Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Well, here they go again. But this time, it is the 50th time that House Republicans have brought up legislation to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. But this 50th time is no golden anniversary. It is a House Republican goose egg for millions of Americans. Just look at this--fifty votes, but zero votes to raise the minimum wage, zero votes to renew unemployment insurance, zero votes to guarantee paycheck fairness, and zero votes to pass immigration reform. So let's spend a minute looking exactly at what would be the impact of this if it became law. In 2014, we would see an additional 1 million uninsured--1 million. In 2015, 2 million more people would be uninsured than if the individual mandate stayed in effect, and in 2016, another million people. The irony of this, and I think my colleagues on the Democratic side will speak to this, the irony is the individual mandate was a Republican idea. It was born out of the conservative Heritage Foundation in the eighties. And throughout the nineties, Republicans argued its merits. It was one of the foundations of the Massachusetts law. Its parent, at least in good measure, was Governor Mitt Romney. I met an hour or so ago with representatives of a major insurance carrier in Massachusetts, and one explained how it is working--97, 98 percent of the people are covered. That law has sparked an improvement in the delivery of health care and in the restructuring of health care delivery systems. So here we are, instead of constructive action, essentially, we have a Republican demolition squad. Can any law be made perfect? Yes, including this. But that isn't what the Republicans are after today. They have never come up with their own plan. Indeed, they are a wrecking crew. America deserves much better. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my special pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) with whom those of us on Ways and Means have worked all of these years on health care reform. He is one of the authors of this bill and the ranking member of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I also ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On a day when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, is unveiling a tax measure that requires serious bipartisanship to be successful, we are here on the floor considering a totally political bill in an attempt to resurrect an alleged scandal that never existed. Was there incompetence at the IRS in the processing of 501(c)(4) applications? Yes--and I was among the very first who said that those in supervision should be held accountable. Was there corruption, political interference, White House involvement, an enemies list, as the Republicans have claimed since day one? Absolutely not; no evidence whatsoever. Yesterday, the IRS Commissioner confirmed that $8 million has been spent directly on those investigations as over 255 people have spent over 79,000 hours doing nothing but responding to congressional investigations. An additional $6 million to $8 million has been spent to add capacity to information technology systems to process securely the 500,000 pages of documents Congress has received. What have they learned? That both progressive and conservative groups were inappropriately screened out by name and not activity, and that no one was involved in this outside of the IRS, and that there was no political motivation involved. When the inspector general asked his chief investigator to look into the possibility of political motivation by the IRS, that investigator concluded: There was no indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated. The email traffic indicated there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the applications so they pulled them. This is a very important nuance. Indeed, it is, and it is precisely that lack of clarity that the IRS was responding to in proposing new regulations for 501(c)(4) organizations. New regulations that are designed to bring certainty in determining whether an organization's primary activities are political. The regulations are among several steps the IG himself recommended in his audit report that the IRS undertake, each of which the Republicans repeatedly called for action on. In a June 3, 2013, hearing before the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Crenshaw told Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel: We're going to insist that the IRS implement all nine of the recommendations in the inspector general's report. A Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam, has a bill to implement all of the inspector general's recommendations, including implementing new 501(c)(4) regulations. Why is this important? Because applications for 501(c)(4) status have nearly doubled between 2010 and 2012--to 3,357, and spending has skyrocketed. In 2006, $1 million was spent by (c)(4) organizations. In 2010, $92 million was spent. In 2012, $256 million has been spent by (c)(4) organizations. The (c)(4) designation presently allows organizations to keep their donors secret, hidden as to which individuals contributed, and that is exactly the secrecy that the Republicans are trying to preserve. Why? Because the three largest spenders, representing fully 51 percent of the total, are a Who's Who list of Republican political operatives. It is indicated here: Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove, $71 million; Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers, $36 million; and the American Future Fund, the Koch brothers again, $25 million. That is $132 million of the skyrocketing $256 million that the Federal Election Commission had