Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. And if this language were in place when we did May 10, we would not have been able to have that provision that is part of American law proudly. So we are headed in the wrong direction. Let me just say a last word about human trafficking. The State Department reports on human trafficking in Malaysia are very clear. The ink could not be darker. That is that there has been massive human trafficking and, essentially, what the House language did was to weaken the proposal of Senator Menendez. Then the State Department, I think, essentially did not face up to the realities within their own reports and moved Malaysia from tier 3 to tier 2 so that they could continue to be part of the negotiations. I don't see how people can look in the mirror and not say to themselves that we have to take into account human trafficking. So I finish with this. There are some positive provisions within the Customs bill, but there are also these very difficult and I think, in some respects, dangerous, in the case of currency, worse-than-innocuous provisions because, in currency, it retreats from the little step of meaning that we were going to take. So I congratulate the gentlewoman who is such a noble warrior on so many issues for bringing up this motion to instruct, and I urge strong support.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and congratulations on your motion to instruct. First, let me just say, in terms of process, I do think it is important that, before there is a motion to go to conference, there be some notification to the minority; because there have been discussions underway about the customs bill for a long time, and no one on our side, including our leadership, was given any notice of the motion to go to conference today. I think that is a mistake, and I hope it won't be repeated. I say that in good faith and with some good cheer. It is a bad precedent, and I hope it won't be followed. Let me just say a word about currency. We have been working on this for years. We passed several bills through this House directly relating to currency, and it never became law. Instead, there has been interminable talk about doing something. So, finally, there was placed in the Senate bill the proposal of Chuck Schumer. We have an almost similar bill in the House. What is happening here is, I think, that the House bill is going to eliminate the Schumer amendment. So for all the talk on currency, we are essentially going to be back to where we were and have been for years. There are no teeth in the amendment that was proposed by my colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). There are no teeth in it. It is kind of all gums. The same is true of the other language in the Senate bill on currency, with all due respect. It just doesn't face up to the issue. We have proposed some ideas to try to add strength to what has been a weak structure, and essentially what happens now is, instead of further discussions, we are going to conference. I think it is now preordained that the Schumer amendment will be eliminated. It will be left with essentially empty language in terms of real strength to it. So I congratulate my very distinguished colleague from New Hampshire for not only bringing this up, but for your eloquence. We lost millions of jobs because of currency manipulation by Japan in the nineties and by China thereafter. The estimate is 2, 3, 4 million jobs. What more does this institution want? Let me just say a couple of words about two other provisions. The House bill essentially added language to TPA that said that there must be assurance that trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change. So here we are going to conference one of the days of the Paris conference, and we face the language in the House that eliminates any meaningful opportunity in trade agreements to address climate change. It may take me a little longer. I may have to ask for a minute, but I want to say something about our previous action. We put in May 10 provisions relating to Peru and the Amazon. Why? In part, because it was displacing people who were living there, but also because the Amazon conditions affect the climate throughout the Americas.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the entire goal of terrorists--in their cowardly acts of violence against innocent and unsuspecting civilians-- is to cause death, chaos, bring intense fear and intimidate the global community. We were victims of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 9-11 and we all joined in feelings of renewed honor as we watched the terrorist attacks in Paris. We need to ensure that our response is both strong in purpose and effective. We did that after 9-11. We put in place the most stringent refugee resettlement program in the history of our country. These are the facts: Refugees are referred to the U.S. program after being screened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who first determines if resettlement in a third country is the right solution. The current U.S. screening process takes between 18-24 months. It involves multiple Federal intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), State, and Defense, all aimed at ensuring that those admitted do not pose a threat to our country. These safeguards include biometric (fingerprint) to confirm identity, multiple layers of biographical and background checks, and medical screenings. Specifically, each applicant's biographical information is checked against the Department of State's Consular Lookout and Support System-- which includes terrorist watchlist information during prescreening. Then, Security Advisory Opinions from the law enforcement and intelligence communities for each applicant is secured. All of this information helps to inform the lengthy in-person interviews. DHS officers scrutinize the applicant's explanation of individual circumstances to assess whether the applicant meets statutory requirements to qualify as a refugee and that he or she does not present security concerns to the United States. If as a result of the security process, U.S. security agencies cannot verify details of a potential refugee's story, they are denied. These checks happen before an application is approved