers of american troops before i given three years to do anything he wants. i don't think i will do that. host: ken on the line for independence. ts. good morning. caller: good morning representative, we have met before. i hope we can change gears here a little bit. when you are looking at isis in general as being the problem that they are, it seems to me like all i hear about is that they have identity problems. why can't we do something about offering them a better deal? maybe creating something like a level of a red cross or something where they can begin a good identity to support people and help the people who

become homeless or injured. if they would just turn their weapons in and be part of the cure instead of the -- guest: you think maybe we should offer the ss and hitler's armies a way for them to feel better about themselves so they don't have to wear their uniforms? come on now. anyone who has gotten involved with the organization knows that they are murdering people. they are putting guns to the back of their heads, burning people alive in order to try to terrorize you and me. this is in some psychological esteem problem we will solve the psychology. we will have to defeat these people. when you to work with those people who will kill them so they don't kill us. host: chicago illinois is next. beverly on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. how are you doing?

host: good. caller: i hear the gentleman say president obama won't call these people radical muslims. what do you call christians when they behead blacks, castrate blacks, thro firebombs and churches killing innocent children all because we are black? why don't you all call christians radicals? guest: you are talking to someone who has used that phrase. we lived in north carolina when i was going up. this is in the 1950's. i am fully aware we had people who thought of themselves as christians who are carrying crosses and burning crosses and brutalizing and terrorizing america's black population. i agree there are a lot of people who deserve the criticism that you just made, but it is not me. host: i want to ask you about a different region of the world.

this morning, we found out that a cease-fire deal has been announced. a cease-fire in eastern ukraine is expected to go into effect on sunday. this comes in a week in which the white house has been debating sending lethal aid to the ukrainian government. your thoughts on that peace deal and whether the u.s. should send lethal aid? guest: we should not send lethal aid. they had about 8000 that's so far, maybe a thousand 500 people -- 8000 deaths, maybe 8500 people. we will succeed in having 30 to 40,000 -- having 30,000 to 40,000 people killed there if we send in lethal aid.

these are people who are clearly an evil force. this is a geopolitical struggle. ukraine is caught between europe and russia. it all started, which people don't want to admit, when there was an overthrow of an elected prime minister in ukraine. it snowballed from there. it is not as open and shut a case right now. i am very happy the european leaders are reaching out and trying to find a compromise with putin and with the people in the ukraine who are totally flabbergasted when their prime minister who they had elected, was overthrown.

it appears some of our western european allies were working in cooperation with those who overthrew the government. host: the last time you were on this program, there was a vote that happened in congress that i wanted to ask you about. you wrote about on your website. has resolution 758 was a resolution strongly condemning the actions of the russian federation which carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries and aimed at political and economic domination. guest: i think the charges against who were greatly exaggerated -- charges against putin were greatly exaggerated. he has many flaws. the whole situation started when our european allies were involved with elements in the ukraine to overthrow a

democratically elected prime minister. we have to realize that this isn't just putin committing an act of aggression. things got confusing. there is a conflict. our goal should be to end the conflict and find copper mice. -- to find compromise. host: when we have these truce deals, can we expect a sod to cooperate? guest: the 8500 people who have lost the lives during this, the biggest number are of people who are in these towns and villages who declared they don't want to be under the group in kiev the overthrew the democratically elected government.

there has been indiscriminate showing that in these cities resulted in large -- there has been in discrimination showing that these cities resulted in large amounts of death. i am not saying prudent should have vote on ordering the previous >> we'll leave this. take you live to the house floor for a series of votes. the ti le of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number nine. house resolution 101. res. lose -- resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 644 to amend the internal revenue code of 1996 to permanently extend the deduction for invenn tir and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 636 to amend the internal revenue code of 1996 to permanently extend increased spending limb nations and for

other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will redice to five minutes the minimum time -- reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any vote on adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232 and

the nays are 164. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays 163. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 12, 2015, at 1:42 p.m. appointments, congressional executive commission on the people's republic of china, national council on the arts, united states senate caucus on international narcotics control, commission on security and cooperation in europe helsinki. board of trustees of the john f. kennedy center for performing arts. president's export council, united states holocaust memorial council. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the luss -- the house will be in

order. will members please take their conversation off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 101, i call up the bill h.r. 644 and i ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 12 h.r. 644, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 19 6 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for prohibitions of food inventory. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 101 in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 11 -5, is adopted and the

-- 114-5, is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from wisconsin mr. ryan and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 45 minutes. the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 644, the fighting hunger incentive act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: -- mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: here's what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation today. we are trying to provide some more certainty. small business, they have to be able to plan for the future.

charities who are serving those in need, they also have to plan for the future. families need to know whether there's going to be help for them at local food banks. a lot of them look to the tax code ironically, when planning for the future. they need a tax code that's easy to understand. but that is not the tax code we have today. whether we make a tax code more complicated, well, if we do that we are making their lives more unpredictable. that's a disservice to the people we are trying to serve. what would really help would be to fix our broken tax system. ultimately our goal is to get to tax code that is impler, fairer for everybody. -- simpler fairer for everybody. we still have work to do on that front and life doesn't wait for washington. in fact, washington has a really bad habit of letting really important provisions expire only to renew them retroactively. this has got to stop and we are

trying to fix this. so these bills would make several of these provisions permanent. number one, it would encourage charitable giving. number two, it would help to let people contribute to charities from their i.r.a.'s, individual retirement accounts, tax free. number three, would let people deduct food bank donation from their taxes. it would make other changes that make giving less expensive. the quick to the short, mr. speaker, is these are provisions in the code that we know because it's demonstrated, make a big difference. it is so important that we have a vibrant civil society, that space that stands between ourselves and our government, which is where we live and lead our lives, that is vibrant and that space is there to help people in need. private charity is the glue that keeps our communities together. and in so many instances, private charities thrive on the

good will and the donations and the generosity of other people, of businesses. and those businesses are affected by the tax code. and so what we have to do is provide certainty to those businesses who want to be generous, to those people who want to be generous, but to these charities who need some predictibility so they can plan their charitable endeavors. so knowing that this is a bipartisan notion knowing that the good work that is done by these groups is absolutely essential to healing people in our communities, getting people on, getting them where they want to be in life, the least we can do is provide some certainty so more of this can happen. last year we waited until the end of the year to extend these provisions retroactive to the first of the year but only for that year. oh and by the way, last year we waited until december 11 to tell all these charities, these

donors to charities ok, now here's the benefit for the past year but guess what, it already expired at the beginning of this year. so i know this sounds kind of complicated, the point is this is no way to run a railroad. we need to provide families with certainty. we need to provide charities with certainty and that's what this bill does. the part we're going to have a debate here, mr. speaker, is nobody seems to have a problem when we do it one year at a time. no one seems to have a problem when we quote-unquote pay for it. raise taxes on other people just to keep them the same when we do it one year at a time, but when we say, let's make this permanent, this thing we do once every year, that everybody's fine with, instead of doing it once every year and sometimes retroactively let's do it permanently so people and families and business ks plan, then all of a sudden -- businesses can plan then all

of a sudden it's a problem. i don't understand it. it doesn't make sense. who we are serving is not washington. who we are serving are the people who are trying to survive, are the people who are the beneficiaries of these charities, of the charities that are doing the good works. so that's why we're bringing this legislation to the floor. i'm very excited to be a part of this. i want to thank all the members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in this area and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the issues here are not the merits. that isn't the issue. the issue is whether we proceed this way. proceeding this way is the opposite of bipartisanship. it's very opposite. the chairman has said he wants to find common ground on common aspects. what this does is essentially

pull terrain out from under common ground. it's the opposite of a search for common ground. and the president has said he will veto. we have the messages right here once again so it's the opposite of bipartisanship. it's also, if i might say, the opposite of certainty for taxpayers. we went through this last year. these bills will not become law period. if they were to pass the house and the senate, they would be vetoed. that happened last year. it did not become law. it will not become law this year. these provisions will be continued if we don't pass tax reform. and mr. chairman, you control

the schedule. if you don't want to wait until december, do it earlier if tax reform doesn't become a reality. and that's another problem with this bill and these bills. they're the opposite of tax reform. you don't do tax reform in a piecemeal fashion. dave camp to his credit, understood that so he came up with a comprehensive package. in the senate republicans understand this. senator blunt said last week, and i quote, as long as the finance committee feels there's an opportunity for overall tax reform i think you're going to not see a quick response to individual bills coming over. what could be clearer? what could be clearer?