reported to it, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. If you live in a targeted State and you turn on your television, you have probably seen these groups at work distorting the Affordable Care Act. That is why we are here today, purely and simply, not because Republicans want to stand up for the rights of social welfare organizations--and they often talk about small ones--but to preserve the secrecy around the Republicans' big campaign efforts. These are draft regulations that the Republicans themselves called for. Over 76,000 comments--and I think now more--have been received, and the comment period does not close until Friday. These regulations aren't likely to come out this year anyway with all these comments, so why this bill? Why this bill? It is very, very clear, and it is very simple. There is a problem with 501(c)(4)'s. The three organizations that I mentioned that are involved as political operatives, in one form or another, these are people who have donors nobody knows. This is secret money. Why are we standing here and saying to the IRS: Don't look at 502(c)(4)'s; don't look at the possible massive abuse; don't look at what has happened in the last few years where political operatives, under the guise of 501(c)(4), have moved from $1 million in many cases to $256 million reported to the FEC? Our constituents, Democrats and Republicans, are offering their comments. Some of them I agree with and they deserve to be read, but not to be shredded at the hands of a November campaign strategy by the Republican Party of this country and by the Republican Conference of this House. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) control the balance of the time.

Mr. LEVIN. Let's look at the facts. Only those who won't look don't see them. There have been 1.9 million long-term unemployed Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 28 and another 72,000 every week. Unemployment insurance lifted 2.5 million from poverty in 2012, and now hundreds of thousands are sinking into poverty because this institution and the House majority will not act. The long-term unemployment rate in this country: 36 percent of jobless workers over 6 months; the lowest percentage of jobless receiving unemployment insurance in over 50 years. It is mindless not to act in terms of the national economy. It is heartless not to act in terms of the individual lives of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families. Vote for this motion to recommit. I don't see how anybody can go home and vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we have been adamant about a clear, clean debt ceiling vote, and now it is happening. It should have happened the last time, and because of the Republican position, a high price was paid--jobs were lost, 120,000; the stock market plunged nearly 20 percent; and economic growth was slowed significantly. So this time around, we are going to do the right thing. The gentleman from Michigan, my colleague, the chairman of the committee talked about working together, and I want to close by suggesting now with this vote in terms of the debt ceiling, we have cleared the deck. Let us now take up the other issues of major importance to the people of this country, and one of them is unemployment insurance. As we stand here today, isolated maybe by the walls around this Chamber, but I hope not, 1.7 million people have lost every dime of their unemployment insurance, the long-term unemployed. All right, we are clearing the decks. Now let's pay attention to the business of the American people in addition to full faith and credit. We should not be leaving here with 1.7 million Americans out in the cold because too many people in this institution haven't been willing to listen to their stories. Listen and act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Engel, for yielding, and to Mr. Smith also, congratulations on your work. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 447, supporting the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people and their right to choose their country's future and to choose its direction, free from fear or intimidation, whether internal or external. For 3 months now, countless scores of Ukrainians across the country have braved not only the bitter cold, but also the constant threat of government-authorized violence, to peacefully stand up for the universal principles of democracy and respect for human rights. With this resolution, we, in the U.S. House, stand with them now. A few weeks ago, I joined a large number of members of the Ukrainian American community that I proudly represent in the Ninth Congressional District to express support for those demonstrating in the still-colder winter in Ukraine. As a founding cochair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus and original cosponsor of this resolution, I believe it is important that the House pass this expression of support for the Ukrainian people. Those on Kyiv's Maidan and throughout the country need to know that the world is watching, that the U.S. is watching, that we here are watching, and we support them. I say to them, we are, and we do. With colleagues, I recently had the privilege of meeting with opposition members of the Ukrainian Parliament. I was struck by what they indicated is their biggest fear and that of the demonstrators. There is the fear of riot police and government-backed thugs beating peaceful protesters, abhorrent behavior that has happened, resulting in numerous deaths. There is a fear of being among the disappeared. According to reports, 20 opposition activists are still missing. What those brave democratic activists told us they are most afraid of is being