Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my real pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a distinguished--to put it lightly--member of our committee. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask how much time there is remaining on both sides?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentlewoman have other speakers?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentlewoman has just talked about her work in graduate school. This bill would eliminate help for millions of people in graduate school. That is what this bill does. I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, we favor on this side of the aisle simplification. We are in favor of reducing the number of pages. We are not in favor of leaving out millions of students. This approach hasn't been refuted. It leaves out millions of undergraduates, millions of graduate students, and millions of people who are in longer-term education needs who can't complete college in 4 years, and, in many cases, want to go on to graduate school. So what has happened here is another bill has come out of committee that is part of a package that was over $800 billion. It leaves out so many, yet you make it permanent. These are people permanently left out. Why? Many of these bills go back some years. We will have to check back many years ago and see if perhaps they were paid for. The recent one was in the Recovery Act of 2009, which we favored, but we did not favor making permanent laws that would leave out. That is what is being done here. I have heard: Oh, we will come back some other time. You are going to come back some other time when you have added a trillion dollars to the deficit? That is not believable. Indeed, what is believable is the result of this kind of reckless course is it is going to squeeze further discretionary, nondefense expenditures. That squeezing out is, as I said earlier, is the hard- hearted approach of the Ryan budget. We see what happens when Republicans essentially use the argument that we can't pay for it, when they cut all the kinds of programs that I mentioned at the beginning, so many were cut out in the Ryan Republican budget. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to be clear what this debate is about and what it is not about. It is not a debate about the merits of public charities and private foundations. All of us support the good works of the charitable community and strive to provide charities and foundations with the resources they need to carry out their mission. Indeed, along with Congressman Gerlach, I am the lead sponsor of the food donation deduction. I think that highlights that this is a debate not about charities, not about foundations. It is about fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities. Today, Republicans have selected to make permanent 10 of the approximately 60 expired tax provisions without a single dime of offset--not a single dime. After today, if this bill passes, the House will have approved $534 billion worth of tax provisions without a single offset, wiping out more than half of the total deficit reduction enacted last year during the bipartisan fiscal deal. Indeed, this bill is totally inconsistent with the Republican tax reform draft they unveiled in February. And, I might add, if you add up the 14 bills that came out of the Ways and Means Committee, entirely unoffset, it is $825 billion. I was reading, this morning, the debate which I heard yesterday on a motion to recommit. I was reading this language from Mr. Crenshaw in opposition to the motion to recommit. This is what he said about how Republicans proceed with budget issues: We do it just like every American business does, like every American family. They sit down. They take the money that they have, and they set priorities. Then they make some tough choices. That is what we have done. There is not a single tough choice in what the Republicans are doing. It is, essentially, throwing discretion and tough choices to the wind. Also let me say that their approach is inconsistent with their own tax reform draft of some months ago. The enhanced deduction for food contributions that the chairman has spoken so eloquently about was expressly repealed in the Republican reform draft, and the rollover provision was allowed to expire. So you have irresponsibility, you have inconsistency, and you also have a violation of priorities, because left to an uncertain fate are important provisions, like the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the renewable energy credits, as well as the long-term status of expansions to the EITC and the Child Tax Credit. This is the Statement of Administration Policy just issued: 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 these proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals. However, the administration strongly opposes the House passage of H.R. 4719, which would permanently extend three current provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain donations and add another two similar provisions without offsetting the cost. 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 2013. Just 2 months ago, 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 and create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher income individuals while insisting on offsetting the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the discretionary funding increases for defense and non-defense 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, to the Child Tax Credit, and to education tax credits expire. The administration wants to work with Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen America's social sector. However, H.R. 4719 represents the wrong approach. If the President were presented with H.R. 4719, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. So what in the world are we doing here today? What in the world are we doing? We are passing another bill that deepens the deficit, that is contrary to the rhetoric of the Republicans and is going nowhere in the Senate--zero. It is hard to figure this out, Mr. Speaker. What is motivating Republicans to be so totally inconsistent and irresponsible? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Reed, do I care? It is my bill, with Mr. Gerlach, that you have taken and put your name on--my bill. To make it permanent without any offset, with over $500 billion already done, is the wrong way to do the right thing. I care.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another member of the committee.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time remains on each side, please.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder where the gentleman from Alaska was. I mean PAYGO existed under Democrats. We tried to pay for things, and we did not dismiss out of hand the tax proposal. The ones who are throwing it to the winds are Republicans. It is the Republicans. You are throwing fiscal responsibility to the winds. You are throwing any kind of prioritization to the winds. You are coming here and just saying, do anything and pay nothing. Mr. Speaker, how much time is there now on both sides, please?

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

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

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