this is also the opposite of fiscal responsibility. so you have here three opposites, really four, and four opposites make a big minus. $14 billion is the cost of this bill. $79 billion the next bill, that's $93 billion. we marked up just a few hours ago in ways and means two more bills, one $42 billion and another one $177 billion. that's $219 billion. and you add up those over -- up those, over $300 billion in terms of adding to the deficit. there's been some talk about helping the middle class. action is the opposite of platitudes. so where's the action on the

child tax credit? where's the action on the eitc, also affecting working and middle-class families? where's the action on the work opportunity tax credit? where's the action on the minimum wage? the answer is we're now several months into this session. a reporter said to me, what's bill number one? i said, i have no idea. how about other bills that really address the needs of the middle class of this country? so we're -- as expressed in ways and means, so many very opposed to what is really a counterproductive path here. the merits, again are not the basic issue. the basic issue do we want to fly in the face of bipartisanship, fly in the face of certainty for taxpayers, fly

in the face of tax reform and fly in the face of fiscal responsibility? we should not be doing that. we should not be doing that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ways and means committee, the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i rise today to speak very well about the conservation tax incentive easement legs. i get confused of the conversation on the floor. if you do it for a year and two years and don't pay for it, that's good policy, that's good legislation, that's good for america. if you go beyond that time it's not good. this is piece of legislation that came up in 2006. in fact, my colleague, mr. thompson, brought it up. he and mr. camp did it. he and mr. gerlach, who

retired, last year did it. i can tell you something about this, it's not only bipartisan, it's bicameral, it's in the president's budget. if you talk about trying to work together to get somewhere isn't this it? isn't this it? sometimes we always try to bend the rules for something else but this is about conservation. this is about allowing a landowner to set property aside. so i don't care if you're a farmer or rancher i don't care if you're a hunter or hiker, i don't care if you like to look at birds or hunt birds, there's over 65 agencies -- associations around the country that say please do more of this. set this ground apart. now if you're a farmer or rancher, you can still work that ground. all you're saying is this a is set aside. we can't lose this ground. this is so basic as americans saying, let's preserve what we have. let's just keep what we have. let's make sure that our kids can hut and hike and swim. let's make sure that they can fish. let's make sure they can do all those wonderful things that this land affords us to do but

then it becomes, gosh this is about politics, it's not about policy. it's good policy. it's never been paid for. i just don't understand why all of a sudden now why is it paid for and i'm starting my third session here but, my god, you would never do this back home. i'm an automobile dealer. i couldn't do this to a customer and say, it's ok now. but later on you have to pay me for it. you gave it to me, no, we're going to take it back. there's millions of acres that have been set aside now. why not give some perm nancy to this? we tax about tax -- we talk about tax reform. let's do what makes sense for all of america. let's talk about preserving america's ground, making sure it doesn't go underdevelopment. people can still farm it. they can still ranch on it. it just makes good more sense. just a little bit more. thank you. i'm just asking our friends on the other side, let's think about what's good for the people we represent. and not what's just good for the moment. we've always done this in the

past. it's only become a problem now because it's not a one-year extender or a two-year extender. now all of a sudden we're saying well let's just let people know it's the way it is until the end of time. you don't want to give anybody certainty. you don't want to give anybody perm nancy. there's no time in my life i would ever say to my friends, my family or anybody i represent this is just a temporary thing for me. tomorrow i may have a change of heart. so i just ask my friends h.r. 641, mr. thompson son this piece. let's make sure we move forward for america. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to our distinguished whip who's going to supply, if the gentleman will wait here for a very clear answer, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: for four minutes. mr. hoyer: the ranking member didn't write my speech so i'm not sure what my answer to the distinguished gentleman's

comments, but i'll say this. to my friend, i'm not for one year. i may vote for one year but that's not what we ought to do. it ought to be paid for if it's one year, two years, permanent. there is no free lunch. you are in the automobile business. people come into your automobile store and they say i'd like to have that car for $10,000. and you say look, i paid $20,000 for that car. i can't sell it to you for $10,000. there's no free lunch. unpaid tax cuts are a free lunch, a pretense that somehow it's just free. but i'll tell my friend, it's not free. the chairman, who was the chairman of the budget committee offered a budget which cut food stamps $125 billion.

this bill is called fighting hunger incentive act. $125 billion cut in food stamps and i tell you my friend voted for $40 billion cut in food stamps in the farm bill. i'm not for free lunches. i'm for a lot of these tax cuts, but i'm not for taking it out of the mouths of children and feeding i'm not for talking it for n.i.h., i'm not for taking it out of our national security. we got to pay for what we buy. i vote that way. the chairman and i were one of five or 18 people one time that voted against a very popular bill. had to deal with social security. and we thought it was not paid for, not fiscally responsible and he and i were one of 18 people in this house voted against it. mr. kelly: if the gentleman will yield for a moment? mr. hoyer: i don't have much time but maybe we can get some

more. mr. kelly: i say, i cannot be in more agreement with you. i watched for six years an opportunity in the country with the greatest assets our middle income people suffer the greatest harm they had. if it's really about getting america back to work, putting foods in the mouths of these children, the only way to do that is to have a dynamic and robust economy. that's what i think we need to do. i watched it for six years. it is appalling what we've allowed to have happen in the country that's been blessed with so many things but just bad policy. we can't get beyond the politics. that's what's hurting our people. it's not the fact this is not being paid for. because we're not manipulating it for a year or two. the whole purpose of why we should be, let's raise all america. let's get everybody looking up, be able to feed everybody. we shouldn't have programs for people that can't take care of themselves because by their very nature we can do that. they have potential. mr. hoyer: i used to have a magic one minute. i don't have it now.

we have had bad policy, i tell my friend. terrible policy. mr. kelly: agree. mr. hoyer: i don't know about you but i'm for simpson-bowles. the problem for simpson-bowles for some people, it paid for what it did just like the camp bill. the camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero sum game in the sense it cut taxes and it paid for them. a zero sum game. just like you had to run your business. because if you didn't run your business that way you would have gone bankrupt. now, i fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that way, as i say one of 18 with my friend from wisconsin. but i tell my friend, yes, we're following bad policy. this bill you can argue for the merits. i get that. the next bill you can argue for the merits. and the bill after that and the bill after that and the bill after that. and you then caused $600 billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay for because we're

too old to be around long enough to pay for it. so i rise against this bill, not because i'm against fighting hunger. everybody ought to be against fighting hunger. mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has another two minutes. mr. hoyer: when you talk about hunger, don't cut food stamps by $40 billion. don't cut $125 from food stamps over the next 10 years as the chairman did. i disagree with that policy and i respect the chairman. i like the chairman. mr. kelly: if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: no. mr. speaker, this is one of two bills that we're considering on the floor this week to make tax cuts permanent. and it's unfortunate that neither of these bills is paid for. one year or permanently. together they would increase the deficit by $93 billion. nobody's suggesting we're going to pay for that so our kids will pay for it. democrats support extending many of the preferences we're

talking about but we're also deeply concerned about america's fiscal future. . i voted that way, not just talk that way. i hear a lot of talk from my friends on the other side but that talk fails to translate into fiscally responsible legislation. we cut the debt from the time i came in under reagan 189%, more than any president that's been president in the time i've been here. we've seen tax bills like this before when republicans brought them to the floor last congress along with several other permanent tax cuts which would have ballooned the deficit by $600 billion, twice what we'll spend on medical research at n.i.h. i also hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a broken tax system.

