Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, today marks the 100th day that unemployed Americans have been cut off the Federal unemployment insurance program. Let me give voice to how they have spent the last 100 days. A woman from Pennsylvania wrote: It's scary, Mr. Levin, not knowing what will happen from day to day. My landlord has tried to be as patient as he could, and now, he had no choice but to serve me an eviction notice. It is scary to think that my America is this cruel. Carol from New York: I have been in the medical field for over 25 years and unable to find work. I can't pay my rent, electric bill, phone bill, no money for gas, no money for food. I can't even print out my resume for a job because I can't afford to buy ink for my printer. This is the first time in my life I had to go to a food pantry. I was ashamed. Never in a million years would I imagine this is where I would be. I am not looking for a handout. I just need a little help to get back on my feet until I find a job. Tonight, the Senate will pass a bipartisan UI extension. This House must not ignore these stories. We must act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, several of us come together to talk about unemployment insurance. The majority leader said to accept the Senate bill is to accept the status quo. That is simply not correct. No, it is not accepting the status quo; it is whether we will penalize over 2 million long-term unemployed looking for work who have lost their unemployment insurance because of the overall economic situation in this country that is getting better, but for them, not nearly good enough. So don't raise the issue of the status quo as a reason to penalize over 2 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, a number of us invited a number of unemployment workers to be our guests at the President's State of the Union Address. We wanted to give a voice to the over 2 million Americans who have had their unemployment benefits cut off. When these jobseekers told their stories one by one, I thought to myself: This is America, these are folks who come from every walk of life, who have worked hard, very hard, and who have played by the rules in pursuit of the American dream; now, they have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and they are desperately seeking new employment. You can understand their complete bewilderment when uninformed people call them lazy, and you can feel their utter disbelief that their government apparently has abandoned them. My guest for the State of the Union Address was Josie Maisano from St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Josie proudly told us she had worked since she was a teenager, but now, at age 60, she could not find a job. Her unemployment benefits were helping her to keep her head above water as she searched for work, but when her benefits were cut off, she fell behind on her mortgage payments, struggled to keep the power on, and worried about becoming homeless, worried about that every day. Josie and over 2 million Americans just like her are desperately waiting to see if this Congress will finally act to help those seeking jobs, not saying we are ratifying the status quo, but as I said to the majority leader, not letting the status quo--which is changing a bit but not enough--let that status quo penalize her. Indeed, the good news is that the Senate is expected to take that critical step on Monday by passing bipartisan legislation--bipartisan legislation--to retroactively extend the unemployment insurance program through May. So the question is this: Whether this House will also act or will it leave town and leave America's jobseekers in the lurch? If every Member of this Chamber will simply take a few minutes to talk with unemployed workers in their district, to people like Josie, I have no doubt we will do the right thing and act; but up to this point, action has been scant, while the excuses have been plentiful. We have heard that an extension of unemployment benefits must be paid for, even though these emergency benefits have traditionally not been offset, but the Senate unemployment extension is fully paid for with bipartisan offsets, so end of excuse. We have heard that any legislation extending unemployment benefits must also create jobs, but the CBO has estimated that continuing emergency unemployment benefits would create 200,000 jobs by raising consumer demand, so, again, end of excuse. We have heard that extended unemployment benefits aren't needed any more because the economy has recovered. The economy certainly has improved from the depths of the Great Recession, but we continue to have near-record rates of long-term unemployment. Indeed, the percentage of those long-term unemployed in this country are the largest in our records, and we have never cut off these benefits in the past with anything close to this level of long-term unemployment, so end of that excuse. Again, we have heard that it is too late to help the unemployed because the Federal UI program has been expired for too long, but as the whip said, the Secretary of Labor has sent a letter saying that it can be implemented. Governors and State UI directors have said they stand ready, willing, and able to restore these critical benefits, as has been done after prior lapses in benefits, so let there be an end of that excuse. So let's get past any excuses and focus on the facts. Anyone receiving an unemployment benefit must look for work, and they have ample reason to do so, given that the average unemployment benefit is only $300 a week. Even at that