Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to commemorate the life of Wayne State University police officer Collin Rose, who was killed in the line of duty on November 23, 2016. Officer Rose was my constituent, and lived in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. A K9 officer with the Wayne State University Police Department in Detroit, Officer Rose not only protected the faculty, staff and student body at the University, but also the community surrounding Wayne State's campus. He was known to his friends and colleagues as a person of boundless energy, for his commitment to the safety of those he was sworn to serve, and for his kindness and generosity to others. A fellow member of the Wayne State University Police Department, Chris Powell, described Officer Rose as ``. . . the light of the room. He was bears to honey. Everyone would befriend him.'' As a memorial bicyclist with Chapter One of the Police Unity Tour, Officer Rose proudly honored police officers throughout the country who died in the line of duty. In addition to helping to broaden public awareness of the sacrifices made by fallen officers, Officer Rose and other Unity Tour participants throughout the nation have helped to raise millions of dollars for the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and the National Law Enforcement Museum. An avid cyclist, Officer Rose proposed to his fiancee, Nikki Salgot, after completing the last leg of the Police Unity Tour on May 12th of this year. A 13-year old boy, Kameren Greene, who lives near Wayne State and who came to know Officer Rose though his consistent outreach to young people in the neighborhood, told WXYZ-TV in Detroit, ``It's sad that he lost his life, and we lost a good friend.'' So with profound sadness at his loss and deep gratitude for his service, I encourage my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Officer Collin Rose, who was indeed a good friend to so many people, and in offering sincere condolences to Officer Rose's fiancee, Nikki Salgot; to his parents, Randy and Karen Rose and his brother Curtis Rose; to his colleagues with the Wayne State Police Department; and to the Wayne State community

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. John Macomb- Oakland Hospital in Warren as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. In 1955, the greater Warren Chamber of Commerce and others recognized a need for quality health care and so began the effort to build a hospital in the south end of Macomb County. The city of Warren purchased the land and an ambitious community fund drive led to the groundbreaking of a new 202-bed hospital, South Macomb Hospital which first opened its doors to patients on March 1, 1966. As the city and region saw growth, so did South Macomb Hospital. In 1974, South Macomb Hospital opened the west tower and over the next several years continued to add additional floors to the east wing. By 1987, the hospital changed its name to Macomb Hospital Center in recognition of its wider geographic outreach and expansion of services. In 1997, the Macomb Hospital Center joined the St. John Health System and became St. John Macomb Hospital. The hospital continued to grow and gave residents of southeast Michigan access to quality health care at a state of the art facility. St. John Macomb Hospital provided patients with comprehensive prevention, primary care, and advanced treatment programs through the additions to their surgery center, OR, ICU, Webber Cancer Center and Cardiac Intervention Center. And in 2007, St. John Macomb joined with St. John Oakland to create the current St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital. The two campuses in Madison Heights and Warren are now home to over 1,200 physicians and 195 residents, 3,436 nurses and associates, 600 volunteers, all faithfully caring for the patients who walk through the door. I've had the pleasure of seeing firsthand the growth of St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital and have enjoyed many opportunities to meet with hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, and patients to discuss critical health care issues. We've discussed challenges such as the effects of sequestration on the hospitals, and the impact of proposed cuts to Medicare. And we have discussed the importance of the Affordable Care Act on patients' health. I've also had the opportunity to see the many medical advances made at St. John Macomb-Oakland. I toured the Hip & Knee Replacement Center, an orthopedic program for joint replacement, that has been designated a Blue Distinction Center by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. I look forward to continuing to work with St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital as it remains committed to addressing the needs of the community it serves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today is yet another attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, plain and simple. In fact, it is now the 65th such attempt by Republicans since the ACA was signed into law. There is no denying that the ACA has provided quality, affordable health coverage to more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans. And importantly, individuals can no longer be denied coverage, as they could in the past, for preexisting conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes. And thanks to the ACA, a new survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the number of uninsured Americans has fallen to just 8.6 percent, the lowest level ever recorded. Let's also not forget that over the last few years, healthcare costs have been growing at the slowest rate in more than 50 years, according to the Council of Economic Advisers. And the ACA improved Medicare's coverage for prescription medicines and preventive care for seniors. This bill undermines the individual responsibility provision of the ACA, which is important in making many of its benefits possible, including no one being