Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Let me put this very simply: this is a dishonest procedure. This is a ruse to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate bill and the 2-month extension. Why not hold a straight vote, as indeed called for under regular order? That's the regular order. Because the Republican majority is afraid of a straight vote. They're afraid some Republicans would vote ``yes,'' and the Senate bill would pass and the President would sign it, and it would become law today. And they don't want other Republicans on record voting against a payroll tax cut. That is the epitome of a ruse. Thirty-nine Republican Senators--39, all but a handful--voted for the bill before us. But what has happened since Saturday's bipartisan Senate bill that Speaker Boehner said was a good deal? Well, the sailors staged a mutiny and the captain decided to surrender. He decided to join the mutiny to keep the ship from coming to port. But the problem is that on board are millions of passengers waiting to dock. This chart shows the number of passengers: 160 million Americans would see their taxes increased; 2.3 million Americans on board looking for work would lose their critical unemployment benefits; and 48 million seniors--Americans on Medicare--will have access to their doctors they know and they trust jeopardized. So I want it clear for these people, all of these people: the Republican vote today is a vote to nowhere. Dick Lugar said that. I'm hopeful that there are a majority of Republicans and Democrats today who will proceed because it seems to me it is the best for the country, as well as for all the individuals who are affected. Another Republican Senator from Massachusetts: ``The House Republicans' plan to scuttle''--that's the correct word--``the deal to help middle class families is irresponsible and wrong. The refusal to compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hardworking Americans and stop unemployment benefits for those out of work. We cannot allow rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of working together for the good of the American people.'' And a third Republican Senator, Senator Heller, a former colleague here of Nevada: ``There's no reason to hold up the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is worked out.'' And I want to quote a statement from Treasury about the notion that the 2-month extension cannot be implemented: ``While any short-term extension is bound to create some administrative complexities, it is feasible to implement the bipartisan Senate bill''--this is Treasury that is in charge of implementation of this--``and the Treasury Department will work with employers to ensure the smoothest possible implementation. In the current economic situation, any such complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans starting on January 1.'' I would like to place the entire statement in the Record. Statement from Jenni LeCompte, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, United States Treasury Department: ``Everyone agrees that a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut would have been preferable, which is why the Administration has long advocated an extension for the entirety of 2012. Unfortunately, in the waning days of this session of Congress, Members were unable to reach agreement on the details of a year-long extension that could generate strong bipartisan support. The best they could do was the two-month extension passed by a vote of 89-10 in the Senate on Saturday. ``While any short-term extension is bound to create some administative complications, it is feasible to implement the bipartisan Senate bill, and the Treasury Department will work with employers to ensure the smoothest possible implementation. In the current economic situation, any such complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans starting on January 1st.'' I want to close with what Harry Reid said. Take it seriously. This is on what 39 Republicans and 50 Democrats voted for, the bill you will not let us vote on: ``I have always sought a yearlong extension. I've been trying to forge one for weeks.'' He could have said for months. ``And I'm happy to continue negotiating one once we have made sure middle class families will not wake up to a tax increase on January 1. So, before we reopen negotiations on a yearlong extension, the House of Representatives must protect middle class families by passing the overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that Republicans negotiated and was approved by 90 percent of the Senate.'' You are snubbing a bipartisan compromise. You are jeopardizing the lives of millions of taxpayers, millions of the unemployed, and millions of seniors. To keep harmony within your ranks, you are creating the possibility of immense discord within the United States of America. We're not going to let you do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to a very senior member of our committee, the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman. I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished Member, the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. LEVIN. Could the Speaker please verify how much time each side has.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. David Scott.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I remember when I was doing arguments before a court and the judge would ask me a very salient question that would get to the heart of the matter. And that's where we are today. There's this question to the Republican majority: If you're so sure of your arguments, why not allow a vote on the Senate bill? Otherwise, everything you've said is a smoke screen. It's because you're afraid you'd lose it, or you don't want some people voting ``no'' on the Record. That's really what this is about. And there's a second question: If you believe in bipartisanship, why not allow a vote on a bipartisan bill in the Senate? I quoted three Senators, and three more now have spoken out, Senators Snowe, Wicker and Grassley. Senator Grassley says, if it doesn't pass the House today, there's a chance the payroll tax holiday will be lost. And Senator Wicker says, I'm surprised the House isn't willing to take a 2- month time-out to do something more lasting. So I think the answer is, again, your talk about bipartisanship is totally shallow. The previous speaker said that the Senate said, it's my way or the highway. No, that isn't accurate. The Speaker of the House said to the Senate, get on the road and pass a bill. He never said don't do it. He said do it. No, the problem is that many people in the House never wanted to extend the payroll tax in the first place. And you sent over a bill that deleted 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for the millions who are looking for work and can't find a job. So today we have no choice but to vote ``no'' and insist that this obligation be met in this House of Representatives. Vote. Vote. Vote on the bill that the Senate passed. Your denial of allowing us a vote is a denial to the people of this country who are uninsured as of December 1 for unemployment, who need Medicare, and also those who need the continuation of the payroll tax cut. That's what all of this is about. And anything else is a pure smoke screen that all the American people will see through. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated, compassionate and effective public servant Frank Taylor, who is retiring after serving the people of Macomb County, Michigan for 33 years, the last 10 as Director of the County's Community Services Agency. Mr. Taylor is a leader in the field of Community Action Agencies and a shining example of everything a public servant should aspire to be. Mr. Taylor graduated from Wayne State University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Education in 1974. The next year he began teaching and coaching at Harper Woods Public Schools and began earning his Master of Arts Degree in Education from Oakland University which he completed in 1980. In 1979, he began his successful tenure with Macomb County, starting at the Macomb/St. Clair Workforce Development Board as a Youth Programs Supervisor. He rose through the ranks becoming Assistant Director in 1982 and holding that position until 1997 when he was promoted to Director. In 2001 he embraced a new challenge, moved departments and became Director of the Macomb County Community Services Agency. Under Mr. Taylor's leadership the Community Services Agency established highly effective programs and services that addressed that most pertinent needs of county residents. He worked diligently to leverage funds from the Recovery Act, administering over 14 million dollars for vital programs such as Home Weatherization, Food Assistance and Early Head Start. In fact, through creative thinking, he was able to leverage funds and make the vital Early Head Start program permanent one year after its enactment. In addition, the Senior Nutrition program vastly increased the number of meals offered to homebound senior citizens and the Food Program increased the amount of emergency food distributed. Mr. Taylor effectively identified grant opportunities to provide emergency services to low income individuals in need. In 2010 Mr. Taylor led a statewide initiative to purchase a multimillion dollar client database within nine months that substantially increased accessibility and efficiency. The initiative included a plan to deliver training to staff and is now being used by every Community Action Agency in the State. I have witnessed first-hand Mr. Taylor's passion and dedication through the years. He is an outspoken advocate for low-income home energy assistance, as well as the Community Service Block Grant program, which is so important to the delivery of vital services to those in need. Mr. Taylor has always focused like a laser on ensuring that residents of the county receive the highest quality of services in an efficient and compassionate manner. It has been a true pleasure for my staff and I to work with him, and the citizens of Macomb County are grateful for his dedicated service. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Frank Taylor, who has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of living for working class people in Macomb County for 33 years. I am confident he will continue to play an important role in the community where he is highly thought of, in addition to enjoying a bit of retirement. Importantly, he and his wife Rosanne, married 34 years, now get to enjoy spending time with their first grandchild, Olivia, just born on December 6th.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. You know, when there is an issue as serious as this, you would think that the majority would let us introduce a substitute. Instead, the answer is a stone wall. So I am going to explain what is in my substitute. I want the American public to know what would be in it. A 1-year extension and expansion of the employee payroll tax cut to 3.1 percent, as the President proposed; a 1-year extension on the bonus depreciation; and a 1-year extension on unemployment insurance is in the bill that Mr. Doggett and a lot of us introduced, H.R. 3346--and a 10-year SGR fix. I want the American public to understand what's at stake here and how we pay for it. This chart shows very vividly what the Republicans essentially are doing. I want everybody to look at it. Under their proposal, seniors sacrifice $31 billion. Under their proposal, Federal employees sacrifice $40 billion. Under their proposal, unemployed Americans--unemployed, looking for work--sacrifice $11 billion. And under their proposal, essentially people earning over $1 million sacrifice nothing, nothing. They don't pay for this bill, while seniors and everybody else indicated here, Federal workers and the unemployed, do.

Mr. LEVIN. I will just say to the majority, get in the shoes of the unemployed. If you don't, I think those who deny it deserve their unemployment.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, a distinguished, active member indeed, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. There are fewer than 3 weeks until the new year, and yet, here they go again. Republicans are seeking a path of confrontation instead of collaboration. If Republicans were serious, truly serious about trying to come together on behalf of American families, they would have reached out to Democrats in this House. They've done nothing of the sort. They've made a sham out of bipartisanship. Instead, they, once again, targeted millions of seniors and middle class families for cuts without asking essentially anything of millionaires and billionaires. They've singled out Medicare premium increases that permanently increase seniors' costs by $31 billion. The bill also, when you look at it carefully, spends $300 million on a special interest provision that helps a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting billions from community hospitals. They've targeted the unemployed, slashing 40 weeks of unemployment insurance, impacting millions of families still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Twenty-two jurisdictions, 22, with the highest unemployment rates would be hit the hardest: Alabama, California, Connecticut, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. The result would be in the State that Mr. Camp and I come from, Michigan, a maximum of 46 weeks of unemployment insurance. And what do they ask of the wealthiest Americans? Basically nothing. Not even after the wealthiest 1 percent saw their incomes nearly triple in the last three decades while salaries for middle class families barely budged. On average, there are more than four unemployed Americans for every job opening. Never, on official records in our Nation's history, have there been so many unemployed Americans out of work for so long. There is nothing normal about this recession. Nothing normal. One gentleman from my district, Phil of Clinton Township, put it this way, ``I am by no means unintelligent. I am by no means lazy. And I am by no means giving up.'' The unemployed are not people who can ante up $10,000 bets or spend lavishly on jewelry at Tiffany. These are families scraping by, on average, on less than $300 a week trying to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs and the backs of their children as they look for work. Republicans are out of touch with the families of America. I hope after today's exercise that is going nowhere in the Senate and which the President opposes, House Republicans will get serious about addressing very pressing end-of-year issues on behalf of the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.