modest level--and I want to emphasize this--unemployment benefits have lifted 11 million Americans out of poverty since 2008, according to the Census Bureau. The end of the Federal emergency unemployment program in December has left only one out of every four jobseekers receiving unemployment benefits, the lowest coverage in over 50 years. The bipartisan Senate bill that will be voted on--we now expect Monday--would restore this vital lifeline to nearly 2.8 million Americans, including Josie Maisano, and 106,000 other jobseekers in my home State of Michigan. Someone recently asked me if this issue is personal to me. It is. When you hear the unemployed tell their stories, when you see the anguish in their faces, and when you know how hard they are struggling to find work, it is impossible to not take it personally. America, these are our friends, our neighbors, our fellow Americans. How can we give them the cold shoulder? This poster, 2.8 million Americans, these are the people whose livelihoods, whose lifelines are at stake here. I fervently hope that this institution will rise up to its greatest traditions, to respond to the needs of Americans out of work through no fault of their own, looking hard for work, unable to find it. Often, people who are in their forties, fifties, and older find it difficult to find someone who will give them a fair shot. These are people like us, and they are everywhere. We need to act. I now yield to a colleague and friend of mine, a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her moving remarks. I hope the country is listening. Now, another person who has devoted so much time as Ms. Sanchez has to this effort to bring to the attention of this country what this is really all about, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you so much for your eloquence. I hope this country is listening as well as your beloved State. Now I yield to another friend of mine and, most importantly, to somebody whose life embodies caring for others, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. LEVIN. I thank you for your eloquent remarks. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left in our hour?

Mr. LEVIN. Before I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for the remainder of my time, I just want to conclude in this way. This is a bipartisan bill that is coming over from the Senate. This country has asked for bipartisanship. That bill embodies it. This country has asked for fiscal care. Traditionally, unemployment insurance has not been paid for. This bill is paid for on a bipartisan basis. So what more is America asking for? It is asking for people in this institution to step into the shoes of several million people who are hardworking, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are looking for work, many of them never having been unemployed before. If there is a vote allowed in this institution, this bill will pass. There is only one obstacle to our doing what is right, and that is whether there will be a decision on the part of the leadership of this House to let us vote, and it won't be ourselves voting. It will be America voting. America wants a vote to help the several million and their families. So I leave here, going out of Washington, hoping that when all of us return that we will have looked into the eyes of fellow and sister Americans out of work, that we will have reached out and will have listened to their stories, and that we will come back with a sense of urgency, with a sense of decency, and with a conscience. This issue should be on the consciences of every Member of this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman who has just spoken has it backwards. What would hurt American workers is not the Affordable Care Act. Millions have signed up to be covered. What would hurt American workers is this bill. I said yesterday--and no one has refuted it--this bill would mean that 1 million people, according to CBO, would lose their employer- based health insurance. By definition, these are people who are working. They would lose their employer-based health insurance. That is what CBO has estimated, and no one has refuted it. It would increase the number, according to CBO, of uninsured by half a million. No one has refuted this. CBO also says that it would add $74 billion to the deficit--again, this is CBO--and no one on the Republican side has refuted this. This would put five times more people at risk of adverse effects than would be true under any other circumstance. So, essentially, you have a bill that would cost 1 million people their employer-based health insurance, would increase the number of uninsured by about half a million, and would add $74 billion to the deficit. Instead of talking about unemployment insurance, instead of talking about minimum wage, instead of talking about immigration legislation, we have a bill up today that would have these adverse consequences. We would be passing a bill that will never go anywhere in the Senate, and because we aren't acting on these other measures, they are spreading out debate on this bill for 2 days. When it leaves here, it goes nowhere. It will be vetoed by the President, if it ever passed the Senate, which it never will. So this is worse than an exercise in futility. This is an exercise in doing harm, when ACA is bringing benefits to millions and millions of people. It is deeply unfortunate. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues on the Republican side in the House are so blinded by their ideology that they will not or cannot see reality or hear other voices. So here is the reality: 7-plus million people have enrolled in private plans through the ACA marketplaces. The ACA is working; millions have new coverage under Medicaid; up to 129 million Americans with preexisting health conditions, including 17 million children, no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or about being charged higher premiums due to their health status; 3.1 million young adults have gained health coverage because they can now, up to age 26, stay on their parents' health plans. That is the reality of ACA. There is more. There is also the reality of what this legislation would do, and I want to emphasize this because I don't think it has been accurately stated to date. It would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance. According to the CBO, 1 million people would be forced out of employer-based health insurance. It would increase the number of uninsured by about a half a million people, also according to the CBO. So they are bringing this up at the same time that 7 million people have enrolled in private plans through the marketplace and when millions now have coverage under Medicaid. They essentially want to go in reverse in terms of health coverage, and they don't face up to this. I think it has also been misdescribed. This bill would add $74 billion to the deficit, according to the CBO, when there is no offset. That is $74 billion, and you are coming forth here, the day after we receive the latest information about ACA and all that has happened beneficially and now coming and saying knock people off of employer- based insurance and add $74 billion to the deficit. If any of those figures are wrong, I would like someone to stand up and say so. Also, there has been much discussion about the impact in terms of part-time employment. I want to read what the CBO said definitively in February. In CBO's judgment: There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA. So as we heard in testimony, a community college came forth and said they had reduced the hours of teachers in order to avoid paying health insurance. Somebody in the education came forth and said that is their policy. I suggest, instead of foregoing their responsibility as employers, they ought to go into the marketplace and see what they can do to bring more coverage for the people who are working hard. Essentially, what you are doing here today is saying to many, many people who are working hard and who need insurance that this bill will knock you off your employer-based insurance and increase the number of uninsured by half a million, while increasing the deficit by $74 billion. Ideology is indeed blind when this kind of a proposition is put forth. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The evidence is clear that more people would have their hours reduced if this bill passed than might be true under the present ACA. I said what the CBO has said in terms of reduced hours of work. Once again, you are just not facing the reality. Changing this to 40 hours will hurt all around. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is too bad that we don't have a position called fact-checker on the floor. We could yield to the fact-checker every time something is misstated. If there were such a position here today, that person would be immensely busy. For example, I think it is correct that student workers are exempted from the count, so to come here and talk about students, I think, misstates the facts. The same is true of the story about the ACA would hurt workers, when the truth of the matter is this shift from 30 to 40 would indeed have a major impact in terms of people. Let me read to you from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dated October 12, 2013: Moreover, raising the law's threshold for full-time work from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward part-time employment much more likely, not less so. That's because only a small share of workers today, less than 8 percent, work 34 hours a week and, thus, are more at risk of having their hours cut below health reform's threshold. In comparison, 43 percent of employees work 40 hours a week, and another several percent 41 to 44 hours a week. Thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place more than five times as many workers at risk of having their hours reduced. That is the reality. And to come here and to say that what would happen if we don't pass this bill is that more people would have their hours reduced than if we pass the bill, that simply is not correct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. I knew the majority would come here and talk about the middle class. They are trying to escape from their failure to help take action to provide jobs for middle class Americans. They also, by the way, so far haven't helped out to provide the continuation of the unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of people, so many in the middle class, who have lost their jobs. Look, I quoted from CBO, and I guess I will have to quote again. This is in February. ``In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.'' I will quote again from this study of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and it is headed this way: ``Health reform not causing significant shift to part-time work, but raising threshold to 40 hours a week would make a sizable shift likely.'' I quoted why they say that because the number of people who are working 40 hours or thereabouts, that number is so much larger than those who are working 30 hours or thereabouts; and so any employer who wanted, essentially, to shift