Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a severe case of losing the forest for the trees. This is not about the benefits of charity. This is not about the benefits of foundations. It is not about the benefit of conservation easements. This is a dramatic challenge to Republicans in terms of fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities. They passed a budget that cuts severely into needed programs, and then they come here and say, let's pass provisions that would add up to close to $1 trillion and not pay one dime. I don't think anything can be more fiscally irresponsible and hurt the priorities of this country. Maybe they do this because they know it is a dead end in the Senate. So they think somehow they can use this to their political advantage. But it is reckless, and it is to the harm of the Nation, and I think the process is on a bipartisan basis of this institution. I urge everybody to vote ``no''. There is so much a better path than this reckless one. Mr. Speaker, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I will support this bill because we are at the eleventh hour. No, it is not the eleventh hour; it is a few minutes before midnight. Unless Congress acts by the end of this month, more than 100,000 transportation projects could be delayed and as many as 700,000 jobs put at risk, but this legislation is a patch when what our Nation's infrastructure needs is major repair. Doing nothing is not an option, but we should be doing much better. The Republicans, I must say, in this House, talk a lot about the need for certainty, but they have riddled infrastructure funding with uncertainty. The fact that we are in this position illustrates just how little House Republicans have done, since they assumed the majority in 2011, to address the long-term problems facing the trust fund and our infrastructure. Every Democrat on Ways and Means urged our chairman, Mr. Camp, to hold a series of hearings on long-term financing options for the trust fund, yet the committee has not held a single hearing on this topic in the 3 years and 6 months the Republicans have been in the majority. Since 2011, the committee has had nearly two dozen hearings on repealing or dismantling the ACA and, in the last 14 months, a half- dozen hearings on the IRS. Those are not the priorities that are going to lead to a long-term solution of the trust fund. The Nation, in a word, deserves better than this short shrift. It needs a long-term solution. Democrats on Ways and Means proposed an extension until December 31 in order to pressure a long-term solution this year. All of us on the Democratic side voted ``yes,'' and all of the Republicans voted ``no.'' Let me end with a word on unemployment insurance. Senate Democrats and Republicans passed a bill to extend unemployment insurance that included an almost identical set of offsets as those included in today's legislation. The House Republicans refused to take up that measure, at the same time calling some of them--the offsets--pie in the sky and opposing the plan. Well, here we are today on the floor of the House, and 3 million Americans are still waiting for House Republicans to allow just one vote on a bipartisan plan to extend unemployment benefits. It is time that House Republicans get priorities straight. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time now be given to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of our committee who has worked so hard with the rest of us on highway issues, to control.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Van Hollen raises such an important point. What is being done here is totally inconsistent, and I will come to that a bit later, but what is really important today about this bill is not what is being done here, but what is not being done here. Mr. Van Hollen points out how inconsistent this bill is. But no matter how inconsistent, it is going nowhere. And it should go nowhere. Essentially, what it does is to make permanent what has always been considered temporary. Bonus depreciation, which has been temporarily enacted during the previous two recessions to help assist the economy during the short term--that is what it has been--allows companies to write off investments more quickly than normal, providing them an incentive to make capital investments now rather than later. And that incentive actually disappears when the provision is made permanent. That is why CRS has said its temporary nature ``is critical to its effectiveness.'' Secondly, it is unpaid for. Talk about consistency, talk about a budget bill that talks about the importance of deficit reduction, and here you have the Republicans proposing a bill that would add $287 billion in debt. That would bring the total of the bills that the Republicans have brought forth here to over $500 billion. When all is said and done, House Republicans will have added more than $1 trillion to the deficit by permanently extending a select group of corporate tax cuts. But let me just say I must confess I am amazed at the inconsistency of this position. It was 5 months ago in the chairman's and the Republican Ways and Means draft that they proposed to eliminate this provision entirely. Bonus depreciation was gone. And now they come forth and they say, Let's make it permanent. That gives inconsistency a bad name. It is appalling. It is really also dangerous. And let me indicate why. The more than $500 billion in tax spending that the House Republicans will have approved today is the equivalent of what we spent last year on all nondefense domestic discretionary spending, which Republicans have cut so deeply in recent years that it is at its lowest level on record as a percentage of GDP. That includes spending for such vital domestic priorities as health research, food safety, and veterans' health. Left unaddressed in this approach with the Republicans are key domestic priorities such as the New Markets Tax Credit, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and the renewable energy tax credits. So here we are. Unfortunately, this bill is going nowhere. There likely will be an extension of bonus depreciation in an extender