WASHINGTON - Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI) today delivered the following remarks on the House floor in opposition to H.R. 644, select unpaid-for tax provisions:
The issue here is not the merits. The issue is whether we proceed this way.
Proceeding this way is the opposite of bipartisanship. The Chairman has said he wants to find common ground. What this does is essentially pull terrain out from under common ground. And the President has said he will veto it once again.
It’s also the opposite of certainty for taxpayers. We went through this last year. These bills will not become law. Period. If they were to pass the House and the Senate they would be vetoed. Last year they didn’t become law - and it will happen again this year.
These provisions will be continued if we don’t pass tax reform. And, Mr. Chairman, you control the schedule. If you don’t want to wait until December, do it earlier if tax reform doesn’t become a reality.
And that’s another problem with these bills - they’re the opposite of tax reform. You don’t do tax reform in a piecemeal fashion. Dave Camp, to his credit, understood that, so he came up with a comprehensive package. And the Senate Republicans understand this.
Senator Blunt said last week: "As long as the Finance Committee feels there is an opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you're going to not see a quick response to individual bills coming over."
What could be clearer?
This is also the opposite of fiscal responsibility. The bills here today, combined with the bills we marked up earlier today in the Ways and Means Committee, would add more than $310 billion to the deficit.
There’s been some talk about helping the middle class. Action is the opposite of platitudes. So where’s the action on the Child Tax Credit? Where’s the action on the EITC, also affecting working and middle class families? Where’s the action on the American Opportunity Tax Credit? Where’s the action on the minimum wage?
So, as expressed in Ways and Means, so many of us are really opposed to what is really a contradictory path here. The merits are not the basic issue. The basic issue is - do we want to fly in the face of bipartisanship? Do we want to fly in the face of certainty for taxpayers? Do we want to fly in the face of tax reform? And do we want to fly in the face of fiscal responsibility?
We shouldn’t be doing that.