the burden from them to others, they are more likely to do it under this bill than under the present circumstance. That is the reason why it has been said by CBO that it would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance, and it would add $74 billion to the deficit since it is not offset. You haven't refuted a single one of those statements. If they are not true, I would like you to say so. I would like you to say CBO is wrong, and also wrong when they say it would increase the number of uninsured by half a million people. Those are three CBO statements. They stand here to refute the myths that are being brought here in defense of this bill. So you raise the middle class banner. At the same time, you essentially, with this bill, would take away health insurance from many, many, many, many, many middle class citizens. That is what you would be doing here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if you care about people you should be for the ACA. Seven million people have been enrolled in private plans through the ACA marketplaces, 7 million-plus. And millions--we will get the figures--now have coverage under Medicaid. That is lots of millions of people, and you come forth with an individual case? In many cases, I don't know your instance, these cases have turned out to be incorrect. They have been put in political ads, and they have been refuted. I now want to read the Statement of Administration Policy from the President: The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act--it should be the so- called Save American Workers Act--because it would significantly increase the deficit and reduce the number of Americans with employer-based health insurance. Rather than attempting once again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the President in an agenda focused on providing greater economic opportunity and security for middle class families and all those working to get into the middle class. This legislation would weaken the provision of the Affordable Care Act that keeps employers from dropping health insurance coverage and shifting the cost to taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it would increase the budget deficit by $73.7 billion over the 2015 to 2024 period. Moreover, the proposed change would reduce the number of people receiving employer-based coverage by about 1 million, while increasing the number of uninsured. The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over their own health care. Since October 1, over 7 million have signed up for insurance in the health insurance marketplaces. Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting condition now have access to coverage. Additionally, the law helps millions of Americans stay on their parents' plan until age 26 and provides access to free preventive care like cancer screenings that catch illness early on. While the administration welcomes ideas to improve the law, H.R. 2575 would undermine it by shifting costs to taxpayers and causing employers either to drop or to not expand health insurance coverage. ``If the President''--and this is underlined--``were presented with H.R. 2575 he would veto it.'' With that very effective, I think so convincing statement--I hope all listen to it--I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of our time today be managed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the committee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me describe briefly the challenge before us. This bill is very disappointing. The three committees have worked on a bipartisan basis to put together a bill that would address once and for all SGR and would reform the payment system. Indeed, it would transform this bill that we worked on on a bipartisan basis--the physician payment system--into one that is more acceptable for high quality care, rewards value, and provides needed stability for providers and beneficiaries. The bill has a much larger cost than this patch, though patches themselves are expensive. In response to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I want to make a few comments. There has been no serious discussion all of these weeks about how we would pay for the permanent fix. There has been a dereliction of responsibility. Also, what has happened here is this patch is a product that hasn't gone through the legislative process. Instead, it is a complex $20 billion bill with no public hearing, no committee hearings, and no regular order. The draft of the bill became publicly available at midnight Tuesday, and there were flaws, so it was refiled, and we got this bill just 24 hours ago. This present legislation contains a completely new, unvetted lab payment system. It undermines delivery system reforms for dialysis patients. It includes promising policy to hold nursing homes accountable for patient care but fails to include key protections to minimize discrimination against certain patients. In a few words, we deserve better, and we need to do better. As a result, a large number of physician groups have expressed their opposition to this. What this bill does today is miss the opportunity to do full-scale repeal and replace the physician payment system. The Senate still needs to vote on a permanent fix. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, We passed that kind of bill. Yes, the 10-year fix was a partisan bill that had no chance of passage in the Senate. It has zero chance of passage. The Senate still plans, as I understand, to vote on a permanent fix. We should let the Senate process unfold. We have more time to get this right.

