Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

Mr. Speaker, the issues here are not the merits. That isn't the
issue. The issue is whether we proceed this way. Proceeding this way is
the opposite of bipartisanship--its very opposite. The chairman has
said he wants to find common ground on common aspects.

What this does is essentially pull terrain out from under common
ground. It is the opposite of a search for common ground. The President
has said he will veto. We have the messages right here once again. It
is the opposite of bipartisanship.

It is also, if I might say, 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. That happened last year. It did not become law. It will not
become law this year.

These provisions will be continued if we don't pass tax reform. 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.

That is another problem with this bill and these bills. They are 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.

In 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 are going to
not see a quick response to individual bills coming over.

What could be clearer? What could be clearer?

This is also the opposite of fiscal responsibility.

You have here three opposites--really four, and four opposites make a
big minus.

Fourteen billion is the cost of this bill and 79 billion, the next
bill--that is 93. We marked up just a few hours ago in Ways and Means
two more bills, one 42 billion and another one 177 billion--that is
219. And you add up those, over $310 billion in terms of adding to the
deficit.

There has been some talk about helping the middle class. Action is
the opposite of platitudes. Where is the action on the child tax
credit? Where is the action on the EITC also affecting working and
middle class families? Where is the action on the work opportunity tax
credit? Where is the action on the minimum wage? The answer is we are
now several months into this session.

A reporter said to me, What is bill number one?

I said, I have no idea.

How about other bills that really address the needs of the middle
class of this country?

As expressed in Ways and Means, so many of us are very opposed to
what is really a counterproductive path here. The merits, again, are
not the basic issue.

The basic issue, do we want to fly in the face of bipartisanship, fly
in the face of certainty for taxpayers, fly in the face of tax reform,
and fly in the face of fiscal responsibility? We should not be doing
that. We should not be doing that.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The answer to the gentleman is you pay for certainty. If you make
something permanent, you should pay for it. And that is essentially
what our chairman did when he chaired the Budget Committee. His budget
never assumed these provisions were permanently in the baseline or he
would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years. That is the
reality.

If you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget, you
have got to face up to paying for them; otherwise, you squeeze out
other necessary programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is now a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee, a very active
member.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Essentially, what the gentleman from Illinois says is: Well, let's do
tax reform by picking and choosing a piece or a few at a time.

That is the opposite of tax reform. He described it. That is the
difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson), a very distinguished member of our committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I think the majority leader is leaving the floor, but I want him to
hear me. I am an original if not the original sponsor of the provision
regarding food donation. I have a son and daughter-in-law who are
working on this very issue.

The issue is this: the majority leader helped lead an effort to cut
food stamps by $40 billion. The argument was we could not afford it.
Now, they come forth here with a provision that they don't want to pay
for, added to other provisions that will cost $200 billion, $300
billion, going to $700 billion or $800 billion.

That puts a bad name on the notion of commitment. Commitment needs to
have some consistency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Danny K. Davis).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

We have heard a lot of discussion about many of these programs, maybe
most of all about food programs. But really, let's look at it beyond
the rhetoric. Essentially when it comes to food programs, what the
Republicans are doing is giving with one hand while they take with
another. And there is much more that they take than they would give.

The food provision here comes to $2.2 billion. They have chopped $40
billion from food stamps; that is 20 times more. As the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) pointed out, when you add in WIC and other
programs, they have cut way over $100 billion. And they say they had to
do that, in part, because they could not afford it.

So they come forth with bills that are going to add to the deficit,
and that shows what this is all about, because they pass these bills
adding to the deficit, and then they come back and they say, Sorry,
when it comes to other needed programs, we don't have the money.
Indeed, not only do they give with one hand and take with another,
and much more, but they give an empty hand, an empty hand like this--
nothing in it--for the Child Tax Credit, for the Work Opportunity Tax
Credit, for the New Markets provision that really matters, for the
EITC. And then they say, Well, we can't afford it, yet they won't close
the tax loopholes. It is so inconsistent.

I think in terms of the impact on human beings, it is not only
inadequate but it is impersonal.

So we come here fortified. We are determined to do the right thing
when it comes to tax reform. We are going to do the right thing when it
comes to other important issues, including fiscal responsibility. And
we are going to make sure that there are the funds available for needed
programs because we have paid for things.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. That really is standing up for the
right thing when it comes to bipartisanship, to tax reform, and to fiscal
responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source