and long before a refugee would be able to enter the United States. And these are the facts on the refugees: Refugees by definition are the most vulnerable people in our global society. They are fleeing war, violence and persecution. In Syria refugees are either fleeing the violence brought on by the civil war and the violence of President Assad's army or the terror of ISIS operating from there. The emphasis for the U.S. program is to admit the most vulnerable-- particularly women and children, survivors of violence and torture, and those with severe medical conditions. Since 2011, 2,034 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the United States. A quarter of these refugees are adults over 60. Half are children. Young, single males unattached to families constitute only 2% of the Syrian refugee admissions to date. DHS interviewers receive extensive, Syria-specific training before meeting with refugee applicants. Each Member of Congress takes very seriously our number-one responsibility to protect the homeland. At times of crisis it is crucial that we act in a bi-partisan fashion. Regrettably that was not the process followed by the Republican Majority. They crafted the legislation before us today on their own and with no hearings, no expert testimony, no Committee markup, and no opportunity to offer amendment As a result, the legislation before us sets a partisan course, and is being used mainly as a vehicle to criticize the President's foreign policy. The current screening system has been working. This bill does not improve it and could scramble up what is working. The legislation would require the FBI to have their own additional and undefined separate screening systems even though they currently fully participate in the stringent process led by the Department of Homeland Security. We created DHS after 9-11 to ensure the most effective system that brought all of the resources of the federal government together to combat terrorism. It does not seem wise to unwind that without thorough review and consideration. The threat of terrorism brings to all of us and to communities across our country a sense of insecurity. It is our responsibility in Congress to channel those feelings into effective solutions. The legislation before us fails to do so. This bill would disrupt a screening process that is working and, in so doing, would yield the moral high ground that our country must hold at all costs if we are to defeat ISIS. We can and must both fight terrorism and help the victims who seek to escape it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the distinguished career of Ron Gillham as he retires as Mayor of Huntington Woods, Michigan. Mayor Gillham, who served as Mayor for 35 years in the city that he loves, will end his tenure as one of the longest serving mayors in the State of Michigan. Ron Gillham was born, raised and educated in Missouri. After graduation from the Missouri School of Mines in 1956, he joined General Motors at the Tech Center in Warren, Michigan, and he and his wife Shirley moved to Huntington Woods in 1959. He served in a variety of interesting and challenging positions, eventually retiring from Advanced Product Engineering in 1992. In his ``second career,'' Ron Gillham has served the citizens of Huntington Woods continuously since 1975, first as a member of the Huntington Woods Zoning Board of Appeals, then as a Commissioner for the City for Huntington Woods. In 1981, Mr. Gillham was elected as the Mayor of Huntington Woods. Ron Gillham is active in the Michigan Municipal League where he formally served on the Board of Trustees as Vice President and also won the organization's Michael A. Guido Award. During his tenure, Mr. Gillham also won the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Regional Ambassador award, served as chair of the South Oakland County Mayor's Association and the Vice President of the Michigan Association of Mayors. In more than three decades at the helm, Mr. Gillham worked tirelessly on many projects to improve the lives of Huntington Woods residents. He is most proud of the building of the city's library, the city's A++ bond rating and helping the Huntington Woods Public Safety Department become one of the best in the State of Michigan. In October, the Huntington Woods City Council passed a resolution to name the city's recreation center as the Gillham Recreation Center, another testament to Mr. Gillham's respect in the community. I have had the pleasure of representing the City of Huntington Woods in Congress for the past thirty-two years and have witnessed Mayor Gillham's leadership on many issues during our tenure together. One recent example was in 2014, when unprecedented flooding damaged tens of thousands of properties throughout Southeast Michigan, including in Huntington Woods. Mayor Gillham and his leadership team at the city was an active and effective advocate for aid from state and federal governments. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mayor Ron Gillham on an exceptional career in public service. I wish him much success with his future endeavors and wish him the best as he spends his retirement with his wife Shirley, their three children, and seven grandchildren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable person from my home state of Michigan, Maxine Berman, who is being inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame on October 29, 2015. Maxine and nine others will join pioneering women including civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, former First Lady Betty Ford, the Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin, and the longtime dean of the White House press corps Helen Thomas, who have been previously inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame for their contributions to my home state and to our nation. Maxine Berman served in the Michigan House of Representatives from 1983 to 1996, where she earned a reputation for her intelligence, her thoughtfulness about public policy, and for her candor. She was also known for her steadfast commitment to women's health and reproductive freedom, including authoring a bill to require accreditation for mammography facilities and successfully lobbying the federal government to establish