Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a distinguished member of our committee, to put it mildly. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a most distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I support R&D. Mr. Speaker, I support it now. I have never voted to make it permanent without paying for it. So this bill is a dangerous dodge. Mr. Camp, you paid for what you suggested was permanent, and I salute your being forthright. That isn't what is happening, is not happening today. So this isn't only fiscally irresponsible. What it does is to threaten programs that we care about. What was not done with one hand yesterday, automatic cuts, will be done by the Republicans with the other. They will use this deficit to cut programs we care about mentioned earlier: medical research, Head Start, Pell Grants, and other extenders that we deeply care about. This bill today is, as I said, a dangerous dodge. We should not be party to it. We should not be party to it. It is irresponsible, it is hypocritical, and it is harmful to what we really care about and what the American people care about. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is really not about the R&D tax credit. I have favored it. I continue to favor it. Democrats, indeed, are in favor of tax incentives. Sometimes, we are criticized for that, but that is not the issue here. It is whether we make this permanent without paying for it. It is fiscally irresponsible to do so, and it endangers key programs that matter for all Americans, and that is why the veto message from the President. Why fiscally irresponsible? It is unpaid for, costing, over 10 years, $156 billion. As you said, the gentleman from Oklahoma, it is part of a package, the total of which would be $310 billion; and if you add the others referred to, the package could be $500 billion, more or less--a huge sum--unpaid for. The $310 billion that is represented by this package is more than one half of the projected deficit this year. So it is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is also hypocritical. It violates the Republican budget itself that requires extenders to be paid for, if permanent, with other revenue measures. Here is what the chairman of the Budget Committee said last month: Our debt has grown more than twice the size of our economy. You can't have a prosperous society with that kind of debt. Mr. Brady, who, I guess, will be speaking on this, said last month: Americans have had it with Washington's fiscal irresponsibility, and I don't blame them. While families across the Nation continue to tighten their belts due to rising costs and shrinking paychecks, Washington continues to spend more than it takes in. In 2009, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said: The path to our economic recovery starts with fiscal responsibility in Washington. Interestingly enough, the tax reform draft presented by the chairman makes R&D and some of the other extenders permanent, but without impacting the deficit. It is revenue neutral--it is paid for--and now, you come here and not pay for it. This doesn't even include other key extenders, like the new markets; like the work opportunity tax credit as you referred to, Mr. Hastings, on veterans; renewable energy. It leaves in jeopardy some key provisions that expire in 2017--the EITC, 27 million people affected; the child tax credit, 24 million; the American opportunity tax credit--education--12 million. The $310 billion is three times the amount spent on education, job training, social services in a full year. Nondefense discretionary is now just about 3 percent of GDP, as low as it has been in decades. Any permanent R&D has to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal and unpaid for. To do it this way is fiscally irresponsible. I think it is hypocritical and is programmatically dangerous.

Mr. LEVIN. So I oppose this rule, and I hope everybody who is thinking of voting ``yes,'' including on the Republican side, will think back on what they have said before about the deficit. I hope we Democrats will think we are for this incentive R&D. It needs to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal--threatening so many of the programs that benefit so many Americans.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me sum up what this is really all about. This hallowed institution must not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party. That is what the House Republicans are exactly doing here. It has been a year since multiple committee investigations began into the IRS handling of 501(c)(4) organization applications, and Republicans are no closer to finding evidence to back up their baseless allegations of a ``White House enemies list,'' as they said, or a ``White House culture of coverup,'' as a Republican said on day one. So here is what has been going on. More than 250 employees at the IRS have worked more than 100,000 hours and sent nearly 700,000 pages of documents to Ways and Means in response to Republican requests. More than 60 interviews have been conducted. Also, $14 million in taxpayer money has been spent by the IRS responding to congressional investigations. And here is what we know. Documents show that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to treat progressive groups as they did for conservative groups. There was never any evidence of White House involvement. Nada. There was never any evidence of political motivation. In fact, before the flawed audit was published last May, the IG's head of investigations reviewed 5,500 pages of documents and determined that there was ``no indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated.'' Instead, the head of investigations said the cases were