Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. In a sense, there is much at stake in this debate. If this bill were to become law, it would unravel health care reform. What this industry seems to be asking is a reversal of their commitment to make health care reform work. If this Congress and the President were to say okay, every other industry that participated in saying they pay their share to make it viable, they'd come in line, and there would be no answer to them. In that sense, this debate, this issue is significant. But in another sense it really isn't. This bill isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership has already said it's not taking it up. There's been issued a Statement of Administration policy. The recommendation is the President would veto it. There's a certain emptiness to this debate because the bill isn't going anywhere. The real significance is that it's being brought up despite that, raising the question, Does the majority in this House want a bill that goes somewhere relating to jobs? The word ``jobs'' has been mentioned here more than any other word. As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that jobs would be lost, as indicated by the majority. The only study says that the 43,000 claim is wrong. So what's really at stake here, the significance of this debate is this: Will the majority do more than signal in this session, in its remaining months, or will it take up jobs legislation? I think there's an increasing indication that they, the majority, do not want a jobs bill that will go anywhere. I mentioned earlier the letter I wrote to the chairman of our committee. I mentioned in there six provisions clearly relating to jobs in America, the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit that once had bipartisan support. The production tax credit for wind power, the Republicans came before the Ways and Means Committee and said, Extend it. But, silence. The Build America Bonds program. It helped to create hundreds and thousands of jobs--$180 billion in infrastructure investment. The 100 percent bonus depreciation that both sides say they support. But nothing but inaction. The proposal by the President for a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that could create jobs, not the illusory statements mentioned here. And then the R&D tax credit that the chairman of this committee and I have championed for years--and all we do is have a hearing. And so this bill raises starkly this issue: Does this majority want bills going nowhere, or will they do more than signal and act to help create jobs that the people of this country badly need. That's the real issue before us today. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill on the merits. I urge the majority to start saying ``yes'' to jobs bills for the people of the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of May 2012 as National Cancer Research Month. National Cancer Research Month recognizes the important role that cancer research plays in the lives of all Americans. Over 570,000 people in the U.S. die from cancer every year. However, federally and privately funded cancer research has led to the development of innovative diagnostics and treatments that have greatly increased the odds of survival. As a result, the country's cancer death rate has decreased 17 percent in the past 20 years. Besides improving the health of Americans, cancer research also has dramatic impacts on our economy. Research funding supports employment at universities and research institutes and it also leads to the formation of new businesses that spread biomedical innovation and sustain jobs. Despite real progress in recent years, now is not the time to rest on our laurels in terms of either funding or attention. There is still significant progress to be made in the battle against cancer. Continued investment in research through the federal government is vital for ensuring that we move forward in this fight for health and survivorship. That is why I joined Representative Markey and over 150 of my House colleagues in asking the Appropriations Committee to provide at least $32 billion in funding to the National Institutes of Health for the 2013 fiscal year. Fighting cancer is a national priority, and Congress must step up and provide the necessary resources. I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of cancer research and its essential role in supporting the health, economy, and international leadership of our nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Lewis N. Walker, who will retire next month after years of distinguished service at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Michigan. Dr. Walker joined Lawrence Tech in 1994, serving as provost for 12 years. During that time, he improved student access to computer technology, expanded international partnerships, and developed facility improvements to support emerging technologies and career fields. Dr. Walker is also credited with fostering and instituting the only required undergraduate leadership program in the country outside the Nation's three military academies. In 2005, again through Dr. Walker's efforts, the University began a unique partnership with the Ferndale Public Schools to establish University High School, which offers a rigorous preparatory curriculum for public school students. This partnership is making a difference. A full 99 percent of University High School's first three graduating classes received their diploma, and 85 percent have gone on to higher education. In 2006, Dr. Walker was made President of LTU. The severe economic downturn that began the following year