Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have debated this now for 2 days. The issue isn't whether 179 is a useful provision. It is. It will be continued. That can be sure. It should not be continued essentially forever unpaid for, adding to the deficit, eroding the chances for tax reform, but this really isn't about 179. The purpose of bringing up this and other provisions outside of tax reform is really essentially to rig the system. It is to play games with the system. It is to try to change the rules so that essentially, if you make it permanent unpaid for, it goes into the baseline; and therefore, after that, you don't have to pay for it. That is what this is really all about. It means you can do other things like reducing tax rates mainly for the very wealthy, having more room to do that, not having to worry about the money to pay for that because you haven't used the money to pay for the extenders. That is really what this is all about. It wasn't done in the Rules Committee by Chairman Ryan. It should not be done now. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are trying to adjust the rules, to change them, so that they can proceed with their approaches. It isn't forthright, and it isn't honest. They are worried the dynamic scoring won't be enough, so essentially, they are trying to do dynamic things--so-called--with the basis. All of that really is contrary to sound policy, it is contrary to the rules, and it is really contrary to the search for bipartisanship. We will sit down tomorrow and talk about 179 as an important part of tax reform. We will do that tomorrow. We haven't even started on tax reform. Now, you essentially want to say we will cut some pieces, and we will do that. That is not sound policy. As Mr. Neal said, it really abrogates sound practice. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I urge very much that we vote ``no.'' There will be, one way or another, enough votes if this ever got through the Senate--and it won't--to sustain a veto. Don't play games. Let's address tax reform and responsibility in terms of the deficits. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, who is going to supply, if the gentleman will wait here, for a very clear answer.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi, our distinguished leader.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Essentially, what the gentleman from Illinois says is: Well, let's do tax reform by picking and choosing a piece or a few at a time. That is the opposite of tax reform. He described it. That is the difference. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I think the majority leader is leaving the floor, but I want him to hear me. I am an original if not the original sponsor of the provision regarding food donation. I have a son and daughter-in-law who are working on this very issue. 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. Now, they come forth here with a provision that they don't want to pay for, added 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. Mr. Speaker, 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--its 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 is the opposite of a search for common ground. The President has said he will veto. We have the messages right here once again. It is the opposite of bipartisanship. It is 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. 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. That is another problem with this bill and these bills. They are 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: As long as the Finance Committee feels there is an opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are 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. You have here three opposites--really four, and four opposites make a big minus. Fourteen billion is the cost of this bill and 79 billion, the next bill--that is 93. We marked up just a few hours ago in Ways and Means two more bills, one 42 billion and another one 177 billion--that is 219. And you add up those, over $310 billion in terms of adding to the deficit. There has been some talk about helping the middle class. Action is the opposite of platitudes. Where is the action on the child tax credit? Where is the action on the EITC also affecting working and middle class families? Where is the action on the work opportunity tax credit? Where is the action on the minimum wage? The answer is we are now several months into this session. A reporter said to me, What is 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? As expressed in Ways and Means, so many of us are 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The answer to the gentleman is you pay for certainty. If you make something permanent, you should pay for it. And that is 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 is the reality. If you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget, you have got to face up to paying for them; otherwise, you squeeze out other necessary programs. Mr. Speaker, it is now a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee, a very active member.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if could I ask how much time we have remaining.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), another distinguished member of our committee, the chairman of our Caucus.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget so dedicated to these issues. If he needs more time, he should just ask.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have 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 with another. And there is much more that they take than they would give. The food provision here comes to $2.2 billion. They have chopped $40 billion from food stamps; that is 20 times more. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) pointed out, when you add in WIC and other programs, they have cut 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 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, for the EITC. And then they say, Well, we can't afford it, yet they won't close the tax loopholes. It is so inconsistent. I think in terms of the impact on human beings, it is not only inadequate but it is impersonal. So we come here fortified. We are determined to do the right thing when it comes to tax reform. We are going to do the right thing when it comes to other important issues, including fiscal responsibility. And we are going to make sure that there are the funds available for needed programs because we have paid for things. 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.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NASA Authorization bill before the House. This legislation is important because it reaffirms Congress' commitment to space exploration and the important role NASA plays in the areas of science, aeronautics, exploration, and human spaceflight. Over the next few months, NASA spacecraft will visit Pluto and the dwarf planet Ceres for the first time. We will further develop our nation's commercial launch capability even as NASA continues work on the Orion space capsule and a new heavy-lift rocket. NASA will also build on its efforts in the important areas of space science and education. The bill before the House supports all of these endeavors. I want to mention one NASA program in particular, the Student Spaceflight Experiments Program. This program gives students across the country the chance to design microgravity experiments to fly in Earth orbit. Indeed, one of these experiments is scheduled to come home from the International Space Station today. The experiment was designed by a team of four students from Wilkinson Middle School in Madison Heights, Michigan. The experiment involves the effects of microgravity on water purification. In Michigan, we tend to take the availability of fresh water for granted since we are surrounded by the Great Lakes, but water is a rare and precious commodity in space, and hopefully this experiment will help future astronauts to re-use water. I want to commend the students who have worked so hard on this microgravity experiment: Regina Alsabagh, Farah Sabah, Maryam Kafra and Israa Alfadhli. Their achievement is all the more remarkable since their experiment originally was supposed to be carried into orbit last October, but that rocket exploded shortly after liftoff, destroying the students' experiment. Fortunately, NASA was able to find space on a rocket to the space station that launched in January, and the Wilkinson students managed to build a second version of their experiment in time for that flight. I congratulate the Wilkinson students for their hard work, perseverance, and determination to overcome obstacles. It's important that Congress continue to support NASA and efforts like the Student Spaceflight Experiments Program. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the NASA Authorization bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent earlier today during roll call vote 59. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 59, the motion on ordering the previous question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50 and H.R. 527.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)