forgotten, of the international community turning its attention elsewhere, of our global commitment to human rights and the rule of law being mere words, idealism overtaken by other foreign policy priorities. The House today will take an important step to ensure that does not happen; that that fear is not realized. Together with the Obama administration's continued forceful efforts, and the earlier passage of a similar resolution in the Senate, we present a unified American front. We show the people of Ukraine that we will steadfastly support their democratic and European aspirations. We show Ukrainian President Yanukovych that America will not sit on the sidelines in the face of their government repression and gross human rights violation, and, as the Obama administration has shown, America will not only condemn, we will take action. Like others, I welcomed the State Department's revocation of visas held by Ukrainian Government officials found to be responsible for violence against peaceful protesters. I encourage the administration to take additional action, including targeted financial sanctions, should violence and human rights violations continue, which is what this resolution calls for. It is time for the Government of Ukraine to immediately cease the use of violence, recognize the human rights of peaceful protesters and independent media, and participate in a true national dialogue with the opposition. I urge all of my colleagues to stand and stand up with the courage, resilience, and indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people and pass this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, let me express very personally why we are asking for a ``no'' on the previous question. Unemployment insurance has lifted 11 million people from poverty since 2008. It kept 2.5 million people from poverty in 2012. So, for so many people in this country today, there is a personal emergency. Since the end of this program, December 28, they have been facing bills to pay--utility bills, house payment bills, rental bills, money for gas to keep looking for work. These are hardworking Americans who are facing the winds of poverty. One of them today is with me for the State of the Union--Josie Maisano, from Michigan. She will tell you, as others will today at a press conference, that there is an emergency. There is an emergency for them. Extending UI is a moral American imperative. It is also a national economic benefit. The Speaker asked for an offset. We are proposing one. So let us today have the chance to bring to the floor a bill to extend unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans, growing 72,000 every week.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think informed people are asking why are we taking up this bill this morning. I guess one reason is the Republicans will do anything they can to undermine ACA. Indeed, the more it is successful, the more desperate they become. The administration says it quite clearly: To implement this new reporting system, contracts may need to be modified and new staff would need to be hired on an expedited basis, adding millions of dollars in costs to States and the Federal Government, without additional funding from the Congress, for information that is already largely being provided on a monthly basis, consistent with other publicly funded health care programs. Maybe a second reason we are taking up this bill is because the Republicans in this House think there is nothing else to do. This bill is going nowhere in the Senate, and you know that. You know that. But there is something else that we should be doing. We are leaving here for 11 days. The House Republicans have said we are not going to be in session next week. 1.5 million Americans have lost their unemployment insurance because of inaction from this House of Representatives. Next week, 72,000 more will be added to the 1.5 million people, 50,000 in the State from which Mr. Camp and I come, 50,000 left out in the cold--left out in the cold--left, really, to their own devices, without a single bit of assistance that they really worked for. These are people out of work through no fault of their own, looking for work, and essentially they get, from this institution, action this morning on a bill going nowhere when there is somewhere we should be going. I think this morning represents maybe more vividly than in recent times a reprehensible distortion of priorities of the majority in this House. There are 50,000 people in Michigan looking for work at a time when there remains a historically high percentage of the unemployed who are long-term unemployed. There are three people looking for work for every job that is available. And we come forth here with a bill that is going nowhere? Reprehensible. Inexcusable. You can go home. I suggest you go home and talk--I guess you haven't done this yet--to the long-term unemployed. Every single person who votes for this bill should go home and talk to those out of work and out of luck, because the majority in this institution, in this House, are simply out of synch with the needs of the American people. We shouldn't vote ``no'' on this bill, because we need the opportunity to vote ``yes'' on what really matters. I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on either side?