Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. I ask my colleague, how many speakers do you have left?

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

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I stand here, I want to remember others from the State of Michigan who years and years ago argued this issue. I think I'll go back to John Dingell's father, who was from Michigan, a Member of this distinguished body, and who started this effort with others to bring health insurance to every person in this country. After seven decades of failure, we succeeded. Yet the Republicans want to repeal it without offering anything to replace it. So I'll quote again Governor Mitt Romney. He said: A conservative approach is one that relies on individual responsibility. But in my view, and others are free to disagree, expecting people who can afford to buy insurance to do so is consistent with personal responsibility, and that's a cornerstone of conservatism. It's really a cornerstone also of America as a community. To repeal this is to undermine the sense and reality of community in the United States of America. Remembering the past and looking to the future, we must vote ``no'' on repeal. With that, 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 is mainly a smoke screen. It is an effort to cover up the failure, indeed the refusal, of Republicans to act on the key issue facing our Nation: jobs and economic growth. As ranking member, I sent a letter last Friday to Dave Camp, who chairs the committee with the jurisdiction over the bill before us today, urging action on six major jobs bills within the committee's jurisdiction: extension of the section 48(c) advanced energy manufacturing credit; extension of the production tax credit for wind power and other vital advanced-energy incentives; extension of the highly successful build America bonds program, which financed more than $180 billion in infrastructure investment; extension of the 100 percent bonus depreciation; creation of a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that do create new jobs or increase their payroll; an extension of a jobs-related expired provision, such as the R&D tax credit. The answer: silence and continued inaction by Republicans in this House. Another bill over which the committee has jurisdiction, the highway bill, remains unacted upon. That bill would mean millions of jobs. No action. The Republican House message on the highway bill is: our way or the highway. And that means no highways. It is June. There is now the likelihood of no action or none before the construction season is over in numerous States. That inaction is not an accident. It is deliberate. It is implementing the goal stated 20 months ago by the Senate Republican leader: ``The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.'' It is reflected in the recent interview by the House Republican leader. Mr. Cantor said the rest of the year will likely be about ``sending signals, we have huge problems to deal with.'' Sending signals? The American people don't need and want signals. They need for us to take action to strengthen the economic recovery. We will hear today Republican efforts to describe the bill before us to repeal the tax on medical devices as a jobs bill. What it really is is another Republican effort to repeal health care reform, step by step, costing, in this case, $29 billion. We Democrats want more Americans to have access to medical devices. Health care reform helps do this by expanding insurance coverage to over 30 million individuals, which indeed will help the growth of and the innovation in the medical device industry. And as was true for other health groups benefiting from increases in health coverage, the medical device industry was asked to help to pay for health care reform so it would be fully paid for, not add to the deficit, as so many Republican measures, but it would be fully paid for. They signed a letter with others pledging: ``We, as stakeholder representatives, are committed to doing our part to make reform a reality in order to make the system more affordable and effective for patients and purchasers. We stand ready to work with you to accomplish this goal.'' The first signature on that letter is from and by the President and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association. Now the Republicans are attempting to give that industry a free pass--a free pass--contrary to their stated commitment. The industry has not proposed any alternative whatsoever to meet that obligation reflected in the letter they signed. There is an effort here to cast repeal of the tax as a small business bill. The 10 largest companies in this submarket would pay 86 percent of the taxes relating to nondiagnostic devices. According to CRS, the 10 largest companies that manufacture medical devices had total companywide profits on all their lines of businesses, both devices and other products, of $42 billion in 2010, including companies mentioned here, and $48 billion in 2011, and these companies had gross revenues from the sale of medical devices in 2010 of $133 billion. There was an effort here also to cast the bill as an effort to stop offshoring, but this point needs to be made. It's a fact: The tax applies to all covered devices, including those that are imported. So if anybody thinks they can just move overseas and bring it back here and not pay a tax, they're simply incorrect. The effort to cast this as a jobs bill involved allegations repeated here during the debate on the rule, which were analyzed by a neutral source and found to be simply erroneous. A Bloomberg group analysis made that clear: ``The study used by Republicans cites no evidence for the job loss claim.'' Further, the study's assumptions, ``conflict with economic research, overstate companies' incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand'' created by the health care reform law. Before Rules yesterday, I asked that my substitute be placed in order to allow debate on two real jobs initiatives mentioned in my letter to you, Chairman Camp: a tax credit for employers that expand their payrolls, and an extension of bonus depreciation. Those two provisions would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not speculation, but real, including in small businesses. This has not been allowed. So we have open rules, as we have seen the last few days on some bills, that often mainly result in numerous amendments, shifting some monies from one place to another in an agency, not often helping to create a single job, but a closed rule when it comes to bringing up provisions helping to create American jobs and