denied coverage, no preexisting conditions, and no gender discrimination. There are provisions in the ACA to provide when coverage is interrupted in the middle of a policy. In cases of CO-OP closures during a policy year, there is the ACA provision of a special enrollment period, SEP, to allow individuals to continue to have coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services indicates that each individual affected by a midyear CO-OP closure was contacted at least 20 times, providing individuals with additional plan choices they could enroll in during the special enrollment period. All individuals in States with midyear CO-OP closures had additional choices available to them. And in instances where a purchasing plan needed to be undertaken and would be financially difficult, these individuals could also apply for a hardship exemption from the individual mandate penalty. HHS has a number of avenues for individuals to apply for an exemption for a variety of life circumstances where premiums are a financial burden. The Joint Committee on Taxation scored this bill using a generic model, since there was no available data on the number of individuals potentially impacted. Every step of the way, every step of the way, Republicans have worked to undermine CO-OPs and ensure their failure. Republicans were responsible for the severe reductions in the amount of money available to the CO-OPs from Federal loans and strict limits to risk corridor payments. CO-OPs that misestimated the risk pool should have been eligible for risk stabilization payments to help weather the early years of an unknown market, but the Republicans made sure those stabilizing funds would not be available as part of their effort to kill the ACA with a thousand cuts. The American Academy of Actuaries noted that weakening the individual mandate, as this bill would do, will lead to both higher premium costs for patients and higher costs to the Federal Government. BlueCross and BlueShield, one of the largest insurers in the Nation, agrees that exemptions from the mandate will drive prices higher. We know that this bill will not be signed into law. This morning, the White House released its Statement of Administration Policy on this legislation, stating: ``The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 954. The Administration remains committed to providing Americans with accessible, quality, and affordable health coverage, including by addressing issues that arise when their health insurers stop offering coverage during the year. In such circumstances, the Administration has offered special enrollment periods, provided consumer outreach, and worked with state departments of insurance to ensure consumers have smooth transitions to other health plans. Individuals for whom coverage is unaffordable or who experience a hardship also may qualify for an exemption from the individual-responsibility provision of the law. These options are available to all consumers in these circumstances, not just those enrolled in coverage through CO-OPs. ``H.R. 954 would exempt anyone whose CO-OP ends coverage during the year from the individual-responsibility provision. This is unnecessary given consumer protections already available. Moreover, it would create a bad precedent for using exemptions from the individual-responsibility provision to address unrelated concerns about the Affordable Care Act. The individual-responsibility provision is a necessary part of a system that prohibits discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions and requires guaranteed issuance. The provision helps prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy health insurance or dropping health insurance when they believe they do not need it. Weakening the individual responsibility provision would increase health insurance premiums and decrease the number of Americans with coverage. ``The Administration always is willing to work with the Congress on fiscally responsible ways to further improve health care affordability and the Affordable Care Act. The President's budget offers a number of proposals to do so. However, H.R. 954 would be a step in the wrong direction, because it would create a precedent that undermines a key part of the law and would do nothing to help middle-class families obtain affordable health care. ``If the President were presented with H.R. 954, he would veto the bill.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 954--CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016--Rep. Smith, R-NE, and seven cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 954. The Administration remains committed to providing Americans with accessible, quality, and affordable health coverage, including by addressing issues that arise when their health insurers stop offering coverage during the year. In such circumstances, the Administration has offered special enrollment periods, provided consumer outreach, and worked with state departments of insurance to ensure consumers have smooth transitions to other health plans. Individuals for whom coverage is unaffordable or who experience a hardship also may quality for an exemption from the individual- responsibility provision of the law. These options are available to all consumers in these circumstances, not just those enrolled in coverage through CO-OPs. H.R. 954 would exempt anyone whose CO-OP ends coverage during the year from the individual-responsibility provision. This is unnecessary given consumer protections already available. Moreover, it would create a bad precedent for using exemptions from the individual-responsibility provision to address unrelated concerns about the Affordable Care Act. The individual-responsibility provision is a necessary part of a system that prohibits discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions and requires guaranteed issuance. The provision helps prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy health insurance or dropping health insurance when they believe