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as we meet, 1.5 million Americans are out in the cold, long-term unemployed, and added to that total 72,000 each week, an estimated, if we don't act, 3.6 million by the end of this year. Why is this? Partly because of myths, and I want to address them. Myth one: the need for these benefits is over. The truth, nearly 38 percent of the jobless are long-term unemployed, twice the rate when the emergency program started. The highest ever recorded before this recession was 26 percent of the unemployed were long-term. Myth two: unemployment insurance creates dependency. As Senator Rand Paul claimed, it is a ``disservice.'' The long-term unemployed in these eyes need to get off their duffs. It is this Congress that needs to get off its duff because the overwhelming research rebuts this notion. Indeed, unemployment insurance helps people look for work. People have said, we need gas money to go and look for a job. Recipients must actively look for work under the rules within their States. By the way, the average benefit is $300 a week. Myth three: jobs are there. Get off your couch, it said, look. Wal-Mart came to D.C., had 600 jobs available; 23,000 people applied. A dairy in Hagerstown, Maryland, reopened; 36 jobs were available; 1,600 job applications. There are still 1 million fewer jobs today than when the recession began in 2007. Myth four: North Carolina shows if you end unemployment insurance, the unemployment rate goes down because people go to work. That is a myth. The unemployment rate in North Carolina went down primarily because people stopped looking for work. They gave up. This isn't America. It should not be North Carolina. Myth 5: ninety-nine weeks is far too many. Actually, the program hasn't had this emergency program 99 weeks for over 2 years. Last year, the longest was 73 weeks and only 3 States had that level. The average nationwide is 54 weeks. Now just one of four unemployed receive unemployment benefits at all, the lowest on record. Myth six: you need to reduce the program as the unemployment rate goes down. That is already done. We have four tiers, and already the amount of available benefits goes down in a State as the unemployment rate goes down. The next myth: an extension must be offset. This is an emergency program. None of the five UI extensions signed into law by President Bush--none of the five--was offset. People don't need it, is the next myth. In 2012--this is the Census Bureau information--this program lifted 2.5 million people out of poverty. The next myth, what we need--and we hear this all the time--is economic growth, not unemployment insurance. Well, the GOP has stymied every key program to assist recovery, the infrastructure, whatever. The fact is that unemployment insurance helps economic growth. The CBO estimates 200,000 fewer jobs this year without an extension. As we fight in this institution over issues of economic growth, let us not punish the long-term unemployed. I was reading a statement by the president of the conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute, an interview with him in October. And he said this: One of the things, in my view, that we get wrong in the free enterprise movement is this war against the social safety net, which is just insane. The government social safety net for the truly indigent is one of the greatest achievements of our society. And we somehow want to zero out food stamps or something. It's nuts to want to be doing something like that. We have to declare peace on the safety net. The Congress needs to act and the Republicans need to end their war on the long-term unemployed.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you to the gentleman for yielding. More than 1.5 million long-term unemployed have now been cut off unemployment insurance with the expiration of the Federal program, thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and desperately, desperately looking for a job. They are powerless and, to many in Washington, they are nameless, only a number. So those who oppose extending this lifeline of unemployment insurance can talk about their compassion, but rather than meeting and talking with Americans searching for work, they are throwing them to the wolves, whether of hunger, helplessness or even homelessness. We, I promise everybody, will strive to help change that these next 11 days, as House Republicans recess. Consider this: when Walmart advertised 600 jobs in D.C., 23,000 people applied. When a dairy plant was reopened in Hagerstown, Maryland, 1,600 people applied for a few dozen jobs. This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans are making it such with their cold shoulder and their stonewall in this House. It is unconscionable for Republicans to close down this House without lifting a single finger to help 1.5 million Americans and to prevent a vote by those of us ready to act. It is unconscionable.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority's service to the Oakland County community. Currently, only 28 percent of Americans with a diagnosable mental illness receive the treatment they need, and even Americans who do have health insurance too often find themselves unable to receive care because of discriminatory policies in their health plans. The Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority helps to fill this void by ensuring that more than 22,000 Oakland County citizens have access to high quality mental health services. The Authority provides lifesaving services to those adults and children who are affected by mental health illness, emotional disturbance, or substance abuse. Most notable is the Authority's dedication to serving the under- and uninsured. Today, the Authority serves as a national leader in the delivery of quality mental health services that improve the health and quality of life of those who are in need of mental health support. As part of its services, the Authority is opening a new Resource and Crisis Services Center for Oakland County citizens. This facility will serve as an accessible centralized resource for individuals facing crisis and seeking referral to quality support and mental health services. I congratulate Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority for its new Resource and Crisis Services Center, and I look forward to the Authority's expanded impact in our community. Mr. Speaker, the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority will celebrate its many contributions to the Oakland County community on December 17, 2013. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority, and its dedicated staff, for its five decades of service to Michigan residents.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are talking about unemployment insurance. We are not showboating--we want to vote--and you misunderstand, if I might say so, the issue. If we don't act on December 28, 1.3 million people will lose every cent of unemployment insurance. These are people who have exhausted their State benefits. They have exhausted them. These are people who have been laid off through no fault of their own, and they are looking for work. When Walmart came to D.C. and asked for applications, 23,000 people applied for 600 jobs. That is the shortage of jobs for people. So these 1.3 million people are people who have exhausted their State benefits and who are long-term unemployed. Historically, we have never, never ended these emergency provisions when long-term unemployment has been as high as it is today--37 percent--and we have already reduced the average number of unemployment insurance weeks in this country to 54. I want to point out to the gentleman and to everybody else that, if we don't act, another 1.9 million unemployed people will lose every cent of their unemployment insurance in the next 6 months. So, under this bill, SGR is now extended for 3 months. We asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment--paid for--to extend unemployment insurance for 3 months, and here is what we said: if we can prevent a 25 percent cut to doctors' pay, surely, we can prevent a 100 percent cut for 1.3 million uninsured. So what has been the response? The answer from House Republicans is this--an empty box.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate your courtesy. I always enjoy coming before the Rules Committee. Just two points. First of all--maybe three quick ones--SGR was outside the budget agreement. It was decided to place it within it. All we are asking is for a vote on UI. And the third point, December 28 is a few days away. The ax falls on the livelihood of 1.3 million people. So if you will say today that the Speaker will sit down with us on a bipartisan basis today and tomorrow and find an answer, fine. But just to say you are skipping town not addressing this and leaving an empty box, that is not a good answer.

Mr. LEVIN. It is true, isn't it? We are leaving?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this countdown clock at democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov says 25 days and 10 hours, and it is ticking. That is the countdown to an immediate cutoff of emergency unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans. Without an extension of this vital program, they will lose their entire coverage--every dime of it. Who are they? They are Americans laid off through no fault of their own, struggling to find jobs and recover from the worst economic crisis in 70 years. They are an estimated 20,000 veterans who have exhausted their State benefits after leaving the military and are unable to find work. They are mothers and fathers to an estimated 2 million children. And they are counting down to December 28. So far, the economic recovery has left them behind. Congress must not simply do so as well. We must extend this vital insurance.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow Co-Chairs of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Jim Gerlach in rising today to support the passage of H. Res. 402, supporting the European aspirations of the people of the European Union's (EU) Eastern Partnership countries, and to express continued support for Ukraine as it moves closer to signing the EU Association Agreement. In order for Ukraine to progress democratically and economically, it is imperative that the conditions of this agreement, as jointly initialed by the EU and Ukraine, are fully met--in law and in practice. The critical November 28-29 Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania is quickly approaching, bringing with it the deadline for signing the Association Agreement. Accordingly, we urge the U.S. Department of State to advance all appropriate opportunities for cooperation with Ukraine to address the remaining required reforms, including electoral and rule of law reforms as well as issues related to selective justice, particularly the release of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Along with the clear democratic and economic benefits, we believe these reforms, coupled with international monitoring and oversight, provide the best opportunity to ensure free and fair elections in Ukraine in 2015 and beyond. Consistent with our support for H. Res. 402, we applaud the EU's progress--much of it through the Eastern Partnership program--in helping to build democratic, prosperous, and stable societies throughout Eastern Europe and the Caucuses. Building on that progress is in the national interest of the United States; consequently, we call on the U.S. Department of State to direct needed resources to help support Ukraine's European choice.