Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the balance of my time to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute offers a 1- year extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation for certain U.S. businesses. Most importantly, the amendment offers a stark contrast to the majority's untargeted giveaway to the very wealthy Americans. First, bonus depreciation is available only to businesses that make investments in depreciable property. As a result, most of the benefit from the bonus depreciation provision will flow to businesses such as manufacturers that make significant investments in property, plant, and equipment. These are the types of businesses that create good jobs here in our country. In contrast to the majority's mistaken bill, very little, if any, benefit would go to lawyers, lobbyists, hedge fund managers, and entertainers, to mention just a few. These service professionals simply do not make large investments in depreciable property. Second, bonus depreciation is only available for property used in our country. So a business that builds a new factory only gets the deduction if the factory is built in this country. In contrast, the majority's bill provides a benefit to businesses regardless of where they're expanding or investing. Businesses that cut jobs in the U.S. and expand overseas could get the benefit of H.R. 9. In practice, they would get no benefit from this amendment. Third, the incentive to purchase depreciable property provides a benefit to all of the businesses that produce the property. The result is a more general and widespread economic stimulus. Fourth, and finally, bonus depreciation is a proposal that has had bipartisan support, unlike H.R. 9. H.R. 9 is going nowhere--nowhere-- and it should not. Vote for and pass this substitute. It is sound policy and can become the law of the land. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman is correct in that the contrast is very stark. They've tried to raise taxes on millionaires in the Senate so they pay like the people who work for them. This bill would provide a tax break of $58,000 to those who make over $1 million, which are 125,000 taxpayers. That is a stark contrast. Have people very wealthy pay a fair share on the one side, and have this House give them a big break. I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentleman from Michigan have any other speakers?

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. There is a criticism that the bonus depreciation provision doesn't go far enough. My answer to that is: let's pass this and then join together. You have supported bonus depreciation in the past. You haven't acted on it. We do. Let me just say what's at stake. This bill isn't going anywhere--it's going nowhere, but it says everything about the majority's priorities. They oppose raising taxes on the very wealthy, they take a pledge that applies to the very wealthy, and they end up with a bill they won't pay for. They make empty rhetoric about the deficit. Essentially what they're coming here today to do is to make it worse, by giving a tax break to the very wealthy through this bill. We've said it many times, nobody refutes it. You're stuck on a pledge not to raise taxes even for the very wealthy, and you come today with a proposal for a tax break for 125,000 taxpayers making more than a million dollars with a tax break of 58,000. Then to make it still worse, you cut necessary programs for lower- and middle-income families, from child care and Meals On Wheels. Where's your conscience?

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

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Clinton River Watershed Council as it celebrates 40 years of making a positive difference to the Clinton River and its watershed. Forty years ago, the Clinton River was a very different waterway than it is today. Decades of uncontrolled dumping of industrial wastewater and raw sewage had taken a huge environmental toll on water quality in the river. There were no fish to speak of in the river, and certainly none that you would care to eat. Far from being an asset to the communities along its banks, the Clinton River was slowly dying. That might have been the end of the story except for two key developments in 1972. The first was the passage of the Clean Water Act which spelled out ambitious programs for water quality improvement. The second key development was the formation of the Clinton River Watershed Council. Both of these had a profound impact on water quality in the Clinton River. Passage of the Clean Water Act 40 years ago was one of the most important environmental milestones in our nation's history. It marked a fundamental change in how our nation views and manages water in this country. After decades of polluting the Great Lakes and their tributaries--including the Clinton River--we finally recognized that healthy rivers and lakes are vital to the health of our communities, and we required that steps be taken to restore them. The formation of the Clinton River Watershed Council marked another important turning point. It takes time and resources to undo decades of pollution and neglect, and still more time for an ecosystem to heal. Restoring an urban waterway like the Clinton River is especially complicated. I am convinced that the effort to heal the Clinton River has gone much faster because it had advocates to coordinate action and focus attention and resources. Thanks to the work of the Clinton River Watershed Council and its members and member units of government, real progress is being made on water quality, and once again the Clinton River is being used for fishing, canoeing, and hiking. The Council's efforts in the areas of watershed management, stewardship and education have also had a tangible, positive impact. There was a time when we turned our backs to our rivers and lakes. Today, we know better. As the hard-won progress in the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair shows, waterfront development is a real generator of economic activity and a one-of-a-kind asset to communities. We need to build on the progress that has been made in the Clinton River Watershed as well as Lake St. Clair. This absolutely requires a partnership of effort by Federal, State, and local governments, as well as local stakeholders and advocacy groups. It also means a continued commitment of resources from the Federal Government, especially when it comes to funding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Now is not the time to cut funding for this vital initiative. Congress and the Obama Administration must also work to clarify and restore long-standing Clean Water Act protections for U.S. streams, wetlands, and other waters. But the real work of completing the restoration of the Clinton River will continue to be done by groups like the Clinton River Watershed Council and the many volunteers and sponsors that support their efforts. The Watershed Council's work underscores the value that a healthy Clinton River holds for our citizens and communities. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Clinton River Watershed Council as it begins its fifth decade of work to protect, enhance and celebrate the Clinton River and its watershed.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Yet the provisions that, in fact, disproportionately benefit the wealthy, including the reduction for capital gains and dividends, the Republicans would protect from any changes. The Republican priorities could not be clearer when it comes to Medicare: end it. As to their tax provisions: help the very wealthy.