Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I said at the beginning, we need to, as we legislate, balance priorities. We have here a very different view of the ACA than has been expressed by several. But that isn't the point of this legislation. This is about the veterans of this country. This isn't about Keystone. We will debate that some other time. We have very different views. This is no way a precedent to that. We will debate the 40-hour week later this week. We have some very different views, to put it mildly, about the legislation entitled the ``40-hour week.'' I should also like to point out regarding ACA that businesses, small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, aren't even required to contribute to or offer insurance to their employees. This bill is called the Heroes Act because the focus of this bill is to make sure that there isn't any disincentive for anybody to hire veterans. The rate of unemployment for veterans has been higher. I had the chance in Roseville, Michigan, to meet with veterans, Vietnam veterans, some months ago. I was deeply troubled by the high rate of unemployment for those Vietnam veterans. This country has not done an adequate job in terms of making sure that veterans have a real opportunity to work. That is the tribute that we must provide, and it is more than a tribute; it is an obligation to those who have served this Nation. That is why this is called the Heroes Act. Let's not distort it. Let's not undermine what is the purpose of this legislation. Those who have served deserve as our priority any reasonable effort to provide them with the opportunity that they want. They have served. Now they want to work. We need to make sure they have that opportunity to work. It is within that spirit that I support this legislation and urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, what was said by the Budget Committee chairman is not correct. This is not about more information. This is a requirement that these official cost estimates really be part of the enforcement of the budget resolution. So what this is, in a few words: Republicans today are extending their embrace of voodoo economics by wrapping their arms around voodoo score keeping. Again, it is not about more information. It is being able to cook the books to implement their long-held discredited notion that tax cuts pay for themselves. I think the former Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration official Bruce Bartlett said it best: It is not about honest revenue estimating. It is about using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican ideology in the budget process. Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear at the outset that this isn't a debate about the excellent work of charities or foundations or their vital role in our society. This House has already taken action to provide for the three provisions included in this bill for this year's tax returns as part of the broad extender bill that passed last week. When the chairman talks about no surprises, we have already passed through the House and what will become law is an extender bill that makes it clear for this tax season that these provisions are in effect. There is no doubt about that. Everyone who voted in favor of the package has already ensured that taxpayers can benefit from these provisions this year. Look, this isn't about politics. Frankly, as the lead sponsor originally of one of these bills, I find objectionable any reference to politics. I sponsored that bill regarding food contributions because of my belief that many people wanted to contribute to help supply nutrition. When the President issued his Statement of Administration Policy, there was no politics at all, zero. He had made that clear in July. I think it is incredible--let me leave it at that--that anyone would say that politics has anything to do with this issue. As I said, these provisions are already going to be available for taxpayers in this tax season. What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities. What this bill does is take three provisions out of the many in the extender bill--three--leaving aside whether it is R&D, leaving aside whether it is the education provision, leaving aside whether it is the child tax credit that would expire in terms of its improvements in a couple of years, what this does is to take just these three, important as they are, and say that we are going to make those permanent without paying one dime for them, not one dime, adding $11 billion to the debt. I must say--and we have had some back and forth on this--whatever one thought of Chairman Camp's comprehensive bill--and we had some questions about it, but never questioning the fact that it took some hard work and I think some courage to put these provisions into the context of comprehensive tax reform, and so it is counterintuitive in a way to just pick these three up and to make them permanent unpaid for. Let me just read the Statement of Administration Policy if I might. I just hope it sets to rest any claim that this is about politics because as an original sponsor of one of these bills, I can just emphasize what propelled me to propose it to all the food pantries I went to and to all of the church groups I went to who were providing food, to the businesspeople I talked with who were essentially donating food, to their credit, that they couldn't sell and to doing so in a way that it was timely and so that the foods were very easily edible and readily so. With that spirit--and I hope talking about the spirit of the season-- this administration policy, I hope with that spirit it will be received. I quote from it: The administration supports measures that enhance nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and other community organizations in their many roles, including as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that encourages land protections for current and future generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals. However, the administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 5806, which would permanently extend three current provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain donations. As the administration stated when strongly opposing similar legislation this past July, if this same, unprecedented approach of making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over the next 10 years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Earlier this year, House Republicans themselves passed a budget resolution that required offsetting any tax extenders that were made permanent with other revenue measures. As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a