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are on a mission of destruction. Nothing will satisfy them except that very mission. The Upton bill is another weapon in that mission. What the Republicans fear most of all is that health care reform will eventually work. The Upton bill is a bill to make sure that it does not work. The President has taken a step to help people keep their policies. The Upton bill opens the door to anyone at all to make sure that health care reform is not workable and that the private market cannot work. So back to the time of 50 million uninsured. So back to the time of cancelation for preexisting conditions. So back to the time of no cap. The alternative is bankruptcy. Eight years ago, the Medicare drug program that Republicans had passed got off to a rocky start. Did we Democrats pounce on it for political gain? No. We put the country first and helped make the program a success. The Republicans are marching in the opposite direction--the path of destroying instead of making something work. Let's work together to make it work rather than destroying what Americans want: a healthy health care program for all Americans.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a short time ago, a number of us joined many others in paying tribute to Speaker Tom Foley. There was a commemoration ceremony just 100 feet or so from here. There was a lot of discussion, appropriately, of the need for bipartisanship. There was much reference to the role that Tom Foley played in that in trying to reach across the aisle. Bob Michel, the former leader on the Republican side, spoke so eloquently as to how there was a level of trust and how there was an effort at bipartisanship. I think what has happened in this House is that the increased polarization has really twisted this institution and has even, to some extent, twisted the ability to have close relationships. I say this because I think this resolution is not within that spirit. It was only the week before last that 87 House Republicans joined 198 House Democrats to pull this Nation back from the brink of a default that would have magnified the economic damage inflicted by the Republican shutdown of this government. That was a bipartisan effort with leadership support from both sides of the aisle. And I can understand why those who voted ``no'' on October 16 might vote ``yes'' on this bill in order to be consistent. And while I disagree with the policy, at least their vote would be consistent. I think the vote would be consistently wrong, but it would be consistent. What is hard to understand is how anybody who voted ``yes'' on October 16 to avoid a default would now vote ``yes'' on this bill that would bring about a default. So you talk about the message. Essentially, the message of this bill is once again we will utilize the threat of default. That is what this bill says. When you vote for it, that is precisely what you are saying. So you are saying that serious impairment of our Nation's full faith and credit, which economists warned would plunge us back into recession, was a bad idea on Wednesday, 2 weeks ago, but doing so is a good idea on Wednesday, 2 weeks later, when we vote tomorrow. That is precisely what you are saying. That is your message. So the same person who voted one way then is soon going to vote the other way. Let me just say why I think this is not within the spirit of an effort at bipartisanship that I referred to earlier and that I think is so important, and the lack of any effort at that has really twisted--I use that word--the strength of this institution. Just a short time ago, a few weeks ago, as the Republicans took us to the brink of default, the minority leader on the Senate side said: There is no education in the second kick of a mule, and we are not going to do this again in connection with the debt ceiling or with a government shutdown. That is precisely what this legislation says--precisely. It says-- forget about the second kick of a mule. What it says is that you would do it again in connection with the debt ceiling. So that is your message. And you would do that; you would take us to the brink of default that, earlier this month, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated lost 120,000 jobs that would have been created in October and private forecasters estimated slowed fourth quarter GDP growth by between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage point. So I think there is no escape from the inconsistency. There is no escape from essentially saying once again there is no real effort to reach across the aisle. There is no real effort to try to instill some belief that the two parties can work together. So that is a bad message, and I guess a lot of you think you can be inconsistent because it will never come up in the Senate. And it won't. But that doesn't take away the fact that there is an inconsistency here, I guess to try to cover some people's votes, to somehow minimize their impact. But when it comes to the default of the full faith and credit of this country, there has to be something more important than providing us cover. We need to provide cover for the citizens of this country so that they are not vulnerable to playing with the default and the full faith and credit of this country. So you shouldn't be bringing up this resolution. It will pass, I guess. There will be enough inconsistent votes, and it will go nowhere, but it sends the very, very wrong message. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman from Indiana mentioned about spooking the market--and Halloween is in a couple of days. Essentially, what this bill says is you would be willing to spook the market if you could. That is the wrong message. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a veteran of these battles and a friend of Tom Foley's. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)