national standards. Maxine was also outspoken about challenges she and other women experienced in the State Legislature. In 1994, near the end of her tenure in the Michigan House, she published a book about this experience--The Only Boobs in the House Are Men: A Veteran Woman Legislator Lifts the Lid on Politics Macho Style--which made waves then and is still cited today, more than twenty years later. After a few years away from government, Rep. Berman joined the administration of Governor Jennifer Granholm, where she served as director of special projects. In this position, Maxine was a powerful public advocate for vital issues including women's health and reproductive freedom, affirmative action, and stem cell research, and she led the Granholm Administration's effort to encourage local governments to collaborate in providing services to their residents. Her leadership was recognized by Central Michigan University, who appointed Rep. Berman to be the Griffin Endowed Chair in American Government from 2009 to 2013. This prestigious position is named for former U.S. Senator Robert Griffin and his wife Marjorie, and has been held by notable political leaders from both political parties since its inception. Her many accomplishments do not capture the influence that my dear friend, Maxine, has had throughout--and since--her years of public service. Maxine is always willing to lend an ear or a hand to talented people who want to serve, and Michigan has benefitted from the leadership of the countless women to whom Maxine has served as a mentor, confidante, policy advisor and coach. She remains committed to good public policy and grassroots activism. Mr. Speaker, it is truly fitting that Maxine Berman will join other notable women of Michigan in the Women's Hall of Fame. I encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating her, and in thanking her for her leadership and significant contributions to Michigan and to the nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, first and foremost, this bill takes the important step of protecting the full faith and credit of the United States. We will pay our obligations--and not only to foreign bondholders, but to our citizens, whether veterans or our children-- unlike the Republican majority bill last week. It protects millions of seniors from a 50 percent increase in their monthly Medicare part B premiums and spreads out the cost of paying for the fix over a number of years. It ensures that all 11 million Americans that rely on Social Security disability insurance won't see their benefits cut by 20 percent. It is fiscally responsible, while not undermining or changing the structure of vital programs in any way. Let me repeat that. It is fiscally responsible, while not undermining or changing the structure of vital programs in any way. It ensures, in Social Security, a uniform national process for disability evaluations, and it closes a loophole used mostly by higher income individuals to receive higher Social Security benefits than intended. It regularizes payments in Medicare for care given in outpatient facilities. Finally, the agreement raises the spending caps for 2 years for domestic spending, not only for defense priorities, as some have earlier proposed. I just want to repeat that so it is clear. The agreement raises the spending caps for 2 years for both domestic and defense spending. That means we can better fund critical domestic programs that were cut under sequestration, increasing support for education, health research, food safety, job training, and health care for veterans. This was a product of a lot of effort, of Members, of staff in various committees, the leadership on a bipartisan basis working with the administration. I just want to leave expressing my support and expressing we will truly have a broad, bipartisan vote for this bill today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on our Health Subcommittee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Van Hollen. Well, where do we start? Clearly, there is a feeling this is more than an anticlimax. You know, we should have a debt ceiling bill before us. Why don't we have that? We haven't acted on Medicare part B premiums. They are right before us. Instead, we are doing this. The highway trust fund faces a deadline. Where is it? Where is our legislation? Tax extenders actually expired much, much earlier. Where is the legislation? So, instead, because the Republican Conference is essentially mostly fighting itself, this institution is handcuffed on these issues. So the decision is pass a reconciliation bill and get a bill to the President to veto because, so far, 60 or 61 efforts have never been able to get to the President for a veto. Well, I think this is a waste of time when there are other issues, because the President has also said he will veto. So what is this really all about? I think this is all a prelude, as was the so-called prioritization bill yesterday and, I think, also the Benghazi hearing yesterday, so- called hearing, this is all an effort to try to lay a foundation so that next week we will take up a debt ceiling bill, and it will pass with a majority of Democrats and some Republicans, some of whom maybe are made to feel better because we are going through the motions here today. I just want to conclude talking about going through the motions. All of the pious talk on the Republican side about healthcare reform, those of us now on the Ways and Means Committee who will be speaking, we go to meeting after meeting, if they are called, where there is talk about healthcare reform, and the Republicans have never brought up a comprehensive healthcare reform that could be voted on in the committee, where they have a majority. So, essentially, what we are now facing is the dangerous bankruptcy of the majority party in this House of Representatives who now decides, let's do reconciliation so we can get a bill through the Senate and have the President veto it. By the way, because of the Planned Parenthood provision that would defund care for millions of Americans and for other reasons, it isn't even clear this will get through the Senate. So where is the action on all these issues? Where is it? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Thompson).