they do not need it. Weakening the individual responsibility provision would increase health insurance premiums and decrease the number of Americans with coverage. The Administration always is willing to work with the Congress on fiscally responsible ways to further improve health care affordability and the Affordable Care Act. The President's Budget offers a number of proposals to do so. However, H.R. 954 would be a step in the wrong direction, because it would create a precedent that undermines a key part of the law and would do nothing to help middle-class families obtain affordable health care. If the President were presented with H.R. 954, he would veto the bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from Illinois that the last thing the Republicans have wanted to do is to work with us to make ACA work better--the last thing. Instead, they have, time and time again, tried to destroy ACA. In Illinois, there are nine carriers providing health insurance. If there is an interruption, whether it is a CO-OP or another plan, under ACA, there is a special period available for people to obtain a different insurance--nine different carriers. Essentially, what this is is an effort to destroy a provision that is so important to making healthcare reform viable. That is my answer to the gentleman from Illinois. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. As we have outlined--the administration has likewise--there are provisions when policies are interrupted, whether it is CO-OPs or otherwise, in the law for people to take advantage of, in the law that you want to destroy. Let me just mention, in terms of Nebraska, there are 45,000 people in Nebraska who are not covered by Medicaid because of the failure of the government there to access. In Tennessee, there are 180,000 people-- 180,000. You talk about hopes. Those are people who had hopes, and the government essentially thumbed their nose at those hopes. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of our committee. '

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, the case has been so carefully and fully laid out. This is another effort to cut and destroy. This is now maybe not the thousandth cut, but the 65th. Fortunately, none has succeeded, nor will this. Republicans come here and indicate some care about individuals in terms of their health care. And I just say this personally--and all of us who care about health care have the same feelings--this country had a disgraceful situation: 50 million people going to sleep every night without any healthcare coverage. Democrats took the initiative, and we now have the lowest percentage of uninsured in terms of the records of this country. All we get are bills from the Republicans--one cut effort after another--and this is the latest. Maybe that is a good reason for us to leave here because, otherwise, we will see, I am sure, another one. The ACA is very clear for people who lose their coverage during a coverage period. There is a special provision for them to obtain coverage elsewhere, and there is a hardship provision if that is not obtainable, if that is not available. We have been waiting to have specific examples. They never come. As I said to the gentleman--and I say this respectfully--if he really cares about the citizens in his State and their health care, he will go back to his State and tell the leadership there that it is time to expand Medicaid for those people because, in the gentleman's State, there are tens of thousands of people who don't have that coverage today because of the inaction or the opposition of Republican majorities in States and in this Congress. That is what this is all about. I urgently suggest for our fellow Democrats--and, I would hope, for a few enlightened Republicans--to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill addresses an issue that is worthy of being addressed. It surely would be taken up as part of overall tax reform. But this bill surely is not an emergency; and costing over $1 billion, it is not paid for. Today, as this House leaves, there has been no action on Flint. That is an emergency--poisoned water, children at risk--and it is being required that emergency funding for Flint be paid for. In contrast, action on this bill is in no way an emergency, and it is not being required to be paid for. And still no attention to Zika. That is an emergency. It is spreading while some here in D.C. are stalling. I quote Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. This is what he told one writer: ``First, we took money from other infections. We borrowed money from ourselves from malaria and TB. ``When we ran out of that money, we started tapping into the Ebola funds that we really should not be tapping into because we still need them to keep the lid on Ebola.'' ``When we ran out of that . . . Secretary . . . Burwell had to do something she really did not want to do. She had to take money using her transfer authority from cancer, diabetes, heart disease and mental health and give it to us to be able to continue to prepare the sites for the Zika vaccine trials that we will be performing.'' So Zika, that is an emergency. It is spreading here while we, as I said, in D.C. are stalling. Here we go once again on this legislation, not an emergency, not being paid for. I think the way the House majority is handling this legislation and other legislation, or the lack of it, is inexcusable and in some respects is immoral. Let me read from the Statement of Administration Policy: ``The Administration is committed to helping startups, boosting innovation, and growing the economy, and is willing to work with the Congress on fiscally responsible measures to achieve those goals. However, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719 because it would increase the Federal deficit by $1 billion over the next ten years. Failing to pay for new tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible.'' Mr. Speaker, working on stock options and the tax treatment