Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia who is deeply involved in trade issues, Mr. Moran.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has just been sworn in, a colleague of ours from Michigan (Mr. Curson). This is your maiden speech, and it is my special pleasure to yield to you.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. I would ask Mr. Camp if you would yield me an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I wanted Mr. Curson to finish his statement because of his roots in the labor movement and beyond. We're proud to have you here, and we welcome your statement. As I close, I want to congratulate everybody who worked on this to try to strengthen it. I also want to say just a word about Jackson- Vanik because this terminates that provision that was a part of the trade bill. I want to salute everybody over the years who worked to implement what Senator Jackson and Congressman Vanik undertook. Many of us, my late wife and myself, and so many others went to Russia to try to make real that amendment. It showed that trade is more than the flow of goods. We have to look at the structure within which trade operates. So I close again by attributing so much to people who worked so hard to try to make sure that those who wanted to leave Russia, the Jewish community and beyond, had a chance to live elsewhere and to pursue their lives with dignity. This is an important moment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. First, if I might, let me congratulate Mr. Dreier on your service of many years. You believe in this institution.

Mr. LEVIN. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. You believe in this institution, and I think that's been reflected. So let me just say a few words--we'll debate it, perhaps, longer tomorrow--why this trade bill should be passed. I think we need to take each trade bill on its own merits. When you look at the need to move here today to grant PNTR, I think the answer is we clearly should. First of all, Russia is now in the WTO, and it has gone in with certain requirements; for example, no export subsidies are allowed. That's a change, and that's beneficial to those of us who want to trade with them so they don't rig the deck against us and for them. And there are major reductions in tariffs. Also, now that they're in the WTO, there is a dispute settlement system. So when they violate the requirements, there's a dispute settlement system that can be enforced. If we don't grant PNTR, we can't access that dispute settlement system. Also, it's so important that there be strong enforcement. A number of my colleagues put forth some legislation that proposed that we beef up the enforcement provisions within this bill, and that's been done. Our staff on the Democratic side worked assiduously with the Senate, and the essence of those provisions are now in this bill. So that's another reason to vote for it, because strong enforcement is critical to good trade legislation. Also, I would urge everybody to look at what are the exports from this country and the imports from Russia. When you look at those, it's a good reason for us to vote for this legislation, because the top three exports from the U.S. are machinery, motor vehicles, and aircraft--made in America by American workers. And so, in a sense, this is a ``Make It in America'' piece of legislation. The dominant import from Russia is in petro, in oil, and in that sense, they're not directly competing with our workers. So we have, in terms of what flows, an advantage being a full partner. But let me say one other thing, because I think those of you who have followed this know I don't believe that trade legislation is only about flow of goods. It also has to be embedded in a structure to make sure that there are benefits for our companies and for our workers and that there is a structure to try to make sure there's a rule of law, because if there isn't a rule of law in another country, it is not beneficial for their citizens or for our companies. So here I want us to pay attention to the Magnitsky legislation, because no one should think that it's easy to do business in any country where there isn't a rule of law. It isn't easy to do business-- and we should hesitate to simply blindly do business--with a country which really imposes restrictions on the rights of their citizens. That's what Mr. McGovern has done and what Mr. Cardin and others have done. And there has been bipartisan cooperation on this point, strong bipartisan cooperation, to place in this bill the Magnitsky legislation that sends a clear signal to the Russian Government and to everybody in Russia that we care about the rights of the citizens there, and as we do business, we care about the rights of others. That's the strength of this legislation, in addition to opening their markets for goods made in America