consolidated due to ``unclear processing directions.'' Republicans have indicated that they think this action today is necessary because the Department of Justice did not react quickly enough to the referral of information from Ways and Means on Lois Lerner that was sent last month. There is a letter from the Department of Justice saying that they have received this information and have referred it to those in charge of the IRS investigation at Justice. The Republicans say they want an independent investigation, but what they really want to do is to interrupt the investigation going on and preempt it with their own political theater. Indeed, talking about fixation, their political fixation, I say this not only to my colleagues but to every one of our citizens: this is the House of Representatives, not a political circus. I ask my colleagues to see this for what it is worth and vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. There is no doubt about where Democrats stand. We have taken the lead to make sure there is no offshoring, and there has been a good faith effort here, up to a point. Surely, that has been true of Mr. Carney in all of his efforts, working with Mr. Nunes. But the problem is that there remain some serious shortcomings in this bill, and unfortunately, we cannot try to remedy it through an amendment, so the notion there is an open process here isn't correct. The definition of expatriate has been tightened. I think there remain some issues, at least one regarding it; but the major problem relates to the language and how it would impact, potentially, health insurance for an estimated 13 million legal permanent residents and others who are lawfully present foreign workers in the U.S. Let me just give you examples of where the standards remain weak. For example, under this legislation, expat plans would have dispensation to be weaker than other employer plans in this country. They could, for example, impose cost sharing on preventive benefits. They could impose annual and lifetime limits on coverage. They could impose unduly long waiting periods. Indeed, the only ACA provision that would clearly remain in effect would be that they would have to offer coverage to young adults under 26. So the bottom line is, unfortunately, that the legislation, in its present form, could substantially undermine health security for foreign workers, as well as American dependents who remain in this country. Also, what it does is provide unprecedented special treatment for these plans in terms of exempting them from financing mechanisms. Let me say further, as we found out from the Joint Tax Committee and CBO, they confirm this bill would cause some employers who would offer ACA-compliant plans under present law to offer less generous expatriate plans that are no longer subject to the ACA. This is the reason the administration issued, I think just today, a Statement of Administration Policy, and they say they do not support H.R. 4414. The ACA gives people, it continues, greater control over their health care; and what they say is that this is not true sufficiently in this case. It says, because of the ACA, Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting medical condition now have access to coverage, and that may well not continue. So the administration concludes it remains willing to work with Congress to improve H.R. 4414 to address those issues and to maintain basic consumer protections for all workers. There are straightforward changes to the legislation, which we have shared with the Congress, that would satisfy these goals, and the Congress should pursue a solution. Unfortunately, because of this rule, we cannot propose an amendment which would essentially implement these proposals from the administration that they have shared with the Congress. That is why I, unfortunately, have no choice but to suggest a ``no'' vote on the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney), a colleague and friend who is a sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee and also the chair of our Caucus.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Can I ask my colleague, are you ready to close?

Mr. LEVIN. So I will do the same. I would like to place in the Record a letter of opposition to this bill as presently formulated from the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, Farmworker Justice, the UAW, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, the National Immigration Law Center, the Service Employees International Union, the UNITE HERE, the United Farm Workers, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. April 28, 2014. Dear Representative: We write today regarding the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act (H.R. 4414), scheduled for floor debate on Tuesday. Although negotiations are apparently occurring behind closed doors on a final version of the bill, it is our understanding that these discussions are unlikely to address major shortcomings of the bill. Barring substantial revisions to the bill, we urge you to oppose it. As you know, the bill is intended to accommodate health plans providing coverage for workers that work in multiple countries, and it is reasonable to grant these plans some flexibility to pursue this role. We understand that these ``expatriate'' health care plans currently cover fewer than 300,000 workers. However, the current draft of the bill could impact a much wider population, resulting in a lower standard of health care coverage for 13 million lawful permanent residents (LPRs or green card holders), as well as individuals with visas for more highly skilled work and people in dozens of other nonimmigrant categories. It is important that these workers, who live and work beside other