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of our 15 minutes remains?

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of the 15 minutes remains on each side?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a gentleman who has served this committee and this country so well. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control the next 15 minutes of debate time as the designee of the ranking member.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another very distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman says we are going to raise the debt limit. Raise it. Get a bill here that raises it. And then this political game will be totally unnecessary. Raise it. Where is the bill? I yield 3 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 such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the beginning what needs to be said at the end. This doesn't take default off the table. This is an effort to obscure the reality. It does not take default off in any meaningful way. Default by any other name is default, and essentially what this bill does is to address part of the problem but leave the rest of it very much outstanding and very much there. This bill plays with fire. This bill essentially--essentially--attacks the credit of the United States of America. The Republicans are at it once again. In 2011, they played with it, they played with fire, and America was burned. The stock market plunged. The S&P downgraded for the first time in history the credit of this country. It lowered private pension balances. It essentially increased the cost of mortgages for people in this country. That wasn't enough. That in 2013 the Republicans played with fire and shut down the government. We lost 120,000 jobs. We slowed GDP growth, and there was an increase of $70 million in terms of the cost of financing debt. So what is this really all about? What it is about is paying China and other foreign governments first and essentially putting at risk millions of Americans. So I just want to refer to who is at risk here. Who would be subject to default? Payments and benefits to 1.4 million Active-Duty troops, their pay is at risk; benefits to almost 4 million disabled veterans; payment for health care for 5.9 million veterans; education assistance for over 1 million; and loan support for homes for over 500,000 or 600,000 veterans. And then payments to small businesses would be put at risk, payments to physicians under Medicare, payments to 30 million-plus kids in terms of their meals, and payments to hundreds of thousands of grantees of NIH. So, Mr. Speaker, that is really what this is all about. Nine percent of the expenditures of this country are going to be safeguarded, mostly for foreign investors, and 30 percent in terms of Social Security payments. That means 60 percent would be at risk, 60 percent of the 80 to 100 million payments each month. So, essentially, what the Republicans are doing is creating, here, a camouflage. But the problem with it is that it is so transparent. It might be as a purpose to try to find a few more votes on the Republican side, but when the camouflage is so obvious, I don't think it will work. The administration has stated its position. That position is very clear, and I want to read from this Statement of Administration Policy. I quote the last paragraph: The President will not tolerate political gamesmanship, which caused the Nation's credit rating to be downgraded in 2011 and proved harmful to both the United States and the global economy. For this reason, if the President is presented with legislation that would result in the Congress' choosing to default on our obligations and imperil the full faith and credit of the United States, he would veto it. So this bill cannot become law. So why do it? Why not simply face up to the need to address the full faith and credit of the United States? I think the answer is this isn't policy, this is a ploy, and ploys should not be used putting at risk the full faith and credit of the United States and payments at risk for millions and millions of Americans. That is really what this is all about. This is irresponsible. This is indefensible. The only possible reason for passing a bill that can't go anywhere is maybe to pick up a few votes here. That is irresponsible in terms of the full faith and credit of this beloved country of ours. So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge strong opposition to this. When this came up once before, I think every Democrat voted ``no''--every Democrat. So we are supposed to be kind of in a new era talking about bipartisanship. We are supposed to be, once again, thinking maybe we can act together. Instead, what we have here is a bill by Republicans essentially acting alone. It is a serious mistake. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Whip.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another distinguished member of our committee.