Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enormous contributions made by John M. Samuels to the development of sound U.S. tax policy over the last 40 years. John Samuels is retiring from the General Electric Company at the end of this year, where he has been the Vice President and Senior Counsel for Tax Policy and Planning since 1988. Before joining GE, John had a successful career in private practice and spent several years at the U.S. Department of Treasury, as Deputy Tax Legislative Counsel and Tax Legislative Counsel. Most press articles about John highlight his distinguished career at GE. And while that is important, I want to acknowledge the work he has done behind the scenes to promote sound, effective, pro-growth tax policies for the benefit of the entire U.S. economy. The progress we have made in advancing the cause of comprehensive tax reform has benefited enormously from his efforts. One example has been his support of academic research into international corporate tax issues through the founding of the International Tax Policy Forum (ITPF). John Samuels has served as the chairman of ITPF since it was founded in 1992. ITPF, which has been called the ``world's leading tax think tank,'' plays a unique and important role in sponsoring nonpartisan academic research, often by young, up-and-coming scholars, and hosting conferences at which such papers are presented, discussed, and debated. This gives tax policymakers in Washington access to a much broader body of research and thought than we would otherwise have, thus informing and elevating the policy discussions taking place in Congress, in the Administration, and at other think tanks. In 2009, John received the Tax Foundation's Distinguished Service Award for his contributions to tax policy. In announcing the award, the President of the Tax Foundation said, ``John's leadership in facilitating a rational debate on international tax policy is without peer.'' While John is retiring from GE, he is not retiring from the world of tax policy. I know his leadership in ``facilitating a rational debate on international tax policy'' will carry on. I am confident his contributions will continue in the next chapter of his distinguished career. And I know that my colleagues who will push forward in Congress on the extremely important work we started in reforming our tax code will turn to John Samuels again and again for advice, ideas, and wise counsel.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an important institutional issue. Under the Constitution, it is the prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate revenue measures. Article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that ``All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.'' This clause is commonly known as the Origination Clause. As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have a special responsibility in guarding this important House prerogative. A recent court decision has caused me to come to this floor to re- affirm the House position on the Origination Clause. The rationale used by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their July 29, 2014 decision in Sissel v. HHS is at odds with consistent House Origination Clause practice. Specifically, the ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit held that because the primary aim of PPACA was not to raise revenue, but rather to ``induce participation in health insurance plans,'' it was not a ``bill for raising Revenue'' within the meaning of the Origination Clause. Sissel v. HHS, Op. at 13 (July 29, 2014). Although some courts have taken a narrower view of what constitutes a ``a bill for raising revenue,'' the ``primary purpose'' test articulated in Sissel presents heightened challenges in interpretation that not only threaten the constitutional balance in Congress but invite subjective judicial scrutiny of the legislative process. This analysis may lead to confusion between the legislative and judicial branch on measures where the primary purpose is not easily ascertainable, measures that contain multiple, competing purposes, and measures that state a purpose that is in conflict with its content. The House's traditional provision-by-provision review of a measure and the effect of each on revenue is the more sound approach. This interpretation has served the Congress well when resolving differences between the House and Senate on the Origination Clause. I offer H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as a recent example. H.R. 4310, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012, was a lengthy measure that addressed nearly every aspect of our national defense. The Senate amended it on December 4, 2012 with its own version of the bill. Rather than attempting to assess the purpose of this diverse, multifaceted measure, the Committee on Ways and Means reviewed both the House and Senate measures in their entirety. This review of the Senate amendment revealed a subtitle that included import restrictions on Iran. Import restrictions invoke the revenue jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and have been the subject of Origination Clause action in the past. In response to this institutional infringement, I offered House Resolution 829, a measure returning H.R. 4310 and the offending amendment to the Senate. House Resolution 829 was adopted by the House unanimously on December 12, 2012. In response to the House action, the Senate, also by unanimous consent, stripped the Iran sanctions content from its amendment, and the measure proceeded to conference. The bill was enacted into law on January 2, 2013. As chair of the oldest committee in the House, I have strived to protect this venerable institutional prerogative and clarify its application when needed. I am especially grateful to the majority and minority staff of the committee for their vigilance in this area. I hope these remarks will clarify the House position on this important constitutional issue.