double standard by adding to the deficit to continue tax breaks, while insisting on offsetting the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the discretionary funding increases for defense and nondefense priorities such as research and development in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. House Republicans are also making clear their priorities by rushing to make these 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 EITC, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and education tax credits expire. The administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen America's charitable sector. I want to repeat that. The administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen America's charitable sector. However, H.R. 5806 represents the wrong approach. If the President were presented with H.R. 5806, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The way we have acted here, taxpayers will be able to use the IRA rollover for this tax season. That is for sure. People who want to make donations, however they do it, relating to nutrition and food will be able to do that for this tax year. So the issue is not whether we care much about those provisions. As I said, as someone who has worked so hard in terms of nutrition policy, food donations, who has been to so many pantries, who has been to Forgotten Harvest, worked with them, and Gleaners in southeast Michigan, I know how important it is that these contributions continue. They will under the action of this Congress. That is not the question. The question is whether this institution will take three provisions out of the extenders bill that we passed and make them permanent, unpaid for--unpaid for--permanent and unpaid for, increasing the deficit by $11 billion without giving the same consideration to every other single provision in the extender bill, whether it is education or research and development and so many other provisions that also have some urgency to them. No, I don't think anybody should worry here about voting ``no'' and having challenge by anybody to their dedication to tax policies that give people incentive to give to charities, to foundations, or to nutrition programs, or their dedication in terms of conservation. What the majority has decided to do is to take, as I said, out of the extender bill three provisions, knowing that the President would veto them, I guess trying to score points against the President instead of scoring points for those whose programs are in question here. So that is what this is all about. I want to close by just urging everyone who votes ``no'' here, you can say with total honesty that you have voted for legislation that makes sure for this tax season, like for all other extenders, that people will be able in this case to give contributions, to deduct them, to roll over their IRAs, whatever. It will be up to the citizen to make that decision. We are providing that opportunity for citizens. Anyone who tries to undermine the deep dedication of anyone on this side or the President of the United States to the importance of charity I think is doing a real disservice to the Nation and to themselves--and to themselves. I urge a ``no'' vote. 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 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this needed legislation. In Michigan, we're blessed to be surrounded by the Great Lakes. In so many ways, the Lakes define our state, and our region, as well. For many years, though, we did not treat them as if they were very great. For the better part of a century, the Lakes and their tributaries were polluted to the point that they were dying. A century of environmental harm cannot be undone overnight, but we've made considerable progress. That's where the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative comes in. Through the GLRI, we are finally addressing longstanding problems, such as toxic hotspots, invasive species like the Asian carp, habitat restoration, and runoff pollution. The GLRI was created by the Obama Administration and, since 2010, Congress has wisely funded it. Now it is time for Congress to take the next step and formally authorize this vital program. Congress must remain a full partner in the restoration effort in the Great Lakes, and authorizing GLRI is the best way to do that. I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my colleagues who have worked so hard to support GLRI over the last five years, especially Representative Joyce, Louise Slaughter, and my good friend John Dingell. I would also like to underscore the longstanding efforts of Senator Carl Levin and his staff in the area of Great Lakes restoration. As we continue to make meaningful progress on restoration of the Great Lakes, this will be a hopeful sign that other difficult environmental redemptions are also achievable. Let us move forward together today by passing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If a test of a career is whether you made a difference, Big John's career has been a big success. In so many ways, John was tall in stature physically and in every other way. There has been much note about his particular accomplishments. I would like to spend just a few minutes today talking not about those accomplishments that are so vivid and so clear, but to talk about John Dingell and his character. He remembered his roots, never forgot them. There was always, I think, a sense of the underdog. I think his family came to this country and felt, in a sense, like the underdog, but were thankful that they had an opportunity in this country to rise. And it is so clear that John succeeded. You might sum it up this way: John Dingell was a legislator's legislator. He combined courage and civility, dedication and decency, strong views with strong friendships. I don't remember exactly when it was that, down the hall here, when John was being honored, he decided to talk about this institution and what he had seen happen to it. And it was a very frank talk. And he really bemoaned recent events here, where it was much more difficult to have strong views but to have strong camaraderie, to have strong views but have the ability to compromise on them, to have strong views but find a way to seek and find common ground. That was so convincing, so persuasive for someone who has been in this institution longer than anyone else in the history of this country. So I think our best salute to John, maybe the best way to remember his contributions--in addition to all of the particular legislation that came to be and meant so much to millions of people in this country--is to try to pick up the mantle that surrounded him all of his career here, to really see if we can seek and find some way in this institution to operate the way John Dingell saw so much of his career, and why he felt it was such a loss when it dwindled. So I would like to just join everybody else with some emotion. Our two families have been so close for so many decades. Our two families, the Levins and the Dingells, the Dingells and the Levins, have had their lives so interwoven, so interwoven, coming from somewhat different backgrounds. But those weren't an obstacle. Those were really opportunities. So I join so many others in saying to John and to Debbie, who has been his partner, more than a job well done--a path that all of us should seek to follow.