Mr. LEVIN. So I really urge that everybody look at this legislation on its own merits. Whatever the feelings are about other trade agreements, we need to take each of them on their own, the pluses and the minuses. In this case, I think--especially now that Russia is in the WTO--it works so much to our advantage in terms of the economy here, in terms of jobs here, in terms of our businesses and our workers. And also, I think we can vote for this legislation, if I might say so, with good conscience. Mr. McGovern, you have led. It's a tribute to your devotion to the human rights of people as we advance trade not only in this legislation, but in other legislation. I think it's also a recognition of our ability to work together. So I urge passage, and tomorrow we speak together to urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Guess who voted three times for the waiver of the work participation requirement in TANF? Not only the chairman of Ways and Means, but the chairman of the Budget Committee and Governor Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan. We should be debating today issues that matter in terms of action today, a credible jobs plan. Instead, House Republicans, who are doing nothing on these issues, are doing something totally political, a disservice to this great institution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 3 minutes. This bill has one purpose: to provide a fig leaf of credibility for a political attack ad that has no credibility whatsoever. Every independent fact checker has said the attack ad on the President is false. Governor Romney's claim that President Obama is eliminating work requirements for welfare recipients has been called ``a pants on fire'' lie and given four Pinocchios for dishonesty. The Republican staffer, Ron Haskins, who helped draft the 1996 welfare law says the charge is baseless. I quote: The idea that the administration is going to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. Here are the facts. Any demonstration project allowed under the guidance announced by HHS would have to be designed to increase the employment of TANF recipients, would be subject to rigorous evaluation, and would be terminated if it failed to meet employment goals. The whole administration effort is about promoting ``more work, not less,'' as eloquently stated by President Clinton, who led efforts on welfare reform. The administration heard from State officials that if they're allowed to focus more on outcomes and less on paperwork, they can put more people to work. So HHS said to the States, including Republican Governors who asked for this: Prove it. We may hear the majority state that HHS does not have the authority to provide waivers, but that's not the conclusion reached by the nonpartisan CRS. In fact, CRS said the current HHS waiver initiative is ``consistent with prior practice.'' And now we've heard Republicans say that TANF waivers have never been provided before now, even when requested. But here's what the GAO said about past requests: States were not asking for waivers to test new approaches through experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects, which would be necessary in order to get a waiver under section 1115. In other words, in the past, States weren't asking for the waivers that HHS is allowed to provide under the law and is now offering. At the end of the day this debate isn't about process or even policy. It's about politics, pure politics, indeed, impure politics. This is the same Republican Party that passed their own much broader versions of welfare waivers in 2002, 2003, and 2005. Let me read to you what the Congressional Research Service said about those bills: The legislation would have had the effect of allowing TANF work participation standards to be waived.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. I hope everybody heard that last statement. It shows someone coming down and essentially endorsing, in a broad way, the 47 percent statement, the horribly misguided statement of the Governor of Massachusetts--former Governor. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. Those statements, indeed, are an insult, an insult. That isn't what the administration has in mind. I read a letter from the Governor of Utah to the Secretary of HHS. In discussion with HHS officials, Utah suggested that: We be evaluated on the basis of the State's success in placing our customers in employment, while also using a full participation model. This approach would require some flexibility at the State level and the granting of a waiver. That's what this is about. Don't massage the truth. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LEVIN. It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the time that's left for us?

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. You know, I think the public should ask why this resolution, why trying to provide some kind of a smokescreen for an ad that has been called a ``pants on fire lie'' and ``four Pinocchio's dishonest,'' why do that? I think the reason is very clear. This is manipulating the truth to try, I think, to appeal to the worst instincts. I worked with Ron Haskins on welfare reform, and he says this, I quote: ``There is no plausible scenario on which it''--he means this ad--``really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform.'' He goes on to say, ``the idea''--I repeat this--``that the administration is going to try to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous.'' And then he says, ``Republicans are the ones who talk about giving the States more flexibility. Now, all of a sudden, the States shouldn't get the flexibility because they are going to mess it up? It doesn't make sense.'' But it's worse than nonsense. It's pernicious. The ad is pernicious, and it's beneath the dignity of this House for Republicans in the House who are doing nothing on major issues to do something to try to protect the former Governor of Massachusetts, their candidate for President. This House deserves much better than becoming a political plaything, a political plaything. It won't happen. Despite this vote, it won't happen. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, there's nothing wrong with this bill except the label. If there were a fine, I would say, for House legislative mislabeling, House Republicans would have a very large fine to pay. This bill has nothing--zero--to do with the Buffett rule. It has everything to do with the absolute refusal of Americans to face the basic issue. The present tax laws give an inordinate tax break to the very wealthy. The Buffett rule is provided and proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. In addition to reducing the deficit by $46 billion, it would address a significant inequity in the Code that allows a quarter of taxpayers earning more than a million a year to pay a lower tax rate than millions of middle class families. One of those taxpayers is the Republican Presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, who paid an effective tax rate lower than 15 percent in 2010 and refuses to let the American public see his tax returns for any earlier years. Indeed, the so-called tax reform legislation from Republicans would do just the opposite: provide massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts that have added billions to the deficit and contributed to growing income inequality. What's more, their idea of tax reform is to heap new taxes on the backs of middle- and lower-income families to pay for all of this. A recent report found that the so-called tax reform outlined in the Ryan budget would give those making over a million dollars a year an additional average tax cut of $331,000, while those making less than $200,000 would see a tax increase of $4,500. Taxpayers can do exactly what is provided in this bill if they want to donate some of their taxes on the income they have to deficit reduction. Republicans, who will recess in 2 days for 2 months with an incredible amount of unfinished business, not the least of which is the extension of the middle class tax cuts and the looming fiscal cliff, we need hard work, not chicanery. I reserve the balance of my time.