economic growth. This is further evidence of what is really going on here in this Congress, a deliberate effort now increasingly undisguised to close the door on action to engender job creation and economic growth before the election. November 6 is what is driving the Republican Congress. Politics, not people. That is only not cynical, it is, indeed, pernicious. We owe it to the American people to blow the whistle on this. Too much, indeed, is at stake. National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, June 6, 2012. Re Vote No on Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011, H.R. 436. Dear Representative: The National Women's Law Center writes in strong opposition to H.R. 436, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011, because it would undermine a critical protection in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reduce financial security for women and families. The bill would pay for the elimination of the modest excise tax on medical devices and other revenue provisions of the ACA by increasing the tax liability of individuals and families receiving premium tax credits through the new insurance exchanges. The modest excise tax on medical devices is a fair way to raise revenue to help finance affordable health care coverage for millions of Americans. The expansion of health care coverage will benefit a wide range of health-related industries, including the medical device industry, by increasing demand for their products. Other industries in the health sector are contributing to financing an expansion from which they will profit; it is entirely appropriate to require the medical device industry to make a contribution as well. The tax will have minimal impact on consumers, because it does not apply to medical devices that consumers buy at retail, such as eyeglasses or hearing aids, and spending on taxable medical devices represents less than one percent of total personal health expenditures. And the tax will not encourage manufacturers to shift production overseas: it applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are not subject to the tax. Repealing this tax and forgoing $29 billion in needed revenues would be irresponsible--even without the outrageous step of imposing this cost directly on Americans without access to affordable health care coverage. Increasing the tax liability of individuals and families receiving premium tax credits for health insurance coverage is unfair and would reduce coverage for hundreds of thousands of Americans. The ACA provides premium tax credits to families with household income at or below 400 percent of poverty who enroll in coverage through an exchange. An advance payment of the premium tax credit will go directly to insurance companies so that the monthly insurance premium paid by families is reduced, thereby making health coverage more affordable for millions of families. However, there is a ``reconciliation'' at the end of the year when a family files taxes to ensure that the right amount of credit was paid to the insurer on the family's behalf. The ``reconciliation'' is based on actual household income for the year, while the advance payment is based on a projection that could be based on current income or past tax returns. The ACA included an important protection by including a cap on the amount of repayment penalty a family would have to pay based on ``reconciliation.'' The proposal expected this week would entirely eliminate this protection, leaving families vulnerable to an unaffordable tax bill. Many families will be discouraged from enrolling in coverage because of the potential tax liability at the end of the year. Much of the savings from the proposal are achieved because hundreds of thousands of people are expected to refuse coverage if the cap is eliminated. Women will be particularly affected by the elimination of the cap. Women have lower incomes than men and experience larger income variability from one year to another. This suggests women will be more at risk for repayment penalties. Women also often make the health care decisions for the family and will be faced with the difficult decision of enrolling in affordable coverage or forgoing that coverage because of a potential tax penalty. The cap on the repayment penalty has already been increased. Eliminating the cap would eliminate all protections for families that are doing their best to provide the right information to the exchange but face mid-year changes in income or family size. A server in a restaurant could gain new shifts or be promoted to manager. An employer may give unexpected bonuses in December. A couple could get married mid-year without fully understanding the impact on household income and poverty level. The cap on the repayment penalty needs to remain in place in order to protect families and provide the stability promised in the ACA. We urge you to protect the security of families and the revenue provisions of the Affordable Care Act so millions of Americans can receive affordable health care by voting no on H.R. 436 and any proposal to eliminate the cap on the repayment penalty. Very truly yours, Judy Waxman, Vice President, Health and Reproductive Rights. Joan Entmacher, Vice President, Family Economic Security.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a senior member of our committee, Mr. Stark. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

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

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another important member of our committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. LEVIN. It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished Member from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. LEVIN. Could you please indicate how much time there is on each side?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. It's the Republicans who've combined these three bills. The Republicans. And the leader talks about jobs. I wish he would give instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to consider and bring up jobs bills that are just languishing from inaction. We need more than signals. We need action. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. We very much favor the medical device industry. They agreed to pay for health insurance coverage. In 2011, Stryker had revenue of $8.37 billion on these products with a net income of $1.3 billion. Everybody is going to have to participate, as they promised, to make health care work. If everybody ducks out, people will go uninsured. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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