Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the remaining time. You know, as I've heard this debate, I've been thinking. This is really mislabeled. Why don't we call it the Mitt Romney Rule Act of 2012? He paid the return he indicated less than 15 percent. He earned many, many, many millions. He knew what the code now says. He could have sent some of the money that was not taxed to the government. He could even use a credit card. But he hasn't done that. This is mislabeled. This has nothing to do with Mr. Buffett. There's been some reference here to small business. The very nonpartisan entities indicate that 97 percent of people who are in small business and beyond have income actually around $250,000 or less. All this bill does is to indicate what's already in the code. So, there's nothing wrong with the bill. What is wrong is this frightful mislabeling to try to cover up a refusal of the Republican Party in this institution to face up to what is really necessary to be done. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill does address an issue that needs consideration. Lieutenant Carpenter died serving his Nation. He possessed outstanding student loans. The lender waived repayment by his parents, who were obligated on the loans. Present policy would require his parents to pay taxes on the value of that repayment. The Congress must act to ensure that families of brave men and women do not face undue hardship in the face of tragedy. Unfortunately, this bill has not been the subject of a single hearing or markup in the committee of jurisdiction, Ways and Means. As a result, this bill has no legislative history to which agencies or taxpayers can turn to answer any questions that should arise. While technical changes were made in this bill from the bill's introduction to its consideration on the House floor today, the text still leaves many questions unanswered, including deficiencies with respect to definition of terms in the bill and as to scope. The tax treatment of debt forgiveness is a broad and important issue. And while this bill will cover the tax treatment of one class of debt for one class of taxpayers, I think many in this body might believe that other classes of taxpayers should be able to receive such tax treatment. So, therefore, in the absence of regular order on this bill but recognizing the need to address the impact of our tax laws on those who have served our Nation and their families, I believe we should pass this legislation over to the Senate, with the expectation that it will address outstanding technical and coverage issues. With that, I reserve the balance of my time and ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time on this bill now be handled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, the bill before the House is not a serious effort at legislating. Instead, once again, the Republican Majority is using Floor time to try and score political points. Let's be honest about what's going on here. The legislation should include a disclaimer: ``This bill supports the partisan, political interests of House Republicans, who approve this message.'' Seldom has the nation faced such a backlog of serious problems, yet the Republican Leadership squanders time on political messaging bills like this one. Double standard. Every year the taxpayers shell out $4 billion in unjustified subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies. Two years ago, BP's Deep Water Horizon well spilled millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Do Republicans come to the Floor with a ``No More BP Spills'' bill? Do they take away the unjustified subsidies to Big Oil? No. Two years ago in my home state of Michigan, the Embridge oil pipeline spilled 800,000 gallons of heavy crude and fouled the Kalamazoo River. Do House Republicans come to the Floor with a ``No More Embridge Pipeline Spills'' bill? No. Instead they work to rush through the permitting on the Keystone pipeline. Hypocrisy. Republicans like to decry clean energy grants and loan guarantee programs when many House Republicans, including several Committee Chairmen and their party's nominee for vice president, have themselves written to the Obama Administration to express support for taxpayer support for projects that benefit companies in their states. Let's be clear. The bill before the House is not about improving U.S. energy policy or creating jobs. Instead of wasting time on a bill that will never become law, we need to invest in renewable energy, and take the steps necessary to allow United States companies to compete with those in China and other nations to supply the world's growing demand for wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced batteries. We should renew and expand the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit that supports American-made clean energy manufacturing. By any measure, 48C was wildly successful. Republicans should join us in extending it. We should also renew without delay the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, which has spurred clean, renewable, domestically-produced wind energy across the country--and the jobs that go with it. American jobs are on the line here. 37,000 jobs will be lost next year if the credit is allowed to expire. It is time for congressional Republicans to stop their political games and get to work on legislation to spur investment, expand clean energy manufacturing, and put Americans back to work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Well, I have now been here 30 years, with 26 on the Ways and Means Committee. So why are we at this point of serious impasse? I think a major reason is that the radical right has taken over House Republicans. Balance is considered surrender; compromise is considered retreat. Indeed, since the passage of the Budget Control Act in August of 2011, the Republicans have made sequestration even more likely. Before August of last year, the Republican position was no new revenues. The Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy were untouchable. But in their budget passed this March, the Republicans not only said that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must continue, but also they should be expanded. They are doubling down on a policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest while annual income stagnation continues for the middle class, and we have the worst income inequality in generations. So, in a word, they went from bad to worse, furthering the likelihood of sequestration. Under the Ryan budget and the so-called tax reform fast-track bill they passed last month, a recent analysis concluded that the average millionaire would lock in an average tax cut of $330,000, while the average person making less than $200,000 would see their taxes rise by $4,500. I support tax reform, but so far Republicans have refused to say which policies they would eliminate to pay for it. It's been dodge and deception. Half of the money in individual income tax expenditures is in the lower rates for capital gains and dividends, and they propose to cut those rates even further, Mr. Ryan down to zero on capital gains. Most of those benefits go to those making over $1 million. Most of the other major tax expenditures--mortgage interest, health insurance, education benefits that would have to be decimated--are mainly middle class benefits. This bill ignores the fact that the President put forward a balanced deficit reduction package over a year ago that would have cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. I close by emphasizing the word, ``balanced.'' Essentially, the Republican Party that I've known over the years has become very deeply imbalanced in terms of the mainstream of America.