i tell my friends, that system is going to remain broken, that system is going to remain broken unless we do what camp did. did i agree with what camp did? no, but i respected him for putting together a package of tax reform that gives us what we need. people ought to know. these ought to all be permanent. there are tax cuts that ought to be permanent so people can plan. families deserve the certainty that comes from tax reform not partisan piecemeal reform bills that undermine, undermine tax reform. that's what roy blunt was talking about. roy blunt has already been quoted soy won't repeat the quote but what he said as long as the finance committee feel there's an opportunity for overall tax reform, i don't think you'll see a quick response to individual bills coming over. that's why this is bad policy. you're not going to get from

here to there unless you have a comprehensive bill that makes the tough tradeoffs and summons the courage of this congress to pass meaningful permanent paid for tax certainty for our citizens. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i very much respect the majority whip -- the minority whip. it's not one of those buts, i very much respect the gentleman. he's a class act legislator. i look forward to his support of our coming work from the committee. if he wants to be part of tax reform. and -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? pll ryan: that was the longest magic minute i think i've seen without the magic minute. mr. hoyer: i've done longer when i had the minute, believe me. i want to tell the gentleman, in

all sin centi, i look forward to being able to support a bill that is comprehensive, paid for and gives our citizens an individual -- and individual taxpayers the certainty they need, to have the confidence they need to grow our economy. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. ryan: thank you. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: let me ask about the time allotment, by the way. how much time? who is where? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 37 minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 33 1/2. mr. ryan: i yield myself two minutes. normally, mr. speaker, i don't try to get into baseline issues because it's kind of arcane budget issues, but here's where i think there's an inconsistency or a problem. so people listening to this debate, you know there's a lot of confusion here. if we were talking about a spending bill let's just say the highway trust fund or tanf,

temporary assistance for needy families. and it expired and we said, let's just ex-tent this -- extend this bill, this law, and the spending in it at its current levels for another five six years. we wouldn't have to quote-unquote, pay for that. it wouldn't cost anything. it's already in the baseline. if we were basically talking about a spending bill here, none of these kinds of criticisms would be -- would hold merit. would be usable. so here we are talking about taxes. and so i think people are getting the impression from this debate that we're talking about a tax cut here. that we're talking about doing something to businesses or individuals and cutting their taxes. these are laws that are already on the books. charities. that's what we're talking about here in this particular bill. all we're saying is, don't raise

their taxes. that's what we're saying here. the choice before us is fairly obvious. either we raise taxes on small businesses and individuals with respect to charitable giving, or we keep them where they are today and just go raise taxes on somebody else, or we acknowledge reality for what it is is, they have these benefits. they've had these benefits. we all agree they ought to keep these benefits. and every year we -- every year we renew these benefits. but we do it, giving myself 30 more seconds we do it in such an awful way. we wait until the end of the year, then we do it retroactively or do it one year. nobody knows what's going on. nobody can predict the tax code. nobody can make decisions. as a result these charity, thee families, these small businesses suffer. that's what we're trying to fix here.

with that, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. stock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. schock: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just say so much has been said, i'm not sure i'll need three minutes. obviously i'm here to speak in support of a measure that i introduced in this body last july that passed by a two to one majority. that means nearly every republican and tens and scores of democrats, a whole host of democrats, to pass by a two to one majority, voted for almost identical language contained in this bill. now, the negotiation and the agreement between the house and senate to make this more permanent fell apart. and so we did what we've always done, which is extend it for another year. just a few months ago, just a few months ago republicans and democrats came together in this body to vote on identical legislation to extend it a year at a time.

in fact this piece of legislation has been extended four times since 2006. under the same proposal that we're submitting here, just not a year at a time but rather permanent. the same pay-fors or lack thereof written almost identically. so what's at stake? what's at stake is how much the people of our respective districts are going to benefit and whether they will benefit. back in my district, the head of they have galseburg community foundation said when he's meeting with donors, if they can give them to their i.r.a., as this bill will allow they give four times the amount of goods and services than they would give without the i.r.a. donation provision. four times. this isn't about the donorful it's about the recipient. and so i would just simply ask, why don't we give the certainty not to the donor.

but rather give the certainty to the recipient. whether it be food and shelter, whether it be education benefits here in our country and around the world that benefit from this provision, give them the certainty, do what we've always done but do it early and do it now. rather, i would ask anybody who stands up to oppose this, 10 months from now, where will your vote be on a one-year extension? where will your vote be on a two-year extension? what's wrong with making what we've been doing since 2006, a year and two years at a time, permanent? it's important for us to give the certainty to the beneficiaries and to the communities who benefit from this provision. i urge a yes vote on this and i hope once again as we did last july this body will pass this bill with an overwhelming 2-1 majority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin

reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the answer to the gentleman is we pay for certainty. if you make something permanent, you should pay for it. and that's essentially what our chairman did when he chaired the budget committee. his budget never assumed these provisions were permanently in the baseline. or he would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years. that's the reality. if you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget, you've got to face up to paying for them. otherwise you squeeze out other necessary programs. it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to a member of our committee a very active member mr. doggett of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for four minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. certainty, we are told is the key factor here. first words from chairman ryan in support of this bill. i think the first certainty we have here is the knowledge that this bill is part of a package that approved through today is certain to borrow $317.5 billion. that is basically a request to this house and this congress that we approve the borrowing of $317.5 billion and when you look at other measures they have approved in the past they're really on a pathway to borrowing almost $1 trillion to finance these tax cuts. i believe that certainty is important to taxpayers. i think that when someone pays for medicare and social security they need to be certain that it will be there. they need to be certain that the

water that they drink and the air they breathe is not contaminated. they need to be certain that the food that they put on their family's table is safe. that it's been inspected by a meat inspector or another type of health inspector. they need to be sure when they drive home they need to have the certainty that the bridge that they drive over is not going to fall down as it did in minneapolis a few years back. they need to be certain that there is educational opportunity, quality education, for their children. and they need to be able to do all this without just having to rely on charity. this bill certainly selects a subset of tax provisions that benefit a few americans and gives them preference. and i like some of these provisions. in fact, i'm a co-sponsor of some of these provisions, like the conservation easement.

but they are measures that can and should be fully paid for instead of asking for another i.o.u. and because they are select provisions they exclude many working and middle class american families. for example, the american opportunity tax credit, which is based on the principle that we want all americans to be able to get post secondary education in a college or a trade school but a choice that they make and get $2,500 directly off of their tax bill to pay for tuition and books. the child tax credit that so many american families claim. to help with their children. the earned income tax credit that even president reagan said was a key factor in getting people out of poverty. those are key provisions that were left over on the side and not selected for borrowing or for anything else. it's certain that many americans

have been left out of this very costly package. working families do need to depend on more than charity. they need to be able to depend on this congress to respond to their needs. now, there's sell -- seldom a week that goes by in medical research that there's not a gupe here on capitol hill concerned with alzheimer's research or multiple sclerosis parkinson's cancer, aids any number of dread diseases, basically say find a cure for my family member or my neighbor. find a cure before i get this dread disease. there are groups that come here after the tough droughts we had last year saying the forest service and weather service need more resources in order to deal with the natural disasters associated with climate change. we have been unable to find the funds for our crumbling roads and bridges. we do not have the investment we need from pre-k to post-grad in education.

and when you dig another puns of billions of dollars, maybe $1 trillion into debt, it provides an excuse that for many of those who dent believe in those programs -- the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. doggett: to say we would love to help you with education for your children. yes, it would be good if we had another meat inspector but we can't afford to do that. so we get to the point that mr. ryan has raised about why is it that we should raise taxes on some in order to maintain some and renewsom expired tax credits for others? there's two reasons. one is that some people are still not paying their fair share. we've got some multinational corporations that don't pay as much as the people that clean up their offices as a percent of their income. . the second reason is, if we need additional money for our national defense or for our educational and retirement

security at home, we have to come up with the revenues to pay for that, if we are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility. there are some good provisions in this bill. but we need the certainty that we will not be digging ourselves deeper into debt and preventing our ability to meet other vital national needs for our families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker i'll yield myself 10 seconds to say, i wonder what the reaction would be if we chose to change the way that spending baseline is treated, such that if any program in its authorization expired then it would expire on the baseline and you'd have to offset the spending for renewing any program. i'd be curious to see what the reaction would be for that. with that, i'd like to yield 3 1/2 minutes to a distinguished member from minnesota a member of the ways and means committee, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i

thank the chairman for his leadership on leading the effort to simplify the tax code and give some confidence and certainty to those who use it. i want to rise in support of this legislation, the america gives more act. this legislation is absolutely about helping those who are most in need, those are our charities and our foundations across the country that are working day in and day out to help those that are most in need. there are nam of important tax rules that -- a number of important tax rules that we've already discussed regarding charitable donations but they've always been temporary. we've had these provisions in law, they've already expired. so here we are acting under retroactivity already. it's time to get rid of these short-term fixes and embrace long-term solutions. this legislation simply makes the provisions permanent, encourages companies to donate food to help feed the hungry, it makes it he's area foreindividuals who might want to -- makes it easier for individuals who might want to use their i.r.a. money to help charitable organizations. it intend advises land owners

