Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1509, the Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act. There has been longstanding bipartisan support-- led by Ways and Means Members Lloyd Doggett and Sam Johnson--for removing Social Security numbers from Medicare beneficiary cards. A similar bill passed the House all the way back in 2008, but the Senate failed to act. No progress has been made on this issue in the intervening years. That said, I must express concern about violating regular order in bringing this bill to the floor today. There are technical edits that we believe are important to make before it is signed into law. Unfortunately, because it didn't move through the committee process, such changes are impossible under the suspension of the rules. Removing Social Security numbers is one step to protecting beneficiaries from identity theft. The Social Security number is especially valuable to identity thieves as it serves as the key to authenticating an individual's identity in order to open accounts or obtain other benefits in the victim's name. Identity theft can be particularly devastating to seniors because their incomes are so modest. We have held hearings on these issues and our Members have voted for these protections numerous times. No one can question our commitment here. But I would urge that we work to make sure that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration are provided appropriate funds for such a large undertaking as its been the cost and complexity which has held up this issue for so long. The Social Security number is printed on the Medicare card beneficiaries carry in their wallets. It is used for communication between the beneficiary and Medicare, providers billing Medicare, enrollment transactions with Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare prescription drug plans, and communications within and between Medicare's 50 internal information systems and between Medicare and the Social Security Administration. This is not as simple as printing new cards as some would lead us to believe. It requires revising numerous computer systems as well as significant beneficiary and provider education. And, there are serious risks to beneficiaries' access to care and out-of-pocket costs if mistakes are made. The cost will likely be in the hundreds of millions. Yet, the Medicare agency and Social Security Administration have been underfunded by Republicans for years. They are working with minimal administrative budgets. This bill improves on the 2008 legislation passed with bipartisan support because it provides funding. But we must make sure that the funding is sufficient and that both the Medicare agency and Social Security Administration equitably access these funds.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1845, but I must express concern about once again violating regular order in bringing this bill to the floor today. Neither the IVIG Access Act nor the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers (SMART) Act went through the committee process, thus depriving Members of the opportunity to discuss these policies in an open forum. One consequence of this lack of dialogue is that this bill does not provide any funding to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to implement the new Medicare Secondary Payer rules, something that could have been corrected in committee were Members able to do so. This is yet another example of placing additional burden on an already woefully underfunded administrative agency.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. This is an important moment. These bills move the Nation dangerously closer to the cliff with only 11 days before our Nation would go over it. They make finding common ground far more difficult with only 11 days left to find it. These bills are not a plan; they're a ploy. They are bills to nowhere. They undermine trust so essential for agreement. We've just heard it. The Republicans claim that letting the tax rate go up from 35 to 39.6 percent on income over $1 million is not a tax hike because it would happen on its own. But then they say that if the tax cut rate would go up on income below $1 million by happening on its own, it would be the biggest tax increase in history. That is patently inconsistent. But far worse than the hypocrisy is the way they design their tax provisions. For those with income over $1 million, they provide a tax cut of at least $50,000. They raise only one-third of the revenue contained in the Speaker's discussions with the White House and far less than proposed by the President. Talk about undermining trust. It would raise taxes on 11 million middle class taxpayers--11 million--through their failure to continue the education credit, and they hurt millions of other middle class families with their failure to keep the improvements to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. And there is stony silence, indeed stone-hearted silence, on 2 million unemployed workers looking for work who would lose their insurance immediately on December 29. And silence on the 27 percent cut to doctors treating Medicare patients. And in a deeply cynical move, so cynical, the Republicans have decided to offer another bill to put off some of the sequester in defense. And they pay for it how? By deep and ugly cuts to important programs impacting seniors, kids, and disabled Americans. The Republicans are tying themselves into knots. But in doing so, they're tying into knots the chances for our Nation not going over the cliff. Vote ``no'' on these bills that take us backwards, that undercut trust, that increase the chances of going over the cliff. This is not a plan; it's a ploy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I did not know that I would follow the distinguished majority leader. I just want to say, and I mostly want to talk about Plan C, but for him or anybody else to come on the floor and say that the President hasn't proposed spending cuts isn't true, and it undercuts the necessary level of trust to find common ground. That kind of a statement should not be made. I sat in the Rules Committee for 3 hours and participated for 2 hours last night. There was no reference to Plan C, and it came up just a few minutes secretly before midnight. The purpose of Plan C is to try to get votes for Plan B within the Republican Conference. What it does is to undermine the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the true-up protections, and the joint task committee says it would result in the loss of health insurance coverage for 420,000 people. It would also repeal the Social Services Block Grant which provides services for millions of Americans. It wasn't many years ago when Chairman Camp wrote: SSBG has been a key source of flexible funding for critical social services. So now in a desperate effort to find votes for Plan B, you turn your back on that. Finally, it would harm millions of low-income families and their kids. The estimate is it would affect 1 million families and more than 3 million kids. Searching for votes for Plan B with that kind of an approach, I think, is abominable.