of it is one thing. Zika and Flint are orders of a different magnitude. For these reasons and others, I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), someone who has been a sponsor of this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as an original sponsor of the STAND for Ukraine Act and a Co-Chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, I rise in support of this important measure. This bill codifies and tightens existing U.S. sanctions on Russia for its violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, including its illegal annexation of Crimea. In passing this measure, I join my colleagues in making a strong statement that the United States stands with the people of Ukraine. Earlier this month, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of Ukraine's independence. It is the Ukraine people's will for a free, democratic, and sovereign country that is the underlying impetus for change and international support. I believe we have a duty to stand behind democratic nations such as Ukraine against foreign aggression, and it is in our national interest to have an ally who shares our values. The STAND for Ukraine Act takes a meaningful step in helping Ukraine defend against foreign aggression. At the same time, we must continue our work in helping Ukraine develop the rule of law, root out corruption, and bring about economic prosperity. I support the STAND for Ukraine Act, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, more than 80 percent of the approximately 640,000 Americans living with kidney failure, or end-stage renal disease, are covered under Medicare. Unfortunately, those individuals who receive Medicare coverage as a result of their ESRD do not have access to managed care plans under the Medicare Advantage program. This bill would make a commonsense change and enable Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD to have the same choices as all other Medicare beneficiaries. H.R. 5659 would help make sure ESRD beneficiaries in Medicare have access to the coordinated services, flexibility, and integrated care they need to fit their own individual needs. I want to thank my fellow colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), for his dedication and his hard work over the past years on this important bipartisan legislation. I look forward to it advancing swiftly to the President's desk to be signed into law. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is no doubt the citrus industry is facing an emergency. A disease, referred to as ``greening,'' is rapidly spreading among citrus crops, including oranges, tangerines, grapefruits, lemons, and limes. To date, Florida orange growers have been hard hit by this disease and have been forced to abandon more than 100,000 acres of groves. It takes about 2 years for the disease to fully manifest itself; therefore, citrus crops in Texas and in California are also at risk. This bill would expand an exception that allows for the immediate expensing of replanting costs when crops are destroyed by this disease. Under current law, minority investors only are allowed to immediately expense costs incurred for replanting when, one, the grower who incurred the loss or damage keeps a more than 50 percent interest in the property and, second, when the minority investor materially participates in the planting, maintenance, cultivation, or development of the property. Under this bill, minority investors also would be able to immediately expense costs incurred for replanting if, one, the grower has an equity interest of not less than 50 percent in the replanted citrus plants, and the minority investor holds the remaining interest or, two, if the minority investor acquires all of the taxpayer's land on which the lost or damaged citrus plants were located, and the replanting is on such land. This bill would not require minority investors to materially participate in the planting and growing, thus making it more appealing for investors. At a cost of $30 million over 10 years, this bill takes a modest step in helping the citrus industry attract investors and much-needed capital to fight this devastating disease. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill codifies current practice at the Social Security Administration, which is to remove Social Security numbers from its letters and notices in order to reduce the risk of identity theft. It is important to note that SSA is ahead of the game on these efforts. It has not included Social Security numbers on statements since 2001. Checks have not contained Social Security numbers since 2004, and the annual COLA notice no longer contains full Social Security numbers. This bill before us also requires SSA to report to Congress twice each year for the next 6 years on its progress toward removing Social Security numbers from all mail documents. I am glad that SSA has already taken important steps to protect Americans' identities, and I commend SSA for the high value it places on protecting Americans' private information. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 506.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going nowhere, but there are lessons to be learned from it being voted on today. It is an exercise Republicans hope will help them politically, and yet another one of their attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this bill would increase the deficit by nearly $33 billion over the next 10 years. This bill does not include any offsets to address this cost. This is a vivid contradiction of worn-out Republican rhetoric claiming time and time again to be concerned about the deficit of this country. Earlier this year, the President requested $1.9 billion to address the growing threat of the Zika virus in this country. Republicans ignored this request, disregarded our Nation's top public health officials, and, instead, combined lower funding levels with poison pill policy riders. Nearly 12,000 Americans, including nearly 1,400 pregnant women, have confirmed cases of Zika in this country. The Centers for Disease Control and prevention has stated it is running out of resources to fight the virus. So far, no action. Zika is an emergency. The Republicans say, Pay for it. Oh, but not a dime for this $35 billion tax cut. How can we afford to provide for an enormous tax cut, like the one before us today, but we can't afford to spend just one-fifteenth of that amount to protect Americans from a devastating disease impacting families and children? The opioid epidemic. We passed some important legislation to address it, but no money, no action to make sure that it would really be meaningful. But today, we can pass an unpaid-for tax cut of $35 billion? Flint, Michigan. Thousands of kids were poisoned. Drinking water still cannot be consumed, and water can't be otherwise used in Flint-- but no action today. No action, but we can pass this $35 billion bill, unpaid for? Let's be clear about the ACA, which, once again, the Republicans are trying to repeal, in part. The ACA was fully paid for--fully. And since the ACA passed 6 years ago, the majority has failed to offer any meaningful alternative to the ACA to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and provide affordable coverage to American families. Their response has been ``nada,'' in terms of anything meaningful. According to the JCT data, approximately two-thirds of the tax benefits from H.R. 3590 will accrue to taxpayers earning $100,000 and more over the next 10 years. In 2013, only 6.1 percent of all returns claimed the medical expense deduction, and only 11 percent of seniors did so. We know that the higher a household's income, the more likely it is to itemize deductions. So low-income seniors would receive little or no benefit from this bill since much of their income comes from Social Security. For these reasons, the administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy. I want to read it because it underlines how, as I said at the beginning, the Republicans here, once again, are going through the motions. This isn't going to become law, but it says something important: don't pay for, be reckless, claim you care, and also take another step to undo ACA. I quote from the Statement of Administration Policy: ``The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3590. It would repeal a provision of the Affordable Care Act that limits a regressive, poorly targeted tax break for health care spending. This repeal would disproportionately benefit high-income Americans, while increasing national health care spending. Additionally, it would increase the Federal deficit by $32.7 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ``The Administration is always willing to work with the Congress on fiscally responsible ways to further improve health care affordability and the Affordable Care Act. The President's Budget offers a number of proposals to do so. However, H.R. 3590 would be a step in the wrong direction because it would increase health care spending and increase the Federal deficit, while doing little to improve the affordability of health care for middle-class families. ``If the President were presented with H.R. 3590, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we are fortunate that the majority leader spoke. It is very clear from his remarks what this is all about, at least in good measure, or I should say bad measure. This is another effort to attack ACA, the healthcare reform bill. Let me just mention the latest information we have about ACA that came out in today's Census report. Prior to the ACA, there were nearly 50 million uninsured in the United States. That was disgraceful, and the Republicans twiddled their thumbs while those uninsured remained uninsured. That number dropped to 29 million in 2015. The uninsured rate fell sharply in 2015 from 10.4 percent to 9.1 percent. Four million fewer Americans were uninsured in 2015 than in 2014--4 million--and it was the fifth straight year the uninsured rate has fallen since health reform's enactment in 2010. The bill, in terms of this provision, has been in effect for nonseniors for several years. It won't go into effect as to seniors until next year. If there is a need to look at ACA, it can be done next year. Why the rush here? It is because we are just a couple of months away from an election. I want to say one thing about the balance here in terms of this provision. If you look at the information that we received from the Joint Tax Committee on the distributional effect, here is what it would look like in 2024. This bill would provide less than $100 million in tax relief for those earning less than $40,000, while providing over $2.7 billion in tax relief for those earning over $100,000. That shows another real problem with this bill. I want to close by just talking about the lack of any kind of perspective, any kind of balance, and any real sensitivity. Essentially, this House majority is saying this: pay-for money for Zika, pay for it; pay-for money for the people of Flint; pay-for money to carry out and implement opioid legislation. But don't pay for this tax bill, don't pay for it--$33 billion. All of this shows the bankruptcy of the House majority, bankrupt in terms of sensitivity to an action for the overwhelming needs of the people of this country, whether it is Zika, whether it is the opioid epidemic, whether it is Flint, or other issues. And also in terms of bankruptcy just spiraling this Nation towards more and more debt, a party that once said it cared but, once again, just goes forth recklessly. I urge very much that we vote ``no'' on this. We are going through the motions, but motions that are very ill-conceived and motions that will be reckless if ever carried out. That will not happen because the Senate will not act, and it will not happen because if the Senate ever did, the President would veto and his veto would be sustained. I yield back the balance of my time.

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