brought a time of extraordinary challenge for the country, and especially for the State of Michigan. With steep job losses, especially in our State's vital auto and manufacturing sectors, there was a clear need for retraining of displaced workers. Through Dr. Walker's leadership, Lawrence Tech stepped up and addressed the challenge through the ``Recovery Starts Here'' initiative, which provided grants to over 650 displaced workers and supported efforts to diversify Michigan's economy. This program was widely replicated and serves as an example of the vital synergies that can and should exist between institutions of higher education and our Nation's economy. Building on the successful redevelopment of the campus quadrangle and A. Alfred Taubman Student Services Center, Dr. Walker set in motion the next phase of growth of LTU by laying the groundwork for development of a state-of-the-art Engineering, Life Sciences, and Architecture Complex. Over the years, my office has been pleased to work closely with Dr. Walker and his team on efforts to expand the University's Center for Innovative Materials Research. Dr. Walker has signed 40 agreements with other leading universities around the world to encourage partnerships and exchange programs. Prior to his career at Lawrence Tech, Dr. Walker served at the University of Hartford as dean of engineering and a professor of electrical engineering. He holds three degrees from the University of Missouri-Columbia and has published more than 50 technical papers. In so many ways, Dr. Walker's years of service at LTU have left the University and the community better than he found them. I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring Lewis Walker as he steps down as President of Lawrence Technological University next month. I feel certain that the University and the State of Michigan will continue to benefit from his talents for many years to come.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is vivid evidence of the radicalization of the Republican Party. I recall decades ago chairing a committee in the Michigan State Senate and addressing a number of reforms affecting the lives of working men and women. I directly engaged in give and take and negotiated final legislation with Governor George Romney, resulting in legislation that passed on a bipartisan basis. Today, the radicalization of the Republican Party would make that impossible. Instead, we have a bill that would take away food stamps for 2 million Americans, children, working parents, and seniors. It would threaten 280,000 school meals and end the Social Services Block Grants, which provide home care, transportation for individuals with disabilities, protection for abused children, and Meals on Wheels. All of this and much more extremism to carry out an additional tax cut of $240,000 for the very wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. We can turn off the budget sequester and the damaging across-the- board cuts, but not with this extreme partisan bill. The House leadership refuses to follow a bipartisan path. This bill is sad proof of how the Republican Party of today has moved dramatically to the extreme, leaving behind most Americans, except the very wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to enter into the Record letters from organizations that are opposed to this bill's drastic cuts in services for the elderly, the disabled, and children: Catholic Charities USA, Alexandria, VA, April 25, 2012. Hon. Paul Ryan, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Ryan: As the House Committee on the Budget evaluates the priorities expressed in the federal budgeting process, we urge you to reject the proposed elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) as proposed by the House Committee on Ways and Means. Everyday thousands of individuals who are disabled, children, preschoolers, homeless, elderly, or at risk of being abused are receiving services because of SSBG funding. These funds prevent the need for more expensive and less desirable interventions. SSBG is a flexible federal funding source that allows states, local governments and non-profit organizations to support local programs and services for vulnerable children, youth, and elderly and disabled people. States have a long history of cooperation with community and faith-based organizations in the allocation of SSBG funds. Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is a network of more than 1,600 social service agencies and institutions providing services to more than 10 million people annually. As one of the nation's largest social service providers, CCUSA recognizes the critical need for SSBG funding and uses these funds in almost every category of direct services. Among those vulnerable populations that receive critical assistance from SSBG-funded programs are: Children: Local Catholic Charities agencies use SSBG funds to provide child care to low-income families; foster care support service; and prevention and protective services for neglected and abused children. Youth: Local Catholic Charities agencies utilize funds from SSBG to supplement work with expecting and parenting teens; drug counseling for troubled youth; and special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity. Elderly: Local Catholic Charities rely heavily on SSBG funds to support Meals on Wheels programs that address both nutrition and isolation issues for frail elderly persons; transportation services for persons who also need assistance with their grocery shopping, doctor appointments, and during church services; adult day care; and emergency shelter and assistance for victims of