U.S. workers, enjoy the same coverage protections provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It would simply be unfair to provide them a lower level of protection, and it would exert downward pressure on the benefits offered to all other workers. We do believe it is possible to accommodate the needs of expatriate health plans while avoiding this impact on millions of workers. First, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can continue its work developing regulatory approaches to easing the administrative burdens faced by these plans. Second, more work can be done on a legislative approach that appropriately reduces the burden faced by legitimate expatriate health plans, without creating a loophole that could be exploited by plans seeking to skirt the coverage standards of the ACA. The bill has been improved in some ways since it was first considered on the House floor. U.S. citizens may only be included in the plans if they travel out of the country for more than 180 days a year, and a benchmark has been added to encourage employers to offer coverage with an actuarial value of 60 percent or higher. It remains imperative, however, to ensure that LPRs and individuals in nonimmigrant visa categories are not exposed to a gap in ACA coverage protections. More must be done to exclude these groups from the populations covered by this bill. Additional employer reporting and enforcement provisions would help ensure that employers would not stretch the definition of expatriate employees to offer substandard coverage to workers. We welcome the opportunity to help improve this legislation to address the concerns of the expatriate health plans without having a negative impact on workers who live and work in the U.S. It is unlikely that H.R. 4414 will be amended to meet these goals before the scheduled floor vote, however, and we urge you to vote against the bill. Sincerely,

Mr. LEVIN. Also, I submit for the Record a letter in opposition to this bill as presently formed from the National Immigration Law Center. National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, April 30, 2014. Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: As the House of Representatives considers the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act (H.R. 4414) again today, we urge you to oppose it. Already defeated in the House on April 9, 2014, this bill, absent key changes, will lead to an erosion of Affordable Care Act (ACA) standards and lower quality health coverage for immigrants who are unreasonably and mistakenly classified as expatriates under the legislation. Supporters of the bill claim that the problems contained in the original bill have been adequately addressed. This is simply not true. While some positive changes have been made, the most egregious provisions remain firmly in place, including those with broad implications for low-income immigrants living and working in the U.S. These remaining problems leave the bill vulnerable to legal challenges. H.R. 4414 would eliminate the ACA's group plan consumer protections for ``expatriate health insurance plans,'' including for U.S.-regulated issuers, provided to individuals who travel ``abroad.'' This blanket exemption alone should be cause for concern. However, what is far more troubling is that the bill uses a broad definition for ``expatriate'' that includes many immigrants who live in the U.S. permanently and do not travel abroad for work. This definition extends far beyond the purported objectives of the legislation and must be fixed. Specifically, the definition of ``expatriate'' in H.R. 4414 includes lawful permanent residents (LPRs or green card holders), most of whom spend the vast majority of their time in the United States. These individuals reside in the U.S., are on a path to citizenship, and have built their lives in the U.S. Simply put, they should not be defined as ``expatriates'' if they do not travel outside of the United States for work for extended periods. Instead, their health insurance plans should have the same consumer protections codified by the ACA as others who live and work in the U.S. This bill would create a loophole that could lead to inferior coverage for these individuals. H.R. 4414 would have an unintentional, disastrous impact on LPRs and other low-wage immigrant workers. We urge you to oppose the bill, and we look forward to working with members of Congress to close its loopholes and find workable solutions. Sincerely, Marielena Hincapiee, Executive Director.

Mr. LEVIN. Finally, I submit into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4414--Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act (Rep. Carney, D-Delaware, and 24 cosponsors) The Administration does not support House passage of H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act, in its current form, because it would reduce consumer protections and create even more loopholes in the tax code. The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over their own health care. Since October 1, eight million have signed up for private insurance and millions more have been enrolled in Medicaid. Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition now have access to coverage. Additionally, the law helps millions of Americans stay on their parents' plans until age 26, and helps provide access to free preventive care like cancer screenings that catch illness early on. The Administration remains willing to work with the Congress to improve H.R. 4144 to address these issues and to maintain basic consumer protections for all workers. There are straightforward changes to the legislation, which we have shared with the Congress, that would satisfy these goals, and the Congress should pursue a solution.