to -- it incentivizes landowners. i want to address one other provision that's in this bill that i actually offered -- authored with my colleague, mr. davis from illinois. to help simplify the tax code for private foundations. he's been a strong advocate in leading this effort. i think we would all agree that private foundations make a world of difference in our communities. we have them in our states. in minnesota we have 1,400 donations that donate a billion dollars a year an yull to those in need -- annually to those in need. these are really impressive figures. but the truth is those figures could actually be a lot higher. here's why. the foundation community has come to us and they're telling us that the tax code is discouraging them from actually giving large donations. today these institutions face a really complex cumbersome two-tiered system of taxation

that requires them to pay either a 1% or a 2% excise tax on their investment income. but in order to qualify for the lower rate in any given year, they've got to go and donate an amount that's greaterer than the average of their five-year rolling average. from the previous five years. this creates a very perverse disincentive for these foundations to not make any donations of large amounts in times when we might have a natural disaster, when there's economic tough times. absolutely now this is because a large donation in these times would significantly increase a private foundation's five-year average and make it difficult for them to actually qualify for the lower rate. and also make sure that they're not going to get the lower rate for the next four years. we're eliminating this disincentive by replacing a very complicated two-tier system with a simple, flat 1% excise tax on all private foundation investment income. it's important to simplify the tax planning process especially for smaller foundations, because they're the ones that are spending money on accountants and lawyers to navigate the tax

code. when that money could be used -- those are valuable resources that could be used to help give grants to others that need those resources. so this bill simply makes sure the charitable giving decisions are going to be based not on the tax code but on the needs of our community. because the bottom line is, every dollar that these organizations are paying in taxes is one less dollar that they're giving to those that truly need it. thanks again, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you. it's now my real pleasure to yield one minute to our distinguished leader, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on helping to have a budget that produces growth, to reduce the deficit. today we're talking about issues in which we are very

much in agreement in terms of the policy toward charitable giving. in fact, some of this legislation has been introduced by mr. levin and mr. thompson on the ways and means committee, in fact authoring an amendment in lieu of last night which was rejected by the rules committee, to go forward in a way that is fiscally sound and was paid for. so here is the problem that we have. we all want to have comprehensive tax reform. where we can close loopholes and we can lower the tax rate and we can have transparency in our tax code. in order to go to the table to do that, as i know there's bipartisan interest in doing so, we should go to the table with as much freedom as possible. and not constrained by taking rifle shots on the floor of the house for certain pieces of the

tax code that will cost the whole package the republicans are putting forget is -- forth is about $800 billion. that's a lot of money. it's important for people to know that in our budget, every year, we have a part of the budget that are called tax expenditures. they're well over $1 trillion. some of them are worthy and we want to protect them. certainly charitable deductions fall in that category. but many of them are not. and those tax expenditures, that means giving a tax break, whether it's a special interest loophole in the tax code, to special interests, many of those tax expenditures do not create growth and they increase the deficit. and they are just like spending. they're called an expenditure because they're giving a tax break to certain special

interests. how does that fit in here? we want to go to the table, put everything on the table subject it toing a notic --s a -- toing a noes tick scrutiny to -- to agnostic scrutiny that has fairness, simplicity and transparency. what the republicans are proposing this week is totally in opposition to our being able to do that effectively. what they are saying is let us take $800 billion permanently unpaid for out of the mix and then we have less to negotiate on. and then in terms of what we can do on the other side of the budget, which are investments into the future. i have always said, and i think that most economists would agree that the best -- nothing brings more money to the

treasury or reduces the deficit more than investments in education, early childhood education, k-12 higher ed, postgrad, life-long learning. that's about growth. that's about bigger paychecks, confidence to spend, demand injected into the economy jobs created, revenue produced. and it's all part of how we can go forward with a budget for the future that creates growth, reduces the deficit. and so we have this obstacle. which sounds very good. how do you vote against these provisions which are good provisions, about nonprofits and conservation and all these other things? we agree, as i say our colleagues have introduced them. but to say that they are permanently permanently unpaid for and, again mixing some of the good with the not so good, it's like a trojan horse moving

in. it looks good, but wait a minute, there's a lot in the gut of that horse that is not good for growth or for reducing the deficit. so all we're saying to everyone today is, we can come to agreement on some of the principles about tax deductions for charitable organizations. it's curious to hear our colleagues talk so movingly about people who are providing foot for hungry people, when -- food for hungry people, when very few of them want to vote for food stamps. that's a whole other issue. but it just is -- shows some inconsistency in all of this. so just remember this one thing. if we want to have comprehensive immigration -- excuse me comprehensive -- again, comprehensive tax reform, if we want to reduce the deficit, if we want to have balance in terms of investments plus how we produce revenue, we have to do it in a

comprehensive way. that's what a budget is about. and what we are doing today is to throw up, to just stack the deck against any investments in growth, because we've already taken $00 billion off the table -- $800 billion off the table if we go down this path. what we're doing today is saying, other tax reforms that we want to make for fairness are already in jeopardy because of some of what is in this. as i say, some are positive, some are not. let's be discerning in how we make the judgment. but you can't be discerning by saying, i'm going to vote for permanent unpaid-for tax expenditures which, as i say, have a blend of positive and negative in it, but it's hard to make a distinction without seeing the whole big picture of it. so i urge my colleagues to say, while i support some of what is good in all of this i do not

support permanently taking it off the table for consideration and not paying for it at this time. in order to talk this through and have a clear instead of this drive-by approach to tax policy an anti-deficit exploding spree that our colleagues are on, while they profess to be deficit hogs, while worry working this out and having -- we're working this out and having a discussion about this, we in our motion to recommit will have a one-year extension of the provision that we're talking about here so that, ok, in the course of this time, we'll extend it as a tax extender for one year and hopefully in that time under the leadership of the budget chair who is also from the ways and means committee, understands these issues very well in fact, in his own budget would be not consistent with what he's put on the floor

today -- former chair of the ways and means, now of the budget committee, no, it's the reverse. it's related. they're so related. because how we produce revenue is so esse thow we do our budget. the gentleman knows that because his own budget would be inconsistent with what is on the floor today. so i say to my colleagues, hold on. vote no on this. vote yes on the motion to recommit. which gives us a year to talk this through. but to do so in a way that reduces the deficit, produces growth, makes bigger paychecks from that growth to increase more revenue, and to have these provisions go forth in a way that is fair that is paid for, and that is part of a comprehensive tax reform. with that again, i thank the gentleman for his exceptional

leadership. the members of the ways and means committee for their courage in opposing something that has popular appeal. and there's a reason why. because they're not bad policies. it's just that they're not paid for and they're permanent and we should do this. but we should do it right. so i urge our colleagues to vote no on the bill, yes on the motion to recommit, thank the gentleman for his leadership and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker i'll yield myself 30 seconds. i want to say to the gentlelady, the minority leader, i appreciate the tone and temperament of her remarks. i thought that was well done. i disagree with the basic premise on baseline. i won't get into the details. i talked about that a little bit before. so i have some differences of opinion on the facts that she laid out. i see it quite differently. but i thought that that was a

good tone and temperament. that speaks well to the need for tax reform that's comprehensive. and we believe that this helps us move us in the right direction toward tax reform. i won't go to the baseline issues again, only to say that i think this is a positive step in the direction toward comprehensive tax reform which clearly the gentlelady meaning both parties agree is something we need to tackle. i'd like to yield four minutes to a member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. . mr. roskam: the gentlelady from california said that we needed to use agnostic scrutiny when we're evaluating these and i think it's a little bit ambitious to have a roomful ofing a notics when we're all true -- roomful of ag gnostics when we're all -- of agnostics when we're all true believers,

we all feel strongly. when you look at the four things we're contemplating in the bill before us today, of all four of these things, surely these four are not going to get caught up and swept away in tax reform. surely it won't be how we're treating food charities. surely it's not going to be how we're dealing with conservation easements. surely it's not how we're treating i.r. ample contributions to charities. and surely it's not trying to make private foundations and give them a sure footing. surely, these are the good things that we can all agree on based on agnostic scrutiny. did you notice something mr. speaker? there's nobody on the other side of the aisle who has stood up today and said, oh, the food charity thing? disaster. i'm against that. or conservation easement? ridiculous. look into that a little more. or the i.r.a. contributions, be careful there.

or private foundations, getting them all scared away? i'm against it. not one person said that. so what was their argument? they wrapped themselves up in process. but by wrapping themselves up in process, they've opened themselves up to a criticism because if we had gone a different route if the chairman had taken a different path, they would have said chairman ryan, why don't you start on things where there's bipartisan agreement? and here the chairman is, wringing bills to the floor that have been enthusiastically actively supported, mr. speaker by our friends on the other side of the aisle. why have they supported them? because they're good ideas. this is where there's an incredible amount of common ground. there's been some false arguments made on the other side that are just not that persuasive and the argument went from the gentleman from texas who created the impression that if you vote yes on this, then we're not going to be able to afford meat inspectors we're not going to be able to have

bridges or a cure for cancer is somehow out of our reach? spare me. mr. speaker, i'm reminded at times like this of a letter that thomas jefferson wrote in 1790 to a man named charles clay. i'm going to give you three lines from this letter that i've committed to memory because i think it deeply resonates where most americans are when they look at our house today. thomas jefferson wrote this to charles clay. he said, the ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. we must be content what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. it takes time to persuade men even to do what is for their own good. mr. speaker, that is jefferson's admonition. no stranger to vision no stranger to the big picture, as the author of the declaration of independence. we don't walk away from tax reform, the aspiration we all have, but it is to say looking if we're going to be ayostcally

scrutinizing these thing -- ayostcally scrutinizing these thing -- agnostically scrutinizing these things we ought to vote yes to the bill and move it along. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. essentially what the gentleman from illinois says, well, let's do tax reform by picking and choosing a piece or a few at a time. that's the opposite of tax reform. he described it, that's the difference. and now let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from california mr. thompson, a very distinguished member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today as a democratic lead on the conservation easement bill and to very

regrettably say that i rise in opposition to this bill that i think so highly of. i don't disagree with the policy. i don't disagree with the need for certainty, something that's been referred to many times today. and i don't disagree that the way the republicans did it last year in the last two weeks, doing it retroactively, i don't disagree that that was the wrong way to do it. and i've worked for permanency on conservation easements ever since chairman camp and i passed the big expansion in 2006. i've been the democratic lead on every -- in every congress to make conservation easements permanent. conservation easements are good public policy. they protect open space. they protect important ag lands. they protect important wildlife habitat. they're essential for clean air and clean water. they're essential for locally

sourced, good, healthy food. they're important to hunters, to fishermen, to conservationists. they're important to people who live in rural areas and they're important to people who live in urban areas. and you know -- and nowhere is that more apparent than what happened in new york, we're able to save new york city from having to spend $8 billion in building a water filtration system because we were able to protect their watershed area in large part through conservation easements. and we all know that these are important. every one of us knows it's important. that's why every congress, when we introduce this bill, we get upwards of and sometimes over 300 bipartisan co-authors on that bill. but the problem is, this bill isn't paid for. as you've heard a number of times. now sadly, i offered an

amendment that would have totally offset the cost of the conservation easement portion of the bills that we're taking up today. it was an offset with no tax increases didn't increase anybody's taxes, didn't put the taxes on the back of somebody else, didn't shift the cost to anyone else. as a matter of fact it focused on scoff laws who have been able -- scofflaws who have been able to avoid paying their taxes because of a short statute of limitations. we just would offer to extend that statute of limitations. we could have paid for this whole thing. but unfortunately, my friends on the republican side of the house rejected that amendment. so instead, we're here with this bill, not paid for, in-- instead, today we're going to vote on $93 billion worth of unpaid for tax bills that will add $93 billion to our deficit. now if you add that to what our

republican colleagues did -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: if you add that to what our colleagues did in ways and means committee this morning when they passed $225 billion of unpaid for tax expenditures, that means that just today, the republican side of this house spent $320 billion that we don't have. directly shifting the cost to our deficit and our debt. this is not tax reform. this is not paid for. it's not a good way to proceed. i ask for a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. reid. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. reid: i rise in support of

the bill, america -- mr. reed: i rise in support of the america gives more act of 2015. in particular i want to talk about a part that's very near and dear to me, the fighting hunger act, a subpart of this bill. the ranking member and i had a conversation recently, last time this bill, this legislation was up before the house for consideration. we got a large, bipartisan vote in support of the fighting hunger provisions. i know the ranking member, the gentleman from michigan has worked extensively on this legislation. for years and years and years. and i know in our last debate and conversation here that the ranking member, the ranking member had some --s that i questioned whether or not he cared about the people that were going to be helped by this act. i want to make it clear here today i understand that the ranking member cares about those individuals. just as i do. just as all of us, as democrats

and republicans should be focusing this debate not necessarily always about the arguments of d.c. but about the people that we came here to represent and help. fighting hunger is a bipartisan issue. we unite as americans when our fellow citizens are suffering. when you look at the millions of americans that are going hungry every day, mr. speaker, we shouldn't be divisive. we shouldn't be arguing about the deep de-tails of what my opponents on the other side are putting forth today. we should stand for those millions of americans when we say, this tax policy is going to result in tons and tons of food not going into land fills, not going into the garbage, but going onto the tables of our fellow americans that could use that food the most.

the hungry. the poor. and we can argue whether there's other ways to do it and there's other things that we can do to help them, but we can agree that this is one piece of a solution to this problem that we can pass today. and move the needle. and care for our fellow americans. that's why i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. we don't want food going into landfills. we want food to be put on the desk of the people that need it most. we have concerns about the debt on both sides. i get it. but here's an opportunity for us to come together. i am concerned about the debt. my colleagues are concerned about the debt. but here's an opportunity for us to show the american people that sent us here that we care about them, we are listening to the

american people, and we are willing to do something about it. in order to make sure that this policy results in that food going to the people, our fellow citizens who need it most. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: could i ask, how much time do we have on each side. the speaker pro tempore: 22 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: on our side? the speaker pro tempore: on your side. the gentleman from wisconsin has 21 minutes. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think we should clarify something. every day, americans donate food clothes, money to charities. millions of americans do that all the time. most of those americans don't expect to get something in return.

they do it because it's the right thing to do. and it makes them feel like they're part of the american community. 10 every day -- so everyday americans are giving. now the tax code happens to also try to encourage us to do more giving, which i think all of us agree is good. so let's remove that from the debate. i think we're confusing folks who might be watching this. this isn't about trying to give people the -- an incentive to give, because americans are doing it whether or not the tax code were to say that we want you to do this. the issue is this. under the tax code some americans, not a majority of americans, not even a third of americans, but a fraction of americans can take advantage of the provisions in the tax code that give them tax breaks for having given something. you've heard it discussed about food. if you gave canned goods because

the boy next door put up the bag and you put canned goods in there and you gave them away this provision isn't about that. no. there are a fraction of american taxpayers, mostly companies restaurants and so forth, who can take advantage of that you can't. americans can't take advantage of that provision. there's a provision in here that says, you have an i.r.a., individual retirement account, some americans have i.r.a.'s. the majority of americans don't. but some do. ok. you want to be charitable? you've done fairly well want to give some of your i.r.a. to a charity. the tax code says, we want to incentivize you to do that. the tax code right now says you can give up to 100,000 in your i.r.a. to charity. and guess what? that won't be recognized as income. how many americans make $100,000? not too many. but if you make $100,000, how much are you going to pay in taxes? how many of you have $100,000 in your i.r.a. that you can give

away to a charity? well there's some people who can. and there's some people who do. and fwess what, they get a tax break for doing that. it's a pretty big tax break when you think about how much you'd pay in taxes on $100000 of your income. they get to give that money away and don't pay taxes on that money out of the i.r.a. and you don't just get to do it once in your lifetime, every year an american can give away $100,000 out of your i.r.a. and get a tax break. how many americans do that? tiny tiny fraction. tiny, tiny fraction. but guess what? when you take that i.r.a. rollover tax break and you take that other tax break for those companies that can give away food and you take the other tax breaks for those who have land that they can give away to a charity, guess how much it adds up to? it adds up to what we today

provide in funding to do research against cancer -- breast cancer and all the research funding we put in to do alzheimer's research. same amount of money. . so when people say, you don't have to worry about the cost of that, you don't have to pay for this. we could spend twice as much money to find a cure for breast cancer twice as much money to find a cure for alzheimer's disease if we wencht giving away these tax breaks to someone who can afford to give away $100,000 from their i.r.a. a year to go good. that welty american could give $100,000 out of that i.r.a. today. but they get a tax breaker to doing it. would that stop them from giving away $100,000 because they don't give the tax break? i don't think so. mr. levin: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. becerra: i dent think so. because you don't have to be wealthy in america to give. we all want to give. in fact, the folks who give the