elder abuse. The following provides some examples of programs at local Catholic Charities agencies that would be affected by the elimination of SSBG funding: New Jersey: In Newark, SSBG funds are used to support many programs and services, among them counseling and child abuse prevention services for families referred from the State child welfare system; supervised housing for youth exiting the child welfare system for independent living; The funds are used to provide services directed towards preventing, reducing or eliminating dependency; achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency; preventing neglect, abuse or exploitation of children and adults; and preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care. Pennsylvania: In Wilkes-Barre/Scranton SSBG funding supports activities at a homeless veterans residence, Maternity Home and Senior Citizens Housing. Texas: In Beaumont, SSBG funds the soup kitchen, long term disaster recovery, financial education and counseling programs. In Brownsville, SSBG funds are used to assist with long-term recovery from disasters including replacing essential items for those who were rendered homeless from such disasters. Wisconsin: In LaCrosse, SSBG funds provide services for children and adolescents in their Disabilities Services Program. Its mission is to keep these young people in their homes and prepare them for congregate or semi-independent living and provides a unique niche and without it many would not be able to be in mainstreamed into the community and would be at risk for institutional care. We acknowledge that tough choices will be made as part of your ongoing budget discussions and that every one of these tough choices will be met with frustration, disappointment and even anger from certain segments of the population. Catholic Charities USA recognizes that social service initiatives will not be immune to those difficult decisions. However, as you look for savings within the budget, we reject the notion that those most vulnerable among us should feel the greatest impact of future reductions. Rather than simply embracing quick answers to the immediate need to shave dollars off the federal budget by impairing local organizations' ability to deliver critical services to those in need, now is the time to work together to create a new national approach to service delivery that enable the country to permanently make a difference in the lives of those living in poverty. Sincerely, Fr., Larry Snyder, President.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I urge a ``yes'' vote. The Wall Street Journal calls support for the Export-Import Bank ``job creation, French style.'' I'm not sure why they pick on the French. While the House Republicans have been agonizing about acting, export powerhouses like China have been dramatically increasing their export financing programs. Over the past year, China issued four times the amount invested by the U.S. And China is not alone. Germany, France, and India all provided at least seven times more export assistance, as a share of GDP, than the U.S. The rigid attitude of The Wall Street Journal is that, if the other side rigs the field of competition, you should do nothing. They believe that those nations will only hurt themselves if they act and that it will all work out in the wash in the end. The problem is that, in the meanwhile, you drown. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The Republicans have taken a 180-degree turn on helping with student loans. The Republican budget said ``no,'' and in February, Governor Mitt Romney said this: The right course for America is to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn't have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school. Now he and the Republicans here have shifted--shifty indeed. How they are doing so is not only politically expedient, but extremely harmful. They hit health care--health care. They refuse to end a tax break for Big Oil that never should have been given in the first place, even though the Big Five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the fourth quarter of last year alone. This bill is shameless, and it is shameful. Vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 97th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Ninety-seven years ago, the government of the Ottoman Empire started a ruthless and systematic campaign of genocide against the Armenian people. Beginning with the targeted execution of 300 Armenian leaders, this intentional attempt at extermination ultimately claimed the lives of over 1.5 million people and forcibly exiled another 500,000. And despite these chilling numbers and a clear historical record of fact, there remains a failure to acknowledge this vast human tragedy for what it truly is: genocide. That is why it is essential that we continue to speak out and solemnly commemorate the Armenian Genocide. Accordingly, I am proud to support a resolution this session of Congress that affirms the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide and honors its victims and survivors. By acknowledging this dark chapter of human history, we help protect against the possible creation of a violent culture of impunity. We cannot allow past acts of evil to be erased from our collective consciousness if we are to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. In closing, I encourage all my colleagues to take time today to remember and honor the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill needs to be graded, and the grade it gets is F, a fat F grade. It fails all tests of sound tax policy. Let me start with truth in advertising, a