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With this bill, we can help millions of Americans who are living with disabilities become more financially secure. Just as families today can open tax-free accounts to save for the future costs of college for their children, this legislation would make it easier for families to save money for disability-related expenses like transportation, housing, and health prevention and wellness. The ABLE Act aims to ease the financial burden on these individuals and their families. I applaud the efforts of Congressmen Crenshaw, Van Hollen, Sessions, and you, Chairman Camp, among others. The CBO estimates the cost of the bill will be $2 billion over 10 years. The bill is paid for through $638 million in revenue offsets and $1.4 billion in spending cuts. There has been active bipartisan work on paying for this bill, and there is broad agreement on the revenue offsets. There is some opposition to the Medicare offsets included in the bill because the legislation uses Medicare savings for nonhealth purposes. We have challenges ahead, including important work on SGR. I understand the concern about Medicare offsets. I think it is important as we proceed on this bill to stress that it must not be considered a precedent for using Medicare savings to pay for unrelated costs associated with tax changes. The ABLE Act provides much-needed relief, as we have said, to families and their children with disabilities. This is an important step forward for them in a very personal way. I support its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), another person like Mr. Crenshaw and others who have been working so hard on this issue for a long time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Let me ask my colleague if he is ready to close?

Mr. LEVIN. I do not.

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I would like to give your colleague a chance, but shall we proceed? Is that okay?

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I can do so very briefly. I think we face a somewhat unusual situation here. We have an opportunity to help people who have some very major challenges, including challenges related to their health, and so on balance I think there is a need for us to act, and so therefore I support this bill. I just want us to remember, in a sense, the unusual opportunity that we have here to help millions of people who are living with disabilities that affect their lives, including their basic health status. I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation is crucial as much for what it avoids as what it accomplishes. A 1-year extension avoids the dangerous plan pushed by House Republicans for much of this last year to make permanent a select number of provisions at a cost of nearly $1 trillion. That plan was not only fiscally irresponsible, it also left many provisions behind that are vital to working families and small businesses, including the exclusion for mortgage debt forgiveness, new market tax credits, continuations of the expansions to the earned income tax credit, and the refundable portion of the child tax credit. This bill also avoids an almost equally harmful proposal under consideration last week that would have permanently extended a select group of expiring provisions and would also have given permanent breaks to a relative few while costing more than $400 billion and leaving out critical provisions that help working families. I actively and publicly opposed that proposal. Fortunately, it generated a veto threat from the President. The provisions in today's extender bill need more serious consideration than would have been provided in that proposal both as to substance, whether they contribute to economic growth and jobs, and how they fit into the need for both equity and fiscal responsibility. Some of the extender provisions have contributed to economic growth, such as the provisions for R&D, promoting development of renewable energy, encouraging development of small business, and increasing educational opportunity. Others should not be part of any permanent action, such as bonus depreciation, which was always contemplated as a temporary measure to stimulate economic growth and activity. Some of the provisions in tax extenders should end, and others need to be addressed as we make better sense of the international tax structure, including closing tax loopholes. While I did not agree with many of the provisions of the tax reform proposal of the chairman, he did attempt to address issues in a more comprehensive way, unlike what was passed through the House up to $1 trillion and was attempted last week. It was a serious mistake, as I said, for the Republicans to have taken pieces of it, trying to make them permanent without paying a dime to offset the more than $800 billion cost of doing so. The bill today, therefore, only maintains the status quo for this year. Not to act would disrupt the coming tax filing season for millions of American workers and businesses which have relied on Congress to extend these provisions and will, in a matter of weeks, begin filing their 2014 tax returns. As a result, I will support this measure. As we act in the future, including on tax reform, I believe the lesson that should be learned from the past is that it is critical to try to work on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the importance of maintaining support for the values that must underpin legislative action. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), another distinguished member of our committee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another distinguished member of our committee. (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Look, you made provisions permanent, Mr. Chairman, and you paid for them in your bill. There is disagreement how you paid for them, but you paid for them, and then you come forth with up to $1 trillion permanent unpaid for and leave out the child tax credit and the EITC.