package, if we ever get to it, but for a short period of time, costing a fraction of this bill. So what is really important today is not a bill that is going nowhere--and should go nowhere--but for what is not being done. I just want to list what is not being done. We have immigration reform. A Senate bill is not being brought up by the House Republicans. On unemployment insurance, a Senate bill providing help for those looking for work is not brought up here. The employment nondiscrimination bill, the Senate bill is not brought up here. Paycheck fairness is not bring brought up. A minimum wage bill is not brought up. We have the Ex-Im Bank caught in the contest and the conflicts within the Republican Conference. We also have a highway bill we are going to get next week with another patch because of the inability of the House Republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill. And voting rights reform, you have a bill sponsored by a senior Republican in this House, and it has not seen the light of day. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish by saying how appalling it is that the Republicans come forth and say, Let's make it permanent, unpaid for, costing $287 billion, when in the proposal that they put forth, this provision would have been eliminated. That is 180 degrees in a split second. It just shows, I think, the hypocrisy of bringing this bill up, made especially hypocritical when there has been this utter failure to address all of these other legislative proposals, many of which have passed the Senate. So we are going through the motions here today. It is really a sad moment for this institution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. To the gentleman from Illinois, I favor long-term tax reform. He helped produce a long-term proposal that eliminated this provision. It eliminated it. Now, you come down and say you want to make it permanent. I guess I can't speak directly to you.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LEVIN. I said ``long-term.'' My point is you, 6 months ago, helped produce a package that eliminated this provision, and now, you come here, and you say you want it permanent. This is acrobatics. This is congressional acrobatics. You are just spinning in an opposite direction, and you are making this place a circus. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let the facts be shown: in 2006 and 2007, bonus depreciation expired, and it was renewed when the recession really took a hold. CRS has said research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective. We will renew it, but not for 10 years, costing $287 billion made permanent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), also a member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to read the Statement of Administration Policy: The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4718, which would permanently extend ``bonus depreciation'' rules that allow corporations to speed up deductions for certain investments and, thereby, delay tax payments. This provision was enacted in 2009 to provide short-term stimulus to the economy, and it was never intended to be a permanent corporate giveaway. Moreover, H.R. 4718 includes no offsets and would add $287 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, wiping out more than one-third of the deficit reduction achieved by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013. The deficit increase in H.R. 4718 is more than 20 times the cost of the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits, which Republicans are insisting be offset, and more than triple the discretionary funding increases for defense and nondefense priorities enacted in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which were offset. House Republicans also are making clear their priorities by rushing to make business tax cuts permanent without offsets, even as the House Republican budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working families and students by letting important improvements to the earned income tax credit, child tax credit, and education tax credits expire. The administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. However, making costly business tax cuts permanent without offsets represents the wrong approach. If the President were presented with H.R. 4718, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, forty years ago Nanine Meiklejohn started her work on behalf of working men and women at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Following in the footsteps of her father, Kenneth Meiklejohn, who worked for the AFL- CIO, Nanine has fought to build and sustain a path to the middle class for working families. Today, I am pleased to rise to recognize her talents and her positive impact on public policy. Nanine worked to make government programs better and to support the men and women who help make those programs work. She developed an expertise in many areas, but she is particularly known for her deep knowledge of workforce issues, including job training programs, employment services, and the unemployment insurance (UI) system. As someone who continues to work to ensure an adequate UI system for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, I can tell you that Nanine was a key voice in our nation's efforts to help workers hurt by the worst recession since the Great Depression. Her keen understanding of workforce programs, her firm commitment to social justice, and her determined defense of those who do the everyday work of making government work represent a very powerful combination. Now after four decades at AFSCME, Nanine is retiring. We will miss her tenacious advocacy, and we thank her for a career dedicated to strengthening efforts to help Americans succeed. We are a better nation because of the work of Nanine and so many others who fight for economic opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the tax extenders being considered today are important to small businesses and have been supported by Democrats. The first two bills impacting S corporations regard the gain on the sale or distribution of appreciated assets