Mr. LEVIN. So let me close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is regrettable that we are here in this predicament when we don't need to be. I think we do need to fix the expat issue, but not by unfixing health care reform for millions of people. This is more than about 300,000 people. We are talking about the health care protections and provisions applicable to 13 million people in this country who are here legally. It has been said, and I very much respect this, it has taken 3 years to try to fix this problem, and Mr. Carney and others have truly been working, and Mr. Nunes, and there have been bipartisan discussions. But here is the problem: If we are really going to continue effectively to work together when there is an outstanding issue, when there has been this aura of good faith, the majority should have let the minority place on the floor an amendment to the bill and let us debate it. In fact, it only works against bipartisanship in this kind of circumstance to say it is essentially a closed rule. What is there to fear? The only thing to fear is that we would have discussion that might make this a still more bipartisan bill. So instead of getting a likely minority of members on the Democratic side, we would have, I think, an overwhelming majority on both sides determined to keep jobs here, but not at a price of undoing necessary protections in terms of the health of millions and millions of Americans. So that is where we are here and essentially so for so many of us placed in a situation where we say we must do better, we shouldn't simply leave it to the other body, we have the abilities within this House with true bipartisanship to continue working, and after 3 years, it might take another week or 2, that would be worth it in terms of trying to restore the reality of bipartisanship that really works. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 58, who celebrated their 100th Anniversary at a gala I was pleased to join on Saturday, April 12th. In 1914, IBEW Locals 18 and 271 merged to create IBEW Local 58. For the last 100 years, IBEW members helped to build the City of Detroit and Southeast Michigan, served our nation at home and overseas during wartime, engaged in volunteer activities to strengthen our communities, and have stood at the forefront of workers' rights on the job. The rich history of Local 58 is inextricably bound with the history of Southeast Michigan and of the nation. Local 58 was created to ensure that its members have safe working conditions, receive fair wages and health and welfare benefits, and security when they retire. These vital responsibilities helped propel the men and women of Local 58 to the forefront of the labor movement in Southeast Michigan, and due to their efforts as well as those of many others, working people can achieve and thrive in the American middle class. While building the middle class, the members of IBEW Local 58, along with their brothers and sisters in other building trades unions, literally built the City of Detroit and the Southeast Michigan region. Iconic Detroit projects such as the Ambassador Bridge, the Fisher Building, the Guardian Building, the Detroit Opera House, the Fox Theater, and the Masonic Temple were built using the skills of IBEW Local 58's members. In 1948, Local 58 wired Briggs Stadium for lights so that the Detroit Tigers could play nighttime games. As Detroit and the region grew along with the growth of the automotive industry, Local 58 workers brought electricity to the new homes being built in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. Local 58 members have served in the armed forces in every war our nation has fought since World War I. Beginning in World War II and in every war since then, Local 58 has ensured that those members who served in the military during wartime would have their union dues paid while they were in service, and that they could return to the union with no loss of status or seniority when their service was completed. The men and women of Local 58 also served our country at home during times of war, most notably during World War II, when Detroit was known as the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' and skilled workers were needed to retool automobile factories to produce the aircraft, tanks, and artillery needed to win the war. More than half of the tanks, 75 percent of the aircraft engines, and 92 percent the cars and trucks used by the military in World War II were built in Detroit factories. The men and women of Local 58 have always been involved in efforts to strengthen the communities in which they live and work and to support causes important to them. From their donations to the American Red Cross, Boys Town and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis in the 1940s and 1950s to their work on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and to local churches, community centers and schools today, IBEW members have been willing to commit their time, talents and money to help others. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent so many members and families of IBEW Local 58 in Michigan's 9th Congressional District. For the last century, they have demonstrated a steadfast commitment to excellence on the job, to the rights of working people, to the well-being of Detroit and Southeast Michigan, and to the strength of our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the men and women of Local 58 as they celebrate 100 years of excellence, and in wishing them continued success in their second century.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The 9th Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent, is home to a vibrant Armenian-American community. Every member of this community has been tragically affected by the Armenian Genocide, despite the distance of time. I am proud to call them my friends. And I am proud to stand with them today. This time every year, we pause in solemn remembrance and honor the victims who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire 99 years ago. The Armenian Genocide, an intentional and systematic campaign of mass murder, began with the deliberate targeting of 300 Armenian leaders and culminated in one and half million dead and 500,000 forcibly exiled from their homes. And while the primary purpose of Armenian Remembrance Day is to remember, it also serves another important purpose. Indeed, the act of remembering, the commitment to never forget, sends a clear message to the world that we cannot abide a culture of impunity. That we will not gloss over historical atrocities. That we must not fail to hold to account those responsible for gross human rights violations. If we fail to remember horrific acts like the Armenian Genocide, we doom ourselves to repeat the most tragic chapters of history. Accordingly, during my time in Congress, I have cosponsored House resolutions that have clearly stated the U.S. record regarding the true nature of the Armenian Genocide--an officially orchestrated ethnic execution of innocent men, women and children. In closing, I respectfully request that all my colleagues join me today in honoring the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide.