10:18 AM EDT

Dave Camp, R-MI 4th

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

The tax burden that small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and their workers face is too high. Every dollar Washington takes from small businesses is a dollar that they don't have to invest in equipment, to start a new production line, to hire a new employee, or to provide more in wages and benefits. Businesses aren't growing, and hardworking Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer work hours. This is unacceptable.

These days, it seems that Congress can rarely agree on much, so when we can find some common ground to help grow the economy and get businesses to invest and hire new workers, we should act immediately. The legislation we have before us today, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would do just that by providing a permanent extension of section 179 expensing at a level of $500,000. Section 179 is a bipartisan provision that has been in place since the 1950s, but businesses, farmers,

and ranchers cannot reap the full benefits when they have no idea if this provision is going to be around the next year or what it may look like. This hurts their ability to plan for the future and expand their businesses.

The Farm Bureau recently stated:

This practice makes it very difficult for farmers and ranchers to plan, and it adds immense confusion and complexity to the Tax Code.

It is time to make section 179 permanent at an expensing level of $500,000 so American farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can invest in new equipment, grow their businesses, and plan for the future.

Sure, House Democrats, many who have sponsored this legislation before, are now demanding that we pay for an extension of these policies despite voting year after year to extend these job-creating policies without their being paid for. Frankly, the millions of Americans searching for jobs or for a few extra dollars in their paychecks know that pro-growth policies like this pay for themselves in the form of new investments, new jobs, and higher wages. I think we can all agree this is the right

policy, and we should set the rhetoric aside so we can have an America that works, with a strong and vibrant economy.

By supporting permanent policies, Washington can promote certainty for American businesses and generate additional economic growth. We have become too accustomed to poor jobs reports, anemic growth, and just accepting things as they are. Small business expensing has been a bipartisan policy for decades, and it is time to make it a permanent part of the Tax Code. Washington needs to wake up, to start listening to the American people, and to act on real policies that strengthen the economy and

help hardworking taxpayers. Today's legislation will do just that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

10:18 AM EDT

Dave Camp, R-MI 4th

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

The tax burden that small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and their workers face is too high. Every dollar Washington takes from small businesses is a dollar that they don't have to invest in equipment, to start a new production line, to hire a new employee, or to provide more in wages and benefits. Businesses aren't growing, and hardworking Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer work hours. This is unacceptable.

These days, it seems that Congress can rarely agree on much, so when we can find some common ground to help grow the economy and get businesses to invest and hire new workers, we should act immediately. The legislation we have before us today, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would do just that by providing a permanent extension of section 179 expensing at a level of $500,000. Section 179 is a bipartisan provision that has been in place since the 1950s, but businesses, farmers,

and ranchers cannot reap the full benefits when they have no idea if this provision is going to be around the next year or what it may look like. This hurts their ability to plan for the future and expand their businesses.

The Farm Bureau recently stated:

This practice makes it very difficult for farmers and ranchers to plan, and it adds immense confusion and complexity to the Tax Code.

It is time to make section 179 permanent at an expensing level of $500,000 so American farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can invest in new equipment, grow their businesses, and plan for the future.

Sure, House Democrats, many who have sponsored this legislation before, are now demanding that we pay for an extension of these policies despite voting year after year to extend these job-creating policies without their being paid for. Frankly, the millions of Americans searching for jobs or for a few extra dollars in their paychecks know that pro-growth policies like this pay for themselves in the form of new investments, new jobs, and higher wages. I think we can all agree this is the right

policy, and we should set the rhetoric aside so we can have an America that works, with a strong and vibrant economy.

By supporting permanent policies, Washington can promote certainty for American businesses and generate additional economic growth. We have become too accustomed to poor jobs reports, anemic growth, and just accepting things as they are. Small business expensing has been a bipartisan policy for decades, and it is time to make it a permanent part of the Tax Code. Washington needs to wake up, to start listening to the American people, and to act on real policies that strengthen the economy and

help hardworking taxpayers. Today's legislation will do just that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

10:18 AM EDT

Dave Camp, R-MI 4th

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

The tax burden that small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and their workers face is too high. Every dollar Washington takes from small businesses is a dollar that they don't have to invest in equipment, to start a new production line, to hire a new employee, or to provide more in wages and benefits. Businesses aren't growing, and hardworking Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer work hours. This is unacceptable.

These days, it seems that Congress can rarely agree on much, so when we can find some common ground to help grow the economy and get businesses to invest and hire new workers, we should act immediately. The legislation we have before us today, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would do just that by providing a permanent extension of section 179 expensing at a level of $500,000. Section 179 is a bipartisan provision that has been in place since the 1950s, but businesses, farmers,

and ranchers cannot reap the full benefits when they have no idea if this provision is going to be around the next year or what it may look like. This hurts their ability to plan for the future and expand their businesses.

The Farm Bureau recently stated:

This practice makes it very difficult for farmers and ranchers to plan, and it adds immense confusion and complexity to the Tax Code.

It is time to make section 179 permanent at an expensing level of $500,000 so American farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can invest in new equipment, grow their businesses, and plan for the future.

Sure, House Democrats, many who have sponsored this legislation before, are now demanding that we pay for an extension of these policies despite voting year after year to extend these job-creating policies without their being paid for. Frankly, the millions of Americans searching for jobs or for a few extra dollars in their paychecks know that pro-growth policies like this pay for themselves in the form of new investments, new jobs, and higher wages. I think we can all agree this is the right

policy, and we should set the rhetoric aside so we can have an America that works, with a strong and vibrant economy.

By supporting permanent policies, Washington can promote certainty for American businesses and generate additional economic growth. We have become too accustomed to poor jobs reports, anemic growth, and just accepting things as they are. Small business expensing has been a bipartisan policy for decades, and it is time to make it a permanent part of the Tax Code. Washington needs to wake up, to start listening to the American people, and to act on real policies that strengthen the economy and

help hardworking taxpayers. Today's legislation will do just that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

10:21 AM EDT

Sander Levin, D-MI 12th

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

Small business can have full confidence that this provision will be extended--period. Indeed, the fact that I have voted for it many times in the past, as pointed out, is confidence that it will be continued. As to the suggestion that we have made to continue it for 2 years, we are already well into the first year, and if we don't act until the end of the year and extend it for 2 years, that would be another one not even for another full year, but there would be a 2-year extension. So small business

can be fully confident this will be extended. There is no threat to it. There is zero threat to its extension.

When it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can have no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is not correct. The Senate has before it a bill to extend it for 2 years. At some point, that will pass, and that is the bill that will be taken up in the House.

The chairman did extend permanently this provision--not many others. He paid for that. The chairman extolled the fact that he paid for it, and now they have gone in reverse and now suggest that we proceed unpaid for permanently. The cost of this is far different than a 2-year extension, as I have mentioned--far different. We are talking about over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars.

Let me just say that everybody has to be mystified as to why in the world the Republicans are doing this when it violates their budget, when it violates the chairman's and the Republicans' Ways and Means tax proposal, and when, if this is done, it is going to be part of a ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion and will have major ramifications for so many programs.

Essentially, what they are doing is, on the one hand, increasing this deficit dramatically--through the ceiling. Then they are going to come back on the other hand and say, ah, the deficit went through the ceiling, so we need to take away, with the other, education programs, health programs--all kinds of programs that are necessary--transportation programs. They are going to say, well, we just don't have the money when, essentially, the reason is that they have tried to pass a bill that throws

money out the window.

We are going to extend the small business tax cut. We are going to do that--Democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens--but not in a way that is part of a reckless, irresponsible approach. That is a major, major reason we simply have to say: extend it for 2 years. Then let's sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these provisions as part of a tax reform effort that is serious and is bipartisan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

10:21 AM EDT

Sander Levin, D-MI 12th

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

Small business can have full confidence that this provision will be extended--period. Indeed, the fact that I have voted for it many times in the past, as pointed out, is confidence that it will be continued. As to the suggestion that we have made to continue it for 2 years, we are already well into the first year, and if we don't act until the end of the year and extend it for 2 years, that would be another one not even for another full year, but there would be a 2-year extension. So small business

can be fully confident this will be extended. There is no threat to it. There is zero threat to its extension.

When it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can have no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is not correct. The Senate has before it a bill to extend it for 2 years. At some point, that will pass, and that is the bill that will be taken up in the House.

The chairman did extend permanently this provision--not many others. He paid for that. The chairman extolled the fact that he paid for it, and now they have gone in reverse and now suggest that we proceed unpaid for permanently. The cost of this is far different than a 2-year extension, as I have mentioned--far different. We are talking about over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars.

Let me just say that everybody has to be mystified as to why in the world the Republicans are doing this when it violates their budget, when it violates the chairman's and the Republicans' Ways and Means tax proposal, and when, if this is done, it is going to be part of a ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion and will have major ramifications for so many programs.

Essentially, what they are doing is, on the one hand, increasing this deficit dramatically--through the ceiling. Then they are going to come back on the other hand and say, ah, the deficit went through the ceiling, so we need to take away, with the other, education programs, health programs--all kinds of programs that are necessary--transportation programs. They are going to say, well, we just don't have the money when, essentially, the reason is that they have tried to pass a bill that throws

money out the window.

We are going to extend the small business tax cut. We are going to do that--Democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens--but not in a way that is part of a reckless, irresponsible approach. That is a major, major reason we simply have to say: extend it for 2 years. Then let's sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these provisions as part of a tax reform effort that is serious and is bipartisan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

10:21 AM EDT

Sander Levin, D-MI 12th

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

Small business can have full confidence that this provision will be extended--period. Indeed, the fact that I have voted for it many times in the past, as pointed out, is confidence that it will be continued. As to the suggestion that we have made to continue it for 2 years, we are already well into the first year, and if we don't act until the end of the year and extend it for 2 years, that would be another one not even for another full year, but there would be a 2-year extension. So small business

can be fully confident this will be extended. There is no threat to it. There is zero threat to its extension.

When it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can have no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is not correct. The Senate has before it a bill to extend it for 2 years. At some point, that will pass, and that is the bill that will be taken up in the House.

The chairman did extend permanently this provision--not many others. He paid for that. The chairman extolled the fact that he paid for it, and now they have gone in reverse and now suggest that we proceed unpaid for permanently. The cost of this is far different than a 2-year extension, as I have mentioned--far different. We are talking about over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars.

Let me just say that everybody has to be mystified as to why in the world the Republicans are doing this when it violates their budget, when it violates the chairman's and the Republicans' Ways and Means tax proposal, and when, if this is done, it is going to be part of a ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion and will have major ramifications for so many programs.

Essentially, what they are doing is, on the one hand, increasing this deficit dramatically--through the ceiling. Then they are going to come back on the other hand and say, ah, the deficit went through the ceiling, so we need to take away, with the other, education programs, health programs--all kinds of programs that are necessary--transportation programs. They are going to say, well, we just don't have the money when, essentially, the reason is that they have tried to pass a bill that throws

money out the window.

We are going to extend the small business tax cut. We are going to do that--Democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens--but not in a way that is part of a reckless, irresponsible approach. That is a major, major reason we simply have to say: extend it for 2 years. Then let's sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these provisions as part of a tax reform effort that is serious and is bipartisan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

10:26 AM EDT

Patrick Tiberi, R-OH 12th

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on the Ways and Means Committee. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. You have been a great leader, and we look forward to allowing you to lead us the rest of this year on our committee as we continue the debate on the extenders and making some permanent.

H.R. 4457 would permanently extend the small business expensing for equipment and property outlined in section 179 of the Tax Code.

As many of you know, section 179 first came into existence in 1958. I wasn't yet born. My parents were not yet married. They got married in 1958, so they didn't see the debate here in Washington. It may not have been quite like the debate today, though, I would say, because, ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, this is a mystifying debate. This shouldn't be this difficult. No wonder Congress has a low approval rating.

Section 179 of our Tax Code is very simple, and as the chairman said, it has been very bipartisan over the years. It allows businessowners to immediately deduct the cost of the investments of property and computer software rather than depreciating such cost over time.

In fact, on January 1, what had been an extender that allowed for the maximum expensing of $500,000 and the deduction phased out of investments exceeding $2 million went back to what is current law today. That is why this is so important. It is the essence of this debate, and it is the essence of what my bill does because it went down. The limit went down to $25,000 and up to $200,000 of investments.

If you talk to Tom and Judy Price, who are from my district, they think that what we do here is just crazy and mystifying because they have to make real decisions in real time and with real money, not make-believe, not theory. They have to make decisions that impact real lives and real costs and real jobs. This is a jobs bill. That is what this is about. If you ask Tom and Judy Price, we have had expensing, and [Page: H5332]

we have had higher limits than $25,000.

We don't today. We had them before, but they weren't paid for. We have had them for the 10 years since I have been here, and they haven't been paid for.

But do you know what? Here is the reality of life.

In Delaware County, Ohio, I talked to Tom Price this morning. He has a mulching business. He needs to buy a loader. Is Congress going to provide certainty? Oh, 2 years is fine. Retroactivity is fine. That is the narrative around here, Mr. Speaker. We've done it before. Let's do it again this way.

[Time: 10:30]

The Senate won't accept it. Let's surrender our card today. Let's surrender my voting card, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhere here. Let me give it to the Senate.

My daughter, going into sixth grade, understands there are two Houses. We shouldn't be surrendering this card, Mr. Speaker, to the Senate because, oh, the Senate is going to do it their way; have always done it that way.

Ladies and gentlemen, a bill becomes a law this way. The House passes a bill. That is what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, add permanency.

Tom and Judy Price, in their mulching business, they would like certainty to plan, not oh, we will make it retroactive and we will go out a year. Oh, by the way, Mr. Price, we are going to do it in November. We are going to make it retroactive to January.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

You guys couldn't survive running a business in Washington, D.C. You couldn't survive.

That is what this debate is all about. It is about reality.