grade F. This is not a small business bill. It's small business in name only. It's totally untargeted, totally. It applies as long as an entity has under 500 employees--law firms, sports teams, financial consultants, lobbyists, corporate farmers--and regardless of what their annual receipts are. They can be tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. Interestingly, when the SBA looks at its loan program, it has what's called a common standard. What that is is that generally the businesses it serves cannot have more than $7 million in average annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing firms. This bill has no limits--none--as to function or amount of receipts, so really this bill mocks the use of the title ``small business.'' This isn't about mom and pop. It's about popping the cork for wealthy taxpayers. Secondly, graded on tax fairness, F. According to the most cautious estimate, 56 percent of the tax break under this bill goes to taxpayers making $250,000 or more annually. It provides 125,000 taxpayers making $1 million a year with a tax break of over $58,000. Another model says that 49 percent of this $46 billion revenue loss goes to people with incomes over $1 million. This is Bush tax cuts on steroids. Thirdly, in terms of job creation, another grade F. Listen to the Joint Tax Committee analysis. It says this bill's economic impact ``is so small as to be incalculable.'' The only thing calculating about this bill is its political nature. We've looked at the Web site of the majority leader. He uses Mr. Robbins, who was the one who advised Herman Cain on 9 9-9. Here's what Mr. Robbins says about this bill: He estimates that a 1-year tax cut would create 39,000 jobs. This is on the majority leader's Web site. So, according to the analysis that the leader is touting on its own Web site, H.R. 9 would increase the Federal deficit by $1.1 million for every job supposedly created. So, another big F. Now let's talk about where these jobs would be created. The bill is so untargeted to require that the jobs that are created here would really be created, because a company would get this benefit if it sheds jobs or if it uses the deduction to hire workers overseas. Let's next go to fiscal irresponsibility, another fat F in terms of responsibility. This bill adds a whopping $46 billion to the deficit in 1 year; if it's made permanent, one-half trillion dollars over the next 10 years. So I say this to anybody who votes for this bill and then goes home and utters the word, once, ``Federal deficit.'' They will sell short the intelligence of their constituents, because they will know when someone is selling them a pig in a poke. Now let's talk about tax reform, another fat F. This bill is the antithesis of tax reform. What it does is ridicule supporters who claim their fealty to tax reform. It doesn't simplify tax structures; it complicates it. That's why I quote The Wall Street Journal this morning. This is what they say about your bill: It's another tax gimmick. Just earlier today somebody got up here and read from The Wall Street Journal. It was some months ago. Again, The Wall Street Journal says: ``The U.S. economy does not need another tax gimmick.'' So this is tax policy gone haywire. I'm going to offer a substitute, after we finish debate here on general debate, that's targeted; that will help create jobs; that's fair; that is fiscally responsible and continues a policy that both Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. This flies in the face of anything bipartisan. It flies in the face of anything that is truthful in advertising. It flies in the face of anything that is fair. It flies in the face of anything that creates jobs. It flies in the face of fiscal responsibility, and it flies in the face of tax reform. So I more than urge people to vote ``no'' and vote ``yes'' on our substitute. I really urge that they exercise their responsibility to try to get this country moving in the right direction, not with policies that deserve a total F on the test of sound tax policy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. We have a Statement of Administration Policy in total opposition to this. The Small Business Administration would not provide a loan for innumerable people who benefit from this. They have a $7 million limit. Supply-side economics, we tried that for a number of years, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when this administration took over-- 700,000, and you raise supply-side economics as something we should embrace? No way. No way. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Dr. Jim McDermott, a member of our committee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 5 seconds. Is it worth $1.1 million a job in Washington? I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Oregon, an active member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to another very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. What the leader said is not correct. The substitute provides some help to those who invest in property, plant, and equipment. That's not Paris Hilton.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me finish. You didn't yield at all to us, so let me finish. It has to be a factory that's built here. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. LEVIN. May I ask the distinguished gentleman from the State of Ohio how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another active member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another very active member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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