most are the folks who earn the least. they give what they can. how many times have you been invited to someone's home who you know it's hard for them to put food on the table and they invite to you eat at their home and they don't expect to you give them a thing? we give because we think it's the right thing to do. the tax code wants to intent and that's good because we want to help charities. but to say that it doesn't have to be paid for, when we have to pay for all the cancer research, for breast cancer when we have to pay for the research to do alzheimer's disease when we have to pay for those food inspecters to make sure that the food that gets on our table is free of car sin generals and -- car sin -- car sinogens, we have to pay for those things. there's no free lunch. let's do good. if we're going to give someone who is wealthy a chance to do good, let's pay for it. let's figure out a way to do that. because we want to be charitable. but let's not play this game that it doesn't cost somebody

in america for this tax break. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished house majority leader, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the majority leader for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman and chairman for yielding. i have to pause for a moment. we debate a lot of things on this floor. and they're worthy debates. they're interesting debates. but let's first mr. speaker, tell the american people what we're debating today. fighting hunger incentive act. that's what we're debating. lots of times i question why we have debates on the floor certain times. right now is one of them. i really wonder if the american people tune in today and said, you were willing having an argument zpwens fighting hunger

intendtific act? so let me walk through what we're debating. because just a couple days ago i just went down the road here to the d.c. central kitchen. it's a nonprofit. feeds a lot of homeless. also helps people build jobs. you know how it was created? because a small businessman saw people who were hungry. then he saw an inaugural for the 41st president of the united states and said, should that food all be wasted? so he took the leftovers and found someone who needed it. then he went further and he goes, these people coming to me, what they really need, they need a job. so why don't i create a culinary school? 99 classes have gone through this culinary school. you know what? i met this young man who went through class number two. early in his life he did some

things wrong and he was incarcerated for more than 20 years. but you know what his life is today? he's the supervisor for eight years. he has a 5-year-old daughter and he has a college fund for that daughter. because the current tax code allows it to happen. mr. speaker, when i listen to the other side, you would think we're creating a whole new bill. we're taking a tax code and extending it instead of having a problem and someone wonders, will i still get that donation? so i ask them, i see how many people you feed here and the of volunteers, if you want to volunteer at the d.c. central kitchen you have to sign up, the opening is in may. because people want to give back. they say 60% of all the food they get is donated. they get fish that would actually go into a dump beforehand. but it's not easy if you're a small farm somewhere else to donate it. this incentive allows it to happen. why? because one person saw a need,

he didn't go to government to do it, but he used a system to actually enhance and mr. it up. -- build it up. but i don't have to just go to d.c. too-to-see. this i see this in my own community. my wife and i go down to the mission and i see lives changed. i see people fed. but you know what? i see all walks of life. i was down to feed the mission one day and a person that was just a couple lines behind it in there to get food went to the same elementary school as me and the same junior high and the same high school. that's the greatness of this country. that we're willing to help one another. but mr. speaker, i just don't understand, if we're willing to help each other, why do we have to fight to make it allowed to do that? there are worthy fights on this floor, but this is not one. we are better than this mr.

speaker. and i will tell you this. what i am most amazed and dumbfounded by, this bill has a veto threat. this bill, to help hunger. to help the next dwayne, to help the next individual be fed has a veto threat. so you know what? i read the veto threat. the administration doesn't oppose the provision because it's already in law. so many times people say, why do you wait until the last minute in this house? well, we're not now. we're taking it up early, so nobody has a problem. but you know what the administration, the president has said? he's thretsening to veto this bill because congress didn't pass other bills the president wanted and because the president might oppose future bills that the house could pass. seriously? that's just wrong.

mr. speaker, i believe in this country i believe in mankind. i believe in the goodness of all of us. it's not about party. it's about helping one another. we are fighting with the incentive to end hunger and encouraging others to do it. we shouldn't have to debate about it, we should sell braille it. he look forward -- celebrate it. i look forward to this bill passing with a large majority and the president signing it and all of us as americans coming together to help the most precious, because it's in every single one of our communities hunger. let's put our political games aside, mr. speaker, and let's rise to what people expect of this house. to help the common good. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: i i think the majority leader's leaving the floor. i want him to hear me. i'm an original, if not the original, sponsor of the provision regarding food donations. i have a son and daughter-in-law who are working on this very issue. but the issue is this. the majority leader helped lead an effort to cut food stamps by $40 billion. the argument was, we could not afford it. and now they come forth here with a provision that they don't want to pay for add it to other provisions that will cost $200 billion, $300 billion

going to $700 billion or $800 billion. that puts a bad name on the notion of commitment. commitment needs to have some consistency. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i've long supported the tax incentive for businesses to deduct charitable contributions of food inventory. indeed, i have a bill to expand the deduction as does the bill under consideration. the food inventory deduction allows us to help stock america's food banks and feed the hungry. importantly, we need to address

the food inventory deduction quickly, because unlike other business tax extenders, the food deduction provision cannot be useful if extended retroactively. if it expires, our hunger relief organizations miss out on potential donations of food. in chicago where i live, one in six people, including children, do not know where their next meal is coming from. in addition to advancing charitable and he is court tax provisions -- escore tax provisions, we should be extending the permanent extension of the earned income tax credit, to help the working poor afford food and other basic needs for their families. we should be prioritizing the new market tax credits to help the stressed communities so that the hungry can have jobs,

so that they can purchase their own food and not rely on food banks. although i strongly support incentivizing charitable donations of food inventory i do not support passing unpaid for permanent and piecemeal tax breaks while the needs of other vulnerable citizens go unmet. we should be considering the new market tax credit, work opportunity tax credit tuition and fees deduction, teacher tax benefits and hundreds of other tax provisions that help our communities and our people. one of the things that i have learned, if i know nothing else is something that frederick douglass was known for saying. that in this world, you may not get everything that you pay for. but you most certainly will pay for everything that you get.

if you don't pay one way then you will definitely pay another way. and the price of increasing the deficit, not providing a broad, comprehensive tax reform effort is something that we ought not be paying for. the principles and concepts in many of the provisions obviously we agree but we do not agree that you can go unpaying for what it is that you need. i vote no on these provisions and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. emmer: thank you, mr. chair. thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the

fighting hunger incentives act of 2015. roughly one in 10 minnesotans live in poverty. sadly this means that many minnesotans, including children lack access to the food and resources they need to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle. this morning i had an opportunity to tour and make sandwiches at martha's table, an organization here in d.c. that reaches more than 18,000 people through their program. i saw firsthand the need for legislation like this. this legislation will permanently extend the enhanced charitable deduction for all businesses that donate food to charities and food banks. this will encourage more businesses to chip in and help in the ongoing fight against hunger. we have an obligation to help those around us and this is a nonpartisan bipartisan way to make a big difference. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to our ranking member on the budget committee, so dedicated to these issues, and if he needs more time, just ask. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from michigan. mr. van hollen: things are not always what they seem. and this is one of those cases. and it's unfortunate because tax incentives for charitable giving are the kind of issues we should be handling in a bipartisan way. . unfortunately we are not doing that today, and this bill along with the series of other bills that will be coming to the floor in the days to come will add $350 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years. and mr. speaker, most of the bills that are coming next are permanent extensions of tax breaks to major corporations.

and in the process, they don't pay for any of that. they don't pose a single tax loophole to provide those tax breaks. now, mr. speaker, i'm holding in my hand the budget that republicans passed in this house and we now have the chairman of the ways and means committee and was chairman of the budget committee. you know in their budget last year they said they would not do what they are doing today. they passed a budget saying they would not have tax extenders that added to the deficit. i'm reading right here from the budget that i think passed unanimously with republican votes and will do them if such measures would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015-2024. here we are less than a year later throw their budget out the door. why did it matter? because last year they wanted to pretend their budget was in

balance and knew if you had these tax extenders that weren't paid for, they wouldn't have a balanced budget. it wasn't balanced any way. but that's why they did it. why does this matter beyond the fact that republican majority did one thing last year and is doing something different today? it matters because when you increase the deficits our republican colleagues are going to come back around and say to us, the deficits are going to go up, and so we have to cut some of the investments that are supposed to help vulnerable people. the very people our republican colleagues say they want to help today. they are going to say, deficits are going up. we have to cut those programs. you know how we know that? even before they increased the deficit like they are doing today, they were cutting those last year. while they are claiming to fight hunger today, here's what the budget from last year did.