My daughter knows that the Senate has the right to do anything they want, but we have our right with our card. Guess what?

There is supposed to be a conference committee. There is supposed to be a real debate and oh, my God, compromise between the House and the Senate. That is what this is supposed to be about. That is what I tell my daughter who is going into sixth grade.

But no, let's surrender to the Senate right now. Let's just surrender. We have surrendered before.

And oh my goodness, these deficits. These businesses pay taxes. You all want to raise taxes on them.

When we had a debate on this floor, and I was here in 2009, we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill. $1 trillion. Nobody cared about the deficit then.

But Mr. Price and Mrs. Price are trying to buy a loader for $200,000, and we are debating over the deficit and temporary Tax Code and retroactivity and surrendering to the Senate. That is what this debate is about. That is what this has come to.

And you wonder why, Mr. Speaker, Americans think Washington is broken; because we don't understand what real-life Americans who are trying to run a business and hire employees and raise their wages, they don't understand why we are having these mystical debates because they are living in the real world, the real world.

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

10:26 AM EDT

Patrick Tiberi, R-OH 12th

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on the Ways and Means Committee. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. You have been a great leader, and we look forward to allowing you to lead us the rest of this year on our committee as we continue the debate on the extenders and making some permanent.

H.R. 4457 would permanently extend the small business expensing for equipment and property outlined in section 179 of the Tax Code.

As many of you know, section 179 first came into existence in 1958. I wasn't yet born. My parents were not yet married. They got married in 1958, so they didn't see the debate here in Washington. It may not have been quite like the debate today, though, I would say, because, ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, this is a mystifying debate. This shouldn't be this difficult. No wonder Congress has a low approval rating.

Section 179 of our Tax Code is very simple, and as the chairman said, it has been very bipartisan over the years. It allows businessowners to immediately deduct the cost of the investments of property and computer software rather than depreciating such cost over time.

In fact, on January 1, what had been an extender that allowed for the maximum expensing of $500,000 and the deduction phased out of investments exceeding $2 million went back to what is current law today. That is why this is so important. It is the essence of this debate, and it is the essence of what my bill does because it went down. The limit went down to $25,000 and up to $200,000 of investments.

If you talk to Tom and Judy Price, who are from my district, they think that what we do here is just crazy and mystifying because they have to make real decisions in real time and with real money, not make-believe, not theory. They have to make decisions that impact real lives and real costs and real jobs. This is a jobs bill. That is what this is about. If you ask Tom and Judy Price, we have had expensing, and [Page: H5332]

we have had higher limits than $25,000.

We don't today. We had them before, but they weren't paid for. We have had them for the 10 years since I have been here, and they haven't been paid for.

But do you know what? Here is the reality of life.

In Delaware County, Ohio, I talked to Tom Price this morning. He has a mulching business. He needs to buy a loader. Is Congress going to provide certainty? Oh, 2 years is fine. Retroactivity is fine. That is the narrative around here, Mr. Speaker. We've done it before. Let's do it again this way.

[Time: 10:30]

The Senate won't accept it. Let's surrender our card today. Let's surrender my voting card, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhere here. Let me give it to the Senate.

My daughter, going into sixth grade, understands there are two Houses. We shouldn't be surrendering this card, Mr. Speaker, to the Senate because, oh, the Senate is going to do it their way; have always done it that way.

Ladies and gentlemen, a bill becomes a law this way. The House passes a bill. That is what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, add permanency.

Tom and Judy Price, in their mulching business, they would like certainty to plan, not oh, we will make it retroactive and we will go out a year. Oh, by the way, Mr. Price, we are going to do it in November. We are going to make it retroactive to January.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

You guys couldn't survive running a business in Washington, D.C. You couldn't survive.

That is what this debate is all about. It is about reality.

My daughter knows that the Senate has the right to do anything they want, but we have our right with our card. Guess what?

There is supposed to be a conference committee. There is supposed to be a real debate and oh, my God, compromise between the House and the Senate. That is what this is supposed to be about. That is what I tell my daughter who is going into sixth grade.

But no, let's surrender to the Senate right now. Let's just surrender. We have surrendered before.

And oh my goodness, these deficits. These businesses pay taxes. You all want to raise taxes on them.

When we had a debate on this floor, and I was here in 2009, we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill. $1 trillion. Nobody cared about the deficit then.

But Mr. Price and Mrs. Price are trying to buy a loader for $200,000, and we are debating over the deficit and temporary Tax Code and retroactivity and surrendering to the Senate. That is what this debate is about. That is what this has come to.

And you wonder why, Mr. Speaker, Americans think Washington is broken; because we don't understand what real-life Americans who are trying to run a business and hire employees and raise their wages, they don't understand why we are having these mystical debates because they are living in the real world, the real world.

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