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of H.R. 1, the Tax Reform Act of 2014. This bill--which formalizes, without modifications, the tax reform discussion draft I released publicly on February 26, 2014--reflects the years of work undertaken on this critical issue by the Committee on Ways and Means during my time as chairman. I want to thank the members of our committee, on both sides of the aisle, for their tireless efforts and for their outstanding contributions to this legislation and to the transparent, inclusive process that produced it. While I will not be returning to the House of Representatives next year, I very much look forward to watching the ongoing work of our great committee as the tax reform debate continues to unfold in the 114th Congress. Mr. Speaker, the urgent need to fix our broken tax code--and the incredible progress we've made toward making tax reform a reality for the first time since 1986--has already been well documented, and I will not seek to recount all of that background and history here today. But I do hope that, going forward, Congress will continue to focus on the twin goals that have guided the tax reform process thus far-- strengthening the economy, and making the tax code simpler and fairer for all Americans. When I set out to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill, I wanted to do it the right way. So, over the last four years, the Ways and Means Committee held over 30 public hearings, including the first joint hearings with the Senate Finance Committee on tax policy since World War II. Ways and Means Ranking Member Sandy Levin--my home state colleague--and I formed 11 bipartisan working groups to tackle different areas of the tax code. In that time, I also launched TaxReform.Gov, which received more than 14,000 public comments and suggestions, while Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and I left the confines of Washington, DC to talk with taxpayers all across the country. I am proud to say that we have done this in the most open, transparent, and bipartisan way--getting input from all sides. Now, the debate about whether to do tax reform is over; the only debate now is about how. At its core, the Tax Reform Act of 2014 is about making the tax code simpler and fairer for hardworking taxpayers. I believe every taxpayer should be able to do his or her taxes without fear that someone with better accountants or lawyers is getting a better deal. This legislation does that by ensuring that virtually all taxpayers would pay the least amount of taxes without having to keep track of every receipt and record and live in fear of an IRS audit. This legislation makes the Code more effective and efficient by getting rid of narrowly targeted provisions to lower tax rates across the board. This will enable small and large businesses alike to expand operations, hire new workers, and increase benefits and take-home pay. The proposal flattens the rate structure by reducing rates and collapsing today's seven individual rate brackets into two brackets of 10 and 25 percent for virtually all taxable income, ensuring that over 99 percent of all taxpayers face rates no higher than 25 percent. The plan also reduces the corporate rate to 25 percent. By making America's corporate tax rate more competitive and by modernizing our anticompetitive international tax rules, which have not been reformed since the 1960s, we would encourage companies to keep their headquarters in the United States, so they can grow, invest, and hire here, instead of moving overseas in search of a better tax environment. We need a real solution to this growing problem, and I believe a significantly lower corporate tax rate and a more competitive tax system is just the solution we need. Independent economists agree: Tax reform results in stronger economic growth, more jobs, and higher wages. In fact, the independent, non- partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that this plan could increase the size of our economy by $3.4 trillion--that's equivalent to 20 percent of today's economy. Based on that stronger economic growth, we could see nearly two million new jobs created. JCT also estimates that this proposal could generate up to $700 billion in additional Federal revenues that could be used to lower tax rates even further or to reduce the debt. Indeed, based on calculations using data provided by JCT, the average middle-class family of four could, under this proposal, have an extra $1,300 per year in its pocket from the combination of lower tax rates in the plan and higher wages due to a stronger economy. This is the kind of growth America needs, and these are the kinds of policies that can produce a stronger, more robust economy that benefits all Americans. Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the countless hours devoted to this effort by the Ways and Means Committee staff and the staffs of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Office of Legislative Counsel. A project this large--on an issue of this magnitude--simply could not be undertaken by this institution without the dedication, the policy know-how, and the technical expertise of the professional staff. We owe all of them our sincere thanks. Indeed, their contributions to this proposal extend not just to the legislative language of the bill itself, but to a set of helpful explanatory materials as well. For those who are looking for a fuller description of the legislation I am introducing today as H.R. 1, a section-by- section summary of the proposal prepared by the Ways and Means Majority Tax Staff is available at: http://tax.house.gov/. Similarly, JCT's technical explanation of the proposal--along with JCT's revenue estimate, distributional analysis, and macro-economic analysis of the proposal--has been published as JCS-1-14, available at https:// www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4674. With that, Mr. Speaker, I close by urging my colleagues who will be returning in January for the 114th Congress to keep pushing forward and to see this tax reform process through to a successful conclusion. It would undoubtedly be easier for Congress to hang its head and say that the problems with the current tax system are just too big, and that the work of tax reform is just too hard. But nothing worth doing is ever easy, and tax reform is even more necessary now than it was back in 1986. Indeed, today's generation of tax reformers should remember how the headline in the Washington Post captured the moment when the 1986 Act finally made it over the finish line--it called tax reform the ``impossible that became the inevitable.'' I would like to see that headline again, and with today's formal introduction of the Tax Reform Act of 2014, we take another important step down that historic path. I thank the Speaker for reserving the bill number H.R. 1 for this legislation, and I hope that the formal introduction of this proposal in the House today will help spur further action on this critical issue in the 114th Congress.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would just say briefly, actions speak louder than words. While technically, yes, we are going to make sure that for the last couple of weeks, as my colleague from Pennsylvania so eloquently stated, these tax policies will be in place, we need more than that. I mean, whether it is food inventory or conservation easements, these are long-term policies that we are asking people to get involved in. Let's talk about southeast Michigan. The gentleman raised it. We know who is doing a lot of the work in Detroit--a lot of foundations are. They are setting up plans and processes to help rebuild that city. They need more than 2 weeks of policy. They need permanent policy. These are simple, bipartisan measures, whether it is food inventory, charitable IRAs, or conservation easements. Look, we know that the watershed of New York City was protected by conservation easements. They couldn't do that in 2 weeks. The things that we can do with conservation will last decades into the future. They need the intergenerational long-term policy to put these kinds of plans in place. Even as I mentioned earlier with regard to food inventories and charitable IRAs, those aren't decisions you make on a whim. Whether you are going to turn your IRA over to charity is a decision that you may be looking at the next 20 years of your retirement, do you have the ability to do that or not. It is not something you can do based on just a couple of weeks. Look, we are the only nation in the world that lets these things expire. I mean, what the gentleman hasn't said is these items were expired for all of 2014. We are going to put them in place for the final 2 weeks, and retroactively we are going to say you are going to be able to make a conservation easement contribution? Well, you can't, and you are not probably going to do it in the next 2 weeks because immediately when the clock hits 2015, you are not going to have the tax policy. Look, I would ask people, don't just vote in lockstep. Really examine your conscience and whether at this time of year, with the great needs this Nation is facing and has faced really for the last decade, what can we do to make a difference now? Why do we need to wait? As the gentleman has said, look, we have tried to make these things permanent. That hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in a comprehensive tax overhaul; it hasn't worked in trying to make a lot of these extensions permanent in an agreement between the House and Senate. But these are important, and these will make a difference where government doesn't go. It is our foundations and our charities that actually innovate in this area and find out what works. As we know, government isn't the most innovative in this area. That is why these are important to do now. I think especially in this season of giving we shouldn't just vote because our leaders tell us to or because we have gotten some letter from the administration. We should really look carefully at how we can make a difference, how we can make a difference by this vote that we are going to take and what that will mean for people's lives and the countless families who depend on selfless Americans to make it from day to day. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say, Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what the gentleman from Michigan said. I have listened to the statement that he read. I have actually read the statement of the administration's position myself. I see nothing in that that gives any Member a reason to vote ``no.'' Let me just say Feeding America estimates that H.R. 5806, this bill we are debating tonight, would create 100 million new meals a year. Frankly, I would say to my friend from Michigan: if you are hungry, you can't wait. Let's do this now. Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to reading a statement of administration position that the President has repeatedly said, ``Send me bipartisan measures that we can work on together,'' there is no more bipartisan issue than helping America's charities help the needy, help those who are hungry, and help those without housing. In Michigan, our home State, we have a pilot program with a cereal manufacturer that is capturing excess breakfast products. Over 20,000 pounds of food per week are donated. If the tax law was changed, H.R. 5806, seven times that amount would be donated by the company, by the private sector, filling a need that the government is not meeting. A lot of hungry kids don't always get meals outside of school, so they take this cereal home in their backpacks for weekends. There is no reason to wait. Let's do this now. Look, we passed a 1- year measure on all these other things. That only gives us 2 weeks. For a lot of these charitable provisions, they need a longer window. They need more certainty to put these programs in place and to put the distribution systems in place to get the food and the resources to people in need. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5806) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and make permanent certain expiring provisions related to charitable contributions.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves here today to once again address a group of tax provisions that need to be made permanent, this time for the sake of those who give to and ultimately benefit from charitable organizations. Every day, selfless Americans nationwide decide to donate in support of an array of causes, be it finding a cure for cancer, helping underprivileged children succeed in school, or simply providing a meal and shelter that, for some, is hard to come by. Countless Americans dedicate their lives to these causes and serving their friends and neighbors in need. The three charitable policies in this legislation can provide tremendous support for those good works. However, because these policies are only temporary, they are not nearly as effective as they can or should be. It is well past time that Congress takes the necessary action to support America's charities and those that benefit from their work and make these policies permanent. What our charities do in America is beyond the power of government to give. Now, we were close to reaching a bipartisan deal with the Senate that would have made them permanent, but the President decided to play politics and issue a veto threat. Just 2 days before Thanksgiving, the President announced that he considers a policy that encourages donations to food banks to be a giveaway to big corporations. I would like to see the President travel to see the West Midland Family Center food pantry in my district and tell them that they are a corporate giveaway. The Supporting America's Charities Act, H.R. 5806, fixes what the administration and some Senators decided not to. This legislation will ultimately increase charitable giving by making these policies permanent and enabling charities to better serve those in need. These bipartisan proposals previously passed the House in July of this year as part of the America Gives More Act and continue to experience unrivaled support from organizations nationwide. In fact, more than 1,000 charitable organizations--1,032, to be exact--have written every Member of Congress in support of the permanent tax incentives. Take, for example, a joint letter authored in July by five of America's leading charitable organizations. In discussing their unanimous support for the America Gives More Act, they said: ``The charitable giving incentives being considered by the House have encouraged individuals and small businesses to actively support the development and sustainability of our society. They have spurred contributions, for example, to build health centers, develop counseling programs for at-risk youth, provide nutrition assistance to hungry children, conserve land, and offer art therapy for people with developmental disabilities.'' Mr. Speaker, I don't think I am alone when I say this: policies that prompt donations to health centers, youth counseling programs, and therapy for people with disabilities are not giveaways to corporate America. Mr. Speaker, just today, I was at Walter Reed Hospital visiting the brain trauma center there that was built for our wounded warriors. It was made possible through private donations and then made as a gift to the United States Government for those men and women who have served so valiantly in our military. That is the kind of giving we need to encourage. That is the kind of giving this legislation would encourage. As I said last week, the end of the year is fast approaching, and a new tax-filing season is just around the corner. Now is not the time for those who selflessly donate to wonder what tax surprises are waiting for them, no more than it is the time for charitable organizations to grow uncertain about their futures. There is no goodwill like that of an American, and as Representatives of this great Nation, we should do everything in our power to encourage individuals to give more and help charitable organizations expand their reach nationwide. Mr. Speaker, as the giving spirit of the holiday season is around us, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle and both Houses of Congress to look at the policies--not the politics--look at the policies here and support those who give and support those who are in need by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 5806. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, our nation encourages personal savings in a number of ways throughout the tax code and now with the ABLE Act we are adding one more, specifically for individuals with disabilities. As we acknowledge through this legislation the importance of saving for individuals with disabilities and their families, it is important to place this policy in context and ensure the public and policymakers appreciate the continued need for effective asset tests in means-tested programs. The ABLE Act explicitly ignores ABLE account balances and withdrawals for purposes of determining eligibility for Medicaid and other means- tested programs; under the SSI program, the first $100,000 in account balances is not counted as resources and withdrawals, except for those relating to housing, are not counted as income. This treatment is designed to provide generous new incentives to save for individuals with disabilities and their families, which current policy limits. It would be a mistake for the public and future policymakers to argue that similar treatment should be afforded all low-income individuals under existing means-tested programs. Indeed, recent advances in administering resource limits suggests that such tools should be used more aggressively in making proper determinations about whether other individuals have sufficient personal means of support before asking taxpayers for government benefits. These advances rebut recent claims that administering resource limits is overly time consuming and burdensome, and suggest that State and Federal agencies are increasingly able to apply these limits in a cost-effective and efficient manner. For example, on March 11, 2011, the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee heard testimony from the Social Security Inspector General about the use of electronic tools such as the Access to Financial Institutions (AFI) program, which allows the Social Security Administration to automate the process of checking for assets, limiting the burden on recipients and field office employees who administer the program. Another argument for ensuring the use of effective resource limits for non-disabled individuals involves program cost. Especially if able- bodied individuals have significant assets or other resources on which to depend, they can and should be expected to use those resources first to support themselves before turning to taxpayer support. The alternative would be a significant expansion of taxpayer spending on able-bodied individuals who have significant personal resources they can and should turn to first for support. Recent years have seen examples of that through significant degradations in the effectiveness of the resource test in the food stamp program. As of November 2010, thirty-three states and D.C. excluded the value of all vehicles in making food stamp eligibility determinations and in the last five years nearly every state has chosen to not have an asset test for food stamp benefits at all. Not surprisingly, due to these changes and other factors, the food stamp program has grown from 17 million recipients in the year 2000 to nearly 48 million recipients today, at four times its former cost to taxpayers. In July 25, 2012 testimony before the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, Professor Doug Besharov of the University of Maryland described this phenomenon as ``eligibility creep,'' or ``The process through which programs are successively expanded through a series of small steps, many of whose impacts are imperceptible at the time.'' Future policymakers need to protect against such eligibility creep and continue to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are properly targeted to individuals needing assistance. Just as the ABLE Act allows parents to ensure sufficient resources are available to support their disabled children after they no longer can do so, we need to be good stewards of taxpayer-funded programs to ensure they are sustainable in the future. Continuing to effectively and efficiently administer income and resources limits, especially with regard to able-bodied individuals, is critical to achieving that goal.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues to pay tribute to the distinguished member of the Michigan Delegation: the Honorable John Dingell, as we mark the end of his long and dedicated service to this body and, more importantly, to the constituents of Michigan's 16th, 15th, and 12th Congressional Districts. However, Mr. Dingell's service to this country dates back well before he began his Congressional career in 1955. At the age of 18, he enlisted as an infantryman for the U.S. Army during World War II. He entered the military as a Private and was discharged as a Second Lieutenant while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. For his service defending our country, he received a medal presented by Oscar winning actor Tom Hanks as part of the ``Salute to the Citizen Soldier'' in 2004. After serving in the Army, Mr. Dingell was elected to fill the seat and the shoes of his father, who passed away while still in office. Together, he and his father have served the citizens of Southeast Michigan for well over 80 years. Blazing his own path, Mr. Dingell has personally impacted every major piece of legislation for over half a century. Even though we come from different political parties, we can and do agree on many issues that concern the people of Michigan. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or its Ranking Member, he has always pushed for solutions to the problems Americans face. Impressive in both stature and tenacity, Mr. Dingell has lent his life to public service. It has truly been an honor to serve alongside such an outspoken advocate for not only his constituents, but the state and country as well. And I must add that the dignity and respect he has shown his colleagues--and including this colleague--even as a brand new Member of Congress--is a testament to the respect he has for his fellow Members and this institution. Mr. Speaker, the good citizens of Michigan's 12th district and colleagues on both sides of the aisle are all better for Mr. Dingell's long and steady tenure in the House of Representatives. I congratulate him again on his remarkable career and join my colleagues today in paying tribute to the gentleman from Trenton, the Honorable John Dingell.