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the City of Oak Park, and thank the residents of Oak Park who have provided me with the honor of representing them in Congress for 30 years. My beloved late wife, Vicki and I, enjoyed lasting friendships with so many in the community for many years. I have been proud to see the fabric of this community diversify racially and to watch it develop economically. Historically, the area that was to become Oak Park existed within Royal Oak Township, and was first settled in 1840. The first major housing development came in 1914 when the township sold land to the majestic Land Company to be developed as the Oak Park subdivision. The subdivision was incorporated as a village on May 3, 1927. The village incorporated as city on October 29, 1945. Planned developments in the late 1950s resulted in Oak Park being named ``America's Fastest Growing City'' at one point. I have enjoyed participating in so many activities and events in Oak Park like the annual 4th of July parade, Dr. Martin Luther King Day program and activities sponsored by your schools and your strong and vibrant religious institutions. I was proud to host several events in the city including our Community Resource Fairs where we brought together Oak Park residents with county, state and federal agencies to that offered critical services within the community. Mayor McClellen, who was preceded by long-time mayor Jerry Naftely, along with all of the dedicated City Council members and other local elected officials continue to move the City of Oak Park forward, and I look forward to following their success in the years to come. As I close, I can say with confidence that the City of Oak Park and its residents are in good hands with Congressman Gary Peters. My office will, of course, stay in close touch on issues that impact Oakland County and southeast Michigan as we all work together to re-vitalize our Michigan economy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the City of Southfield, and thank the residents of Southfield who have provided me with the honor of representing them in Congress for 30 years. My beloved late wife, Vicki and I, called Southfield our home when I was first elected to Congress, and our Congressional office was based there for many years. I have been proud to see the fabric of this community diversify racially and to watch it develop economically. Historically, when Governor Cass first ordered the area in the ``south fields'' of Bloomfield Township surveyed in 1817, he could not have guessed at the fine city it would become. Though it became a township in 1830, it wasn't until 1958, over 100 years later, that Southfield would formally incorporate into a city. Southfield has earned its moniker, ``The Center of It All.'' Strong neighborhoods. Good schools. Manufacturing. Office high-rises which house more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. And, a deep sense of community and friendship. I have enjoyed participating in so many activities and events like the annual Dr. Martin Luther King Day peace walk and commemoration, ceremonies at the VFW, activities sponsored by your schools and your strong and vibrant religious institutions, and the effort many years ago to cleanup the Rouge River, which I actually got into. I am pleased at what a leader your community has become in the Veterans History Project interviewing over 200 veterans and placing their histories at the Library of Congress. And, congratulations to Dr. Wanda Cook-Robinson, the Superintendent of Southfield Schools, who was recently named the 2013 Superintendent of the Year by the Michigan Association of School Administrators. I was proud to fight for the federal dollars needed to create the Center for Innovative Materials Research. This partnership between Lawrence Technological University, TARDEC and the Army Research Lab, was established for the research, development and testing of carbon- fiber composite materials for defense applications. Mayor Lawrence, former mayor and current City Councilman Don Fracassi, along with all of the dedicated City Council members and other local elected officials continue to move the City of Southfield forward, and I look forward to following their success in the years to come. As I close, I can say with confidence that the City of Southfield and its residents are in good hands with Congressman Gary Peters. My office will, of course, stay in close touch on issues that impact Oakland County and southeast Michigan as we all work together to re-vitalize our Michigan economy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. This discharge petition frames the issue immediately before us: will Republicans take America over the cliff, and the middle class tax cuts with them, in order to protect tax breaks for the very wealthy. And will they take the economy with them over the cliff? The fiscal cliff confronting us threatens an economic mess, half of which could be resolved in one fell swoop--by passing the middle class tax cuts. The Senate has already acted. The President is waiting to sign it. Republicans should join with Democrats and give 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses the certainty that they won't face a tax increase on January 1. Colleagues, Republicans as well as Democrats, sign now--the signal that America needs.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 79th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine-genocide, a tragedy that claimed the lives of an estimated 7 to 10 million Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933. I rise today to commemorate the lives of those who perished at the hands of Josef Stalin's Soviet Union and to remember the suffering of the Ukrainian people. Using food as a weapon, Stalin's barbaric regime orchestrated a famine of genocidal proportions, attempting to suppress the Ukrainian nation by systematically starving its people. In 1932, the Soviet government confiscated Ukraine's grain crop as ``social property'' and executed anyone who resisted the seizure. Then, in an action that clearly reveals the murderous motivation behind the Soviet plan, the Red Army closed Ukraine's borders, sealing in the starving people who were trying to flee and shutting out any outside aid. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian famine, referred to as the Holodomor, remains one of the least known human tragedies, in part because of generations of denial by the Soviet Union. By claiming the famine was the result of drought, food shortages, or other natural causes, the Soviet government engaged in a pernicious type of behavior that Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has called a ``double killing.'' The Soviet Union carried out a deliberate campaign between 1923 and 1933 to eliminate the Ukrainian nation, killing millions of victims, and in the subsequent years denied that it ever happened, attempted to kill the memories of the victims. There should be no doubt that the Holodomor was manmade and deliberate, a fact that has been confirmed by evidence gained through the opening of the Soviet archives over the last decade. This evidence will help ensure that the horrors of the Ukrainian famine-genocide are never repeated and the memories of the victims are never forgotten. Another way we are ensuring that the Holodomor remains in our collective consciousness is the creation of a memorial in our Nation's capital honoring the famine's victims. Set to open next fall, the Ukrainian Famine Memorial is the product of cooperation among the Congress, the Ukrainian Government, and the 1.5 million strong Ukrainian-American community. The memorial will provide a reminder to us all that tyranny must not go unchallenged and that victims of inhumanity must never be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in remembering the victims of the Holodomor on its 79th anniversary.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make a number of points, but first to join with the chairman of the committee. We have worked hard on this legislation on a bipartisan basis, and also with the Senate. I think these are the important points, if I might say so. First of all, I urge that we take each trade agreement very much on its own, maybe not completely looking at other agreements but assessing the merits of each particular agreement. And when you look at this agreement on its merits, it's clear, I urge, we should be supportive. If you look at the flow of trade that will be enhanced by this legislation, it's clear that it will be beneficial to our country. The major exports from our country to Russia are machinery, motor vehicles, and aircraft. These are products made in America by American companies and by American workers. So essentially, this will enhance our ability. Russia, in terms of taking this on its own, is already in the WTO, and the question is whether we will be able to access their markets. The next point: there is also a question of enforcement. Trade agreements by themselves will not be enough. There has to be built in strong enforcement and a willingness to enforce. And this agreement, with the help of colleagues, some of whom will be here to speak today, this agreement has strengthened enforcement provisions. Those were worked out with the Senate, and I want to thank the Senators for working with us. So there is within this agreement not only a guarantee of more flow, but also a guarantee that we have access to the instrumentalities so that we can hold Russia's feet to the fire, if I might say so, in terms of their meeting their obligations. The next point is this: we've been working on trade issues for a long time. For some of us, trade is more than the flow of goods; it's the structure within which the flow occurs and looking at the benefits of that flow so that we're sure that the impact is a positive one for our businesses and our workers. Also, it's important to remember that the rule of law in another country is vital, otherwise investment is perilous. The Magnitsky legislation was added here in part in recognition that when you talk about trade, you have to look at a fuller picture. And I want to salute, if I might say so, especially Jim McGovern for his work on this issue. And I also want to thank Mr. Camp, our chairman. I also want to thank those in the Senate for working with us to make sure that this is in this bill, the chair of our Foreign Relations Committee, and also especially Mr. Cardin, who once served on our committee and is now in the Senate and has made this a dedicated effort on his part. This is a bipartisan effort. I hope that it will set the stage for a successful effort to deal with trade issues now and beyond on a bipartisan basis. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on Trade. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for a colloquy, a gentleman who has worked so hard on trade issues.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I very much agree with my colleague from Maine that it's vital to monitor and fully enforce our trade agreements, and I will work with USTR to keep you and other Members of Congress informed when Russia has not fulfilled its commitment, regardless of whether or not the administration has taken formal notice.

Mr. LEVIN. As my colleague knows, today's legislation includes reporting requirements on all of Russia's commitments they made prior to joining the WTO, including the reduction of tariffs and other commitments related to manufacturing sectors. I will work with my colleague to make certain that USTR's reports include an evaluation of Russia's manufacturing-related commitments.

Mr. LEVIN. I very much agree with you that we must enforce our trading partners' commitments so that our American workers can compete on a level playing field, and I really believe that Mr. Camp, our chairman, and others concur in that. I, too, have been concerned about the effect China's trade relations have had on the U.S. economy. I will work with you to monitor Russia's compliance and to ensure that U.S. manufacturers get the full benefits of Russia's WTO membership, and I can assure you we will continue to work together to address China's violations as well. This administration has been active in that regard. As for section 301, I wish to note that I and the ranking member on our Trade Subcommittee, Mr. McDermott, exchanged letters with the U.S. trade rep in July, confirming our rights to request action under section 301. Under section 301, USTR is required to respond to our requests within a fixed timeline. That exchange of letters has already been incorporated into the legislative history of the bill before us today.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank you, Mr. Michaud, for your arduous efforts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another Member who's been so active on trade policy, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has served so long with distinction on our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of our committee from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is so active on trade issues.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another active member of our committee on trade and every issue that comes before us, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, could you verify how much time there is on both sides.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I think I'll proceed. It's now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another vigorous member of our committee on all issues. We wish your State the best, by the way.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), with his passion on all issues.