and how charitable contributions of an S corporation are taken into account by shareholders. Over the years, we have modified these provisions and extended them on a bipartisan basis. The section 179 expensing provision which we will consider second has been in the Tax Code since 1958. It was expanded and nearly quadrupled to a maximum expensing allowance to nearly $100,000 in 2003. In 2008, as another recession took hold, that allowance was increased to $250,000; and in 2010, we again expanded the provision, this time to $500,000, as we continued action to spur the economic recovery. This level was in effect through 2013, and this bill before us would make these significant expansions permanent--unpaid for. When these expansions were first enacted in 2003, House Republicans noted that these expansions ``reflected the need for an economic stimulus and growth package.'' Republicans want to talk about certainty. Well, this much is certain: the expanded 179 provision will be extended again. Our economy still needs it, and if Republicans had any interest in working on a bipartisan basis on comprehensive tax reform, we could discuss how best to make a stimulus effort a long-term part of the Tax Code. The opposite is being done today. It is tax reform in reverse. The S corporation provisions surely also will be extended, but in reality, we are not here to make law. I think that is evidenced by the atmosphere about these provisions as we take them up today. The President has indicated he will veto the approach--permanent, unpaid-for tax cuts--taken in the Republican bills before us today, and importantly, the Senate Finance Committee has approved, on a bipartisan basis, legislation to extend all tax extenders for 2 years. The total inability of the House Republican majority to take action to help our recovery, to bolster small businesses, and to grow our economy has resulted in smoke-and-mirror votes, like the ones before us today. They want to signal that they support small business, but their action is so inconsistent with their past positions that it is rendered hypocritical. Ways and Means Republicans put forth a comprehensive tax reform proposal and received accolades--the chairman did--for making it revenue neutral. Chairman Camp included these extenders in his comprehensive tax reform proposal fully offset, the opposite of today. The measures in front of us today add up to $75 billion in deficit increases--$75 billion more. When you add in the R&D credit that passed the House last month and the eight other provisions that have moved through Ways and Means Committee, it adds up to--everybody take notice--$614 billion, unpaid for and permanent. There are still more than 40 tax provisions left unaccounted for. When all is said and done, Republicans are well on their way to increasing the deficit by $1 trillion, and we all know where it will lead--to future Republican demands to cut vital domestic priorities that have been on the chopping block for the GOP: funding for education, public health, and transportation--as we saw yesterday--to name a few. Chairman Ryan put forth a Republican budget resolution, which the Republican majority passed through this House. That budget that you all here today on the Republican side voted for stipulates that any change in tax law must be offset. These bills today shred that principle. You are shredding it. You are inconsistent. You moved in one direction with some praise and now you are essentially moving in the opposite. And the final hypocrisy is one that hits home for 3 million unemployed Americans, I must say, for their families and for millions of Americans who care. The Republican majority insists that unemployment insurance be paid for, but when it comes to tax cuts, they can simply be added to the deficit. The bill before us today is seven times more expensive than the cost of extending Federal unemployment insurance for the remainder of the year. And I should note that we have simply already agreed to offset the cost of such unemployment extension. Democrats stand ready--more than ready--to extend these provisions for small businesses. We stand ready--more than ready--to act on all of these expired tax provisions. We stand ready--more than ready--to act on comprehensive tax reform. And we certainly stand ready--more than ready--to extend unemployment insurance for 3 million job-seeking Americans and be paid for. But we will not be silent in the face of the Republican hypocrisy on display today. What they are doing today is reckless and irresponsible. Once again, here they go again. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let this be very clear to our distinguished chairman. These bills being brought up here unpaid for come to $75 billion. The total of the bills that have come through Ways and Means comes to $614 billion. So 75 today, we had 300-and-some a week or so ago. The train is on the track as you have positioned it, 614 just to start. To extend these provisions for 2 years is $3.4 billion. That is why it is irresponsible to simply go off into the wild deficit, irresponsible yonder. That is where you are.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute. There is a tremendous difference between 3.4 and 75 in these bills and 614 when you add this together with more to come. It also means it gives us time to look to see whether they should be permanent under what conditions. So that is why it is reckless, it is irresponsible, it is contrary to your tax reform bill where you lauded it and we applauded that aspect that you paid for it. You called it revenue neutral. We wanted something beyond that. We didn't want deficit wild.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), an active member of our committee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LEVIN. Well, since you stated how many times I have voted to extend temporarily, I will now yield some time to Mr. Van Hollen and then I will continue. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). I don't think it will take very long to refute the statement made by the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the gentleman ready to close?