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say to my friend from New Jersey, I agree with you on the need for certainty. We have heard today a lot of common discussion about the need for certainty in our Tax Code and how difficult it is to be the only country in the world that let's tax policy expire and what that means for families and employers. But in terms of the concerns you raise about the deficit, as the gentleman well knows, these measures have never been offset. These measures have never been paid for, whether it was a Republican majority or a Democrat majority. Whether it was a Republican President or a Democrat President, these provisions have never been paid for. I would just say to the gentleman and to the Members of this body, why do we need to raise taxes on somebody to keep taxes the same? What we are doing is continuing current policy. In many cases, like R&D, it has been continued since 1981. Let's call it what it is. If we are continuing something in a piecemeal fashion every few years, let's just make it permanent so we can get the benefits of those provisions in terms of reliability and certainty, as the gentleman raised, so that the small businesses all throughout the country can actually plan and expect that these items will be in place. I share the concerns that have been raised by a number of speakers. Here we are at the end of 2014, retroactively putting in policies for the whole year. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Budget Committee and the incoming chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to thank my friend from Michigan for his support of this legislation before us today. It is something that we do need to do. We cannot allow these provisions to be expired for all of 2014, but I would say that, if you look around, we are not seeing the kind of growth and opportunity that we should see in America. We are not seeing the kind of job creation, we are not seeing the kind of income increases; yet expenses are going up for families. The items that the gentleman talked about, whether it was research and development or section 179 or the American Opportunity Tax Credit, all of those were going to be permanent in the package that we were working on, and even the mortgage debt forgiveness for those who are selling their homes and their mortgages were underwater, we were extending that for 2 years, so there were a lot of things for families. Certainly, the charitable provisions for food banks and for charitable giving, those would certainly help middle class Americans as well. The reason why I think it is important to get permanent policy is that we haven't seen the kind of growth that we need to see, and the more of these items that we can make permanent, the more stability we have, the more likely it is that employers and individuals and families are going to make the kind of long-term decisions that will cause our economy to grow. It is not just me saying this; it is the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that says permanent policies such as these, as we were working on, are the kinds of things that the country needs to do to grow. Again, I want to thank him for his support of the legislation. Hopefully, in the future, we will be able to get at some of these issues in a more permanent way, so that we don't have this unusual system where we have had all of these policies expired for all of 2014 and, in the final 2 weeks, we are going to retroactively put them into place for the final weeks of the year, so that when people file in April, they will be able to take advantage of these items. We should really do this on a more regular basis. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 766, I call up the bill (H.R. 5771) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and make technical corrections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in brief, there is nothing in this motion to recommit that addresses the issues raised by my friend from Massachusetts. The problems the gentleman identified are not dealt with at all here. Does this motion to recommit increase investment, create jobs, and raise wages? Does this motion to recommit create certainty in what is an uncertain Tax Code with this process? It doesn't. What this does is make our Tax Code more complex, makes American workers and American employers less competitive, and it will actually hurt our economy and stifle growth. I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend, colleague, and partner on the Ways and Means Committee from Michigan for those very gracious and kind remarks. I think the Ways and Means Committee is the best committee in Congress. We have a lot of bills that come to us. We have a lot of hard decisions. There is a lot of discussion. As you know, this is a big country and there are a lot of different opinions, but we always try to find a way to at least do that in a manner that is productive for the people we represent and that sent us here. I want to thank you for the ability to work with you over these last few years. Maybe I should have turned that 12 into a baker's dozen, with all the kind remarks that have been said here today. I just want thank you and thank the members of the committee and staff on both sides of the aisle. One of the things that is required in a committee like Ways and Means, with all of the responsibilities, is a staff that is able to work together as well. So they help make us do the job well. They help keep us informed and really help make all the things that we do come together, including items like this legislation today so, thank you. I would just urge passage of H.R. 5771, what we call the extenders bill, or the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the distinguished chair of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is the sponsor of the bill.