it would have cut the food nutrition programs by 20%. $137 billion. that would have ended nutrition assistance for 3.8 million americans. now i heard one of my friends and colleagues saying democrats are opposing this -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. van hollen: some are saying we are opposing this on the basis of process? really? cutting nutrition assistance programs for 3.8 million americans is process? you know what else their budget did? it cut the category the women, infants and children program to the point that 200,000 women, infants and children would have been cut off. process? really? and i thought our colleagues were saying they wanted to fight

hunger. that budget last year, the one i'm holding in my hands, you know what else it did? it did not extend tax credits for vulnerable people and did not extend the child tax credit. at the same time, they had a budget and i suspect they will again this year that cuts the income tax rate for millionaires. that's what they do. so we can do a lot better, mr. speaker. that's what democrats are saying. we can make these reforms to the tax code. we can make the charitable deduction permanent. but we can do it in a way that doesn't hurt other programs for hungry people, right? we can help hungry people through one mechanism without hurting those same people through another mechanism. that's why the president said he was going to veto this bill, not because it helps the deduction

for charitable giving, because this is a bill that says, we are going to help some hungry people, but you know what? we will do something else in our budget that hurts the same hungry people even more much more. now, i'm also holding in my hand the democratic budget that was presented last year. and you know what we do? we permanently extended this charitable deduction, permanently, just like this bill. but you know what we did not do? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. van hollen: i just want to be clear, in our budget, we extend permanently this charitable deduction to fight hunger, to fight hunger incentive. you know what we did not do? we did not cut the food and nutrition programs, snap by 20%. we did not cut the part of the budget that funds the women, infants and children program so

200,000 people would not have the benefit of that. you know what we did do? we cut a lot of the corporate tax breaks. we said, we should not have a tax code that actually rewards american companies that move american jobs and capital overseas. and that way we are able to pay for them. that way, mr. speaker, we are able to extend the charitable deduction permanently and also to avoid cutting the women, infants and children program and avoid cutting the food and nutrition programs. that's what we're saying. unfortunately, the bill before us today, what they are saying by increasing the deficit, yes, we are going to extend this program to fight hunger, but on the other hand, when their budget comes around next year, they are going to pass stuff that hurts those same people even more. so what we are saying is, we don't have to help people by hurting people. we can do it all if we are

willing to cut some of those corporate tax breaks, tax evenings pen difficult turs spending the tax code for major corporations that are put there because they have good lobbyists in washington. let's do this the right way and that's the way we did it in the democratic budget and that's the way we will do it this year. let's not help people by hurting other people or even hurting the people we are trying to help. mr. speaker, i regrutfully urge that we reject this bill and do this the right way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. knight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. night night i have to sit during this debate for the last hour or more and nobody arguing, nobody wondering this is a bad idea and

saying this isn't something we shouldn't do and me being a freshman, i hear my friends and you never ask your friend whether you are a liberal or conservative or democrat or a republican. you just talk to your friends. and friends always tell me why don't you get something done. and as a state legislator in california, it was difficult for us to get some things done and i was always frustrated about that and i never liked to hear the term a.b.c., anywhere but california. the reason that term came up is because of certainty, that's because businesses didn't know what we are going to do from year to year. we are talking about certainty. certainty is not a word we throw around but something that has meaning. if we are going to extend this for seven eight years in a row, this is obviously a good idea. going back and forth saying this is a great idea, we all agree. we just want to do it on a

one-year basis doesn't give certainty, doesn't give that reliability that this is good policy, we all believe in it and we can get what we desire out of it. when we go back to our districts and go to our places that are helping the needy and feed people that need to be fed, wouldn't you like to go back there and say you know what? this isn't something we are going to kickback and forth next year or the next year. this is going to be on the books. we have certainty about this. that's listening to this debate and listening what is happening to these four measures is what i draw out of this. what i draw what we can get today, bipartisan, moving this forward, getting certainty for these measures that we seem to all agree upon. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north dakota mr. cramer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: as i have been sitting here, i have to commit my thoughts have changed. my speech has changed dramatically but occurred dramatically that my friends on the other side are asking the wrong question. the question shouldn't ask what is this going to cost the taxpayers but what will the cost to the taxpayers be if we let these deductions expire? it occurred in listening to some of the speeches there isn't a lack of sincerity to feed hungry people not on their side or on our side.

but what i think the question is, who do you trust to deliver the solution to people's needs to people's hunger. what about college education? what about women's shelters? who is best prepared to deliver those resources and those services? and i submit to you, mr. speaker, it is charity. it is charity. the sermon on the mount wasn't communicated to the congress it was communicated to the congregation and not delivered to the to the congressmen but to the disciples. who is best prepared to deliver these services? the other wrong question we are arguing over what is not in the bill as opposed to what there is. i wish there was more in there. and the chairman knows that. i hope to get to that. but i know incremental change is

better than no change. i hope we can get the comprehensive tax reform and i'm confident we can. today i'm asking our colleagues let's do what we can do and it's this bill in front of us and i urge a yes vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: unfortunate we are here today in a situation where i think the overall intent sound very good, charitable giving, helping the poor, helping the hungry. quite often that is something you hear from our side of the aisle. in fact all last year, we had done the food stamp challenge and did a number of things to bring focus and attention to the

blight of the hungry in the united states and it is a bit raw to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak about their solution to this issue as a tax bill, unpaid for. that adds -- more than $14 billion back on to our national deficit and to our debt ultimately. the president announced that he would cut the deficit in half within four years. he has now reduced the deficit by over a trillion dollars from $1.4 trillion, to -- could i have an additional? mr. levin: additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: to now a little over $400 billion. not expect. but isn't that remarkable? a democratic president that reduced the deficit and was handed a deficit of over $1

trillion by his republican predecessor. this president can lay claim that he reduced the deficit by over $1 trillion. yet my republican colleagues are adding onto the deficit again by this particular measure by $14.3 billion. doesn't sound like much. when you add up the whole package $300 billion they want to add back to the nation's deficit. i think it's wrong and most americans think that wrong. we are making progress and you are putting it on the back of future generations. the hungry that you pretend to be taking care of today and try to pay for these bills in the years to come. mr. speaker, i think this is wrongheaded. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crowley: with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield one minute to

the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costello: one think that is pride for in organizations and individuals in southeastern pennsylvania is the success of the chester county food bank and many other food banks. . fighting food insecurity is something you wouldn't think is a problem in the wealthier enclaves of this country and yet there are those who wake up every morning not knowing where their meal's going to come from. food banks provide a very valuable service. the fighting hunger incentive act aims to assist our food banks and assist organizations and individuals to help fight hunger. that's what this bill is about. we should pass it, and we should move on in bipartisan fashion. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: can i ask the chairman, any more speakers? so, we're ready to close? mr. ryan: yeah. mr. levin: good. we've heard a lot of discussion about many of these programs. maybe most of all about food programs. but really let's look at it beyond the rhetoric. essentially when it comes to food programs what the republicans are doing is giving with one hand while they take from another. and much more they take than they would give. the food provision here comes to $2.2 billion. they chop $40 billion from food stamps, that's 20 times more,

and as mr. van hollen pointed out, when you add w.i.c. and other programs, way over $100 billion. and they say they had to do that in part because they could not afford it, so they come forth with bills that are going to add to the deficit and that shows what this is all about. because they pass these bills, adding to the deficit, and then they come back and they say, sorry, when it umcomes to other needed -- when it comes to other needed programs, we don't have the money. indeed, not only do they give with one hand and take with another, and much more but they give an empty hand, an empty hand like this, nothing in it. for the child tax credit, for the work opportunity tax credit

for the new markets provision that really matters, to the eitc. and they say, well, we can't afford, and they won't close tax loopholes. it's so inconsistent. i think in terms of the impact on human beings, it's not only inadequate but it's impersonal. so we come here fortified, we're determined to do the right thing when it comes to tax reform. we're going to do the right thing when it comes to other important issues, including fiscal responsibility. and we're going to make sure that there are the funds available for needed programs because we paid for things. so i strongly urge a no vote.