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. The majority leader continues to use a tool of propaganda, grabbing small business as his mantra. I want to repeat a fact given to us by Joint Tax: under our bill, 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts--97 percent. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Yesterday, Republicans voted to make tax cuts for millionaires their priority over giving 114 million middle class Americans certainty. Today, they are doubling down on that agenda. The so-called principles laid out in this bill would rig tax reform to shift the burden of taxes further onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas. The Joint Economic Committee analysis--it's described here--found that the average millionaire would get another $331,000 in tax cuts, while middle class families making less than $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $4,500. For millionaires, a tax break of $331,000; for middle class families, a tax increase of more at $4,500. That's the Joint Economic Committee's analysis. Why? Because the only way to finance these massive tax cuts for the highest earners is to eliminate or significantly curtail provisions that support the middle class. These are not loopholes. These are policies that in many cases help made the middle class of this country. Seventy percent of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction, for example, goes to those who make less than $200,000. And 82 percent of the benefit of the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance goes to those making less than $200,000. And likewise, the provisions relating, for example, to education. Republicans like to say they will eliminate loopholes--and we just heard that language--and special interest provisions to pay for lower rates. But the provisions I mentioned are not loopholes. They are the policies that helped to build the middle class of America. They are basically middle class provisions, and now they are on the chopping block under this Republican plan. One way, among other ways to describe it, H.R. 6169 is Grover Norquist on steroids. We need tax reform, but not as a tactic to sock it to the middle class and help the very wealthy. Yet that is exactly what Republicans in Congress want to do. We recently received an analysis of the plan of Governor Romney. It's also a plan highly offensive to the middle class. A report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center yesterday made no bones about what it would do to the middle class. They wrote that it is not mathematically possible to write a plan like the one drafted by Governor Romney ``that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers.'' The House Republican plan to lower the corporate rate to 25 percent would require eliminating every provision that encourages American manufacturing--the R&D credit, accelerated depreciation, and the manufacturing deduction. Every one of those. And, the Joint Committee on Taxation has found that even if you eliminated everything, you could only lower the rate to 28 percent on a revenue-neutral basis. We need tax reform--indeed, we do--but not a tax rewrite that discourages companies from making it in America and that would move us to a territorial system that taxes no businesses' offshore income and helps to ship jobs overseas. Well, surely a plan this radical--and that's really what it is, a radical Republican proposal--should be subject to the full scrutiny of regular order and full debate. But not under this bill. Under this bill, the pathway Republicans are setting up is really a railroad to shift the tax burden onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas. It creates a tax czar, and I'm opposed to any of us being a tax czar, Republican or Democrat, Mr. Camp, myself, or anybody else. It would be a tax czar who creates the plan and then certifies their plan, that it achieves their goals. It would allow him or her to add any other proposal to this high-speed train through Congress. Social Security privatization, that could become part, not of this fast track, but this railroad. Repeal of health reform, or anything else. We should reject that path and adopt the Slaughter substitute, which would articulate principles for tax reform that would strengthen the middle class, create jobs in the U.S., and reduce the deficit. You know, we continue to hear about small businesses. 97 percent would receive the full tax benefit under what was rejected yesterday and that we put forth. And in terms of this report about 700,000 jobs, every fact checker has said it's essentially bogus. And I think that's how bankrupt the majority is. Coming forth, I'd like them to answer the Joint Economic analysis. I'd like them to answer the study that came out from three people about Governor Romney's proposal. One of the Romney spokespersons said: It's a liberal think tank that analyzed it that way. Oh, no; two of the three authors served in Republican administrations. It's not a partisan analysis, it's a bipartisan analysis, and it shows essentially what's being proposed here, and what Governor Romney is proposing, is, sock it to middle class America in order to help the very, very wealthiest. That isn't the America that we want. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Texas talks about loopholes. Is the mortgage interest deduction a loophole? Is the charitable contribution deduction a loophole? State and local taxes a loophole? Municipal bonds a loophole? The health care provision a loophole? You keep using that word, I think, demagogically. I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. The Republican bill indeed picks winners and losers. The winners are the very wealthy, and the losers are the middle class Americans of this country. I now, with pleasure, yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts. (Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 5 minutes to a veteran of negotiations on taxes and tax reform, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a veteran of many battles on this floor.

Mr. LEVIN. It's now my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

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

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