Mr. LEVIN. It is not correct that, if we don't act today, there will be any impact on seniors. We could let the Senate act to try to do something permanently and come back next week, if we have to, and take up this bill. So this is the challenge before us. We are here once again doing something that is very temporary, that is very, very expensive, and we are failing to step up to the plate on permanent reform and a permanent fix, and doing it with a legislative process with a product that has not gone through committee, has had no public hearings, has had no real airing. We should not be acting blindly.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. As Ukraine is fighting for its independence and the people of Ukraine are fighting to preserve and to deepen their democracy, we must stand squarely with them. It has been said here, including by the majority leader, that this is a first step. I would like to make very clear, we really should be taking, in this bill, another step; we should be providing, in this bill, as was proposed in the Senate and by many of us, some assistance to make sure that the IMF can perform its fullest role. That was the preference of President Obama. He made it clear we should act, the U.S. We should also be able to help the IMF to act as fully and effectively as possible. So I think, today, instead of anybody here coming and criticizing the President, they should essentially be supporting him in his efforts to have the fullest array of assistance to Ukrainian democracy. If this is only the first step, let's take some additional steps and stand together on a bipartisan basis, instead of at times, I think, taking partisan shots verbally at the President of the United States.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important contributions that the Pipefitters, Steamfitters, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Service Local 636 have made to their members as well as working families and communities throughout southeast Michigan. On Saturday, March 29, 2014, the men and women of Local 636 will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. Since it was chartered on March 17, 1914, Local 636 has worked to secure safe working conditions, fair wages, health and welfare benefits, and retirement security for its membership. Also notable is Local 636's longstanding commitment to ensuring that its members have the training necessary to do the difficult and skilled work required of them. In 1936, Local 636 began its first organized Apprenticeship Training. Today, Local 636's leaders and members are justifiably proud of its 27,000 square foot Pipefitting Industry Training Center, located on 3 acres in Troy, Michigan, where apprentices can receive classroom and other instruction, and where journeymen can continuously update their professional skills. Local 636 members have literally helped to build the City of Detroit and so much of southeast Michigan. Early in its history, Local 636 members helped to build Detroit's Statler Hotel and the Stroh's Brewery, and they installed Carrier centrifugal chillers at the J.L. Hudson Company, making it the first air-conditioned department store in the United States. Local 636's members have helped build the Detroit area's iconic workplaces, including Ford, General Motors and Chrysler plants, Detroit's Renaissance Center, and the corporate headquarters of Compuware. The region's sports and entertainment fans benefit from the work that Local 636's members have done at Cobo Hall, the home of the annual North American International Auto Show and numerous events and conventions each year, the Detroit Red Wings' Joe Louis Arena, the Detroit Tigers' Comerica Park, and the Detroit Lions' Ford Field. The members of Local 636 are also committed to the well-being of people living in communities throughout Metro Detroit, contributing their time and money to causes including blood drives, The Wellness House, St. Patrick's Senior Center, and the ``Heat's On/Water's Off' program. Mr. Speaker, for the last century, the men and women of Local 636 have stood at the forefront of the labor movement in Michigan, and have made vital contributions to communities throughout the Metro Detroit area. I am proud to represent so many members of Local 636 in Michigan's 9th Congressional District. I hope you and my colleagues will join me in congratulating the men and women of Local 636 as they mark 100 years of excellence, and in wishing them continued success in their second century.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What is going on here? The Republicans are bringing up a totally partisan bill to thwart a bipartisan bill. They are tossing aside common ground for barren ground, another Affordable Care repeal vote. They are throwing out a historic bipartisan breakthrough to permanently end and replace the broken Medicare physician payment formula, once again turning to totally partisan politics. The breakthrough achieved by our committees would permanently replace the deeply flawed SGR formula with a system designed to build on delivery system reform, reforms that move Medicare physician payments toward a more accountable value-driven system. The underlying policy agreement is broadly supported by both provider communities and beneficiaries; but today's exercise is opposed by groups representing seniors, doctors, health plans, and others because it guts the Affordable Care Act through a 5-year delay to the individual mandate. What would the result be? According to CBO and the Joint Task Committee, the Republican bill would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 13 million. What is more, the bill would raise individual market health insurance premiums by 10 to 20 percent for those who remain insured. Last week, we saw the 50th vote. This is now the 51st vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. So much for good faith and so much for good will. Instead of working to find common ground to finish the job on a bipartisan solution vital to fixing a problem in our health care system, House Republicans are taking once again a cynical step in a very familiar direction, concerned only about the November election. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I say to my colleague that what you are doing, essentially, is undercutting bipartisanship with pure partisan politics. Pointing to the Senate is pure mythology. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the problem is your bill is nothing but a political bill. It is nothing except about the November election--nothing but. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active, distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.