that really is standing up for the right thing when it comes to bipartisanship to tax reform and to fiscal responsibility. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself the remaining time to close. the speaker pro tempore: scrat is recognized. mr. ryan: i guess i'll just try and summarize this debate in a couple of ways. what i'm hearing is, to paraphrase, we like this policy , we think there's a need, we just want to raise taxes. let me put it in a different way. if there was a popular spending measure that came here to the floor that extended the same policy from last year to this year, because it was expiring, i don't think we'd be hearing these concerns. in fact, trade adjustment

assistance, something very popular among this committee and the members of the other side of the aisle, that's exactly what happened in december. the law expired. straight extension of the law, of spending, continued. it didn't cost anything. why? because that's how the baseline treats spending. i didn't hear all the cries about deficits when we extended the trade adjustment assistance law. that spending program. so we hear all of these cries about -- actually, let me take that back. we don't hear all these cries about the deficits when we extend these tax provisions for two years. we don't hear these concerns when we extend current law, tax provisions for one year. and we don't hear these concerns about deficits when we retroactively extend it to last year, going forward. we only hear these concerns when we're giving people certainty.

so, the real actual question before us is do we have to raise taxes on other hardworking americans just so that we can keep them where they are for everybody else? do we take money away from charities and charitable -- people giving donations -- or raise taxes on other hardworking americans or just like trade adjustment assistance was extended this last year, do we treat these important provisions the same, which is they're in the code, they've been in the code, we want them in the code, we agree they should be in the code, let's keep them in the code. that's the decision here. so, the newfound concerns about deficits i find is really more of a thinly veiled attempt to raise taxes. i think that's really what this

baseline argument's all about is do we just want to have a tax code that raises more and more and more taxes? do we want to put us in this position of always raising taxes? or do we want to give taxpayers a break? we're not even saying give them a break. we're saying, just don't raise their taxes. just keep them where they are. so this isn't costing anything in that we're not lowering someone's taxes. we're just keeping their taxes where they are and we're preventing them from going up. so let's just make it really clear. now i gells the new definition of preventing -- guess the new definition of preventing tax increases from hitting hardworking americans is now a big tax cut. that's what we're hearing here. we don't buy that logic. we don't want to raise people's taxes. we want to reform the tax code. and we want these kinds of provisions that are very important, that we know will stay in the tax code, even with tax reform, we want people to

know that they're there so they can plan accordingly. we're doing 179 tomorrow. we want farmers to be able to buy tractors before december 11 in the year. we want people to be able to make decisions, to donate food to charities. maybe you're doing well in retirement you've got a little bit of money out of your individual retirement account, you'd like to donate it to a charitiers we think you ought to be able to do that. we want foundations to be able to make donations to the greater good in their communities. those are the things we're getting here and more important we're getting them the certainty they need to make long-term plans so they can do more of it. that's why we should pass this bill. that's why i think everybody should vote for this bill. that's why i think democrats and republicans should vote for this bill. and with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time as time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 101, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended.

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 permanently extend and expand a charitable deduction for ritis r od inventory. the speaker pro tempore: for what ppose does the ntleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to the bill in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk will suspend the. point the order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 644, to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. add at the end the followinging section 7, no increase in deficit or delay of

comprehensive tax reform, nothing in this act shall result in, one, an increase in the deficit or, two, a delay or weakening of efforts to adopt a permanent extension of the provisions of this act, so long as it is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. section 8 short-term extension while comprehensive tax reform is under consideration. notwithstanding any other provision of this act, any temp rare provision of law -- temporary provision of law, the application of which is otherwise made permanent under this act, shall be hereby extended for only one year. section 9 tax benefits disallowed in case of inverted corporations. a, in general, in the case of a taxpayer which is or is a member of an expanded affiliated group which includes an applicable inverted corporation, the internal revenue code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as if provisions of and amendments made by this act other than this section had never been

enacted. b, applicable inverted corporations, one in general, for purposes of this section, the term applicable inverted corporation means any foreign corporation which, a, would be a sure gate for incorps ration -- surrogate for an incorps ration. if such subsection were applied by substituting 80% or 60% or b, it is an inverted domestic corporation, two, inverted domestic corporation for purposes of this subsection, a foreign corporation shall be treated as an inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan or a series of related transactions, a the entity completes after may 8, 2014, the direct or indirect acquisition of i, substantially all of the properties held directly or indirectly by a domestic corporation or ii, substantially all of its assets

or substantially all of its properties, constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership and, b, after the acquisition, either, i, -- either i move more than 50% of the stock by vote or value of the entity is held. capital i, in the case of an acquisition with respect to a domestic corporation -- mr. ryan: ask for suspending of the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the rule the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: mr. chairman, i am opposed to the bill in its current form and i want to remind my colleagues that the amendment to the bill will not kill the bill or stend back to committee. if adopted, it will simply allow us to proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker chairman ryan spoke a few moments ago about the notion of goodwill. and confidence. but he used a peculiar term as

a substitute. he called it the baseline. what about a baseline of some goodwill and confidence building and a measure that acknowledged that, in terms of procedure, that this is a violation of the confidence that we've all tried to establish as we proceed to tax reform? now, some of us with who have been around for a long time and participated in an actual tax strategy, we would offer the following. the last time that the tax code was changed in america, the internet had not been invented and ronald reagan was the president of the united states. and tip o'neill was the speaker of this house. now, in terms of procedure, why we object is the following. if you recall, chairman camp waited until tax reform last year was completely dead and then asked us to go through the motion and that in the end is

exactly what it was, to have gone through the motion of trying to pass some permanent extended tax bills. while in new england two weeks ago we were talking about deflated footballs. now we're talking about deflated tax reform expectations. six weeks into this congress and we're doing this procedurally instead of substantive achievement that might lead to some tax relief as the president has acknowledged for american corporations or tax relief for individual and family filers? we're doing this with the argument that somehow democrats don't support charitable giving? our objection today is based on the following. fiscally this is reckless. procedurally it violates the notion of goodwill in the house. and lastly, i think, and just as importantly, it pushes apart the two parties from getting to

tax reform. this is a positioning amendment. how can we embarrass the minority? you know what? they're saying here, as they go forward, in this argument, that this keeps everything the way it is, it extends charitable giving. you have to borrow the money eventually to pay for this. that adds to the deficit. that's the argument that we're having here today. we want to know how this is paid for, not objecting to the thrust or mission of what's being offered. . under different circumstances these bills would pass with broad support. i don't have any quarrels with the merits of this policy. when it's unpaid for, it means more borrowing. we support the work of charities and support the work of charities and provide these charities with the resources

they need to carry out their mission. why would somebody from massachusetts would they try to massacre aid this notion that somebody from massachusetts is against charitable giving? universities and hospitals and foundations, they have bound throughout my state, like the rest of our caucus, i favor charitable giving and object to the procedure in which this is being offered today. we object to the procedure. why are we taking up this time debating these bills? we should be coming together on tax reform for middle-class families that grows the economy. if the goal of mr. ryan is to eventually remove all deductions preferences and exclusions in the code to get to a lower rate, that should be stated, but not to do it this way. we are debating bills that the administration has said they will veto and the senate has given us no indication they will

take them up. our motion to recommit offers the following. a one-year bridge to tax reform. by the way, my predictions of this in terms of the extenders have been far more accurate over the years than their proposals on the extenders. we are suggesting here a proposal that does not add to the deficit and addresses the long corporate standing of corporate inversions. why are they inverting? because of the tax system in america. there is a distinction to be drawn between tax evasion and tax avoidance. they are avoiding taxes in some cases and evading them in the others, and we have the opportunity to do something about this tax code. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. neal: we pay for our provision and it gives a measure of comfort to the democratic minority. and i urge my colleagues to support my provision.

>> i with withdraw my point of order. mr. ryan: i claim time in opposition. i will be very brief. my friend got a little animated there. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn and the gentleman from is recognized. mr. ryan: there was a lot there. i will just say this. here's the question before us. do we want to give businesses and charities certainty or not? if we would pass this recommit and it went into law, then we would be right back here at the end of the year with the same old problem. we would be -- i will not yield -- we will be right back with the same old problem. they are saying let's do one year. let's have the senate pass it. and then at the end of the year o'my gosh, these -- oh my gosh, these charities will be in the same boat.

we know this is good policy and this is the right thing to do and we all know that businesses and charities need the kind of certainty we are providing and most of us believe that not raising taxes is not the same as cutting taxes. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. neal: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen the yeas and nays are ordered members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representativ. any use t csecaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 168 and the nays are 245. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. levin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen having -- yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,