Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 496.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the centennial of the creation of the United States International Trade Commission. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee that oversees the Commission, I want to congratulate the Commission on this anniversary and the Commission's staff who do important work. Congress has tasked the Commission with a number of important roles, including administering U.S. trade remedies laws in a neutral and objective fashion, maintaining the harmonized tariff schedule, and determining whether foreign goods violate U.S. intellectual property laws or are otherwise unfairly traded. Congress has also called upon the Commission to independently investigate and analyze a wide range of issues related to international economics. The Commission's role in this regard is highlighted by the lack of detailed analysis on many international economic issues that impact the lives of American workers and families. The impact of U.S. trade agreements is not a hypothetical issue, and we cannot simply assume that the benefits of trade will outweigh its costs or that those who benefit will compensate those who lose. We need new models and new thinking regarding how we analyze the impact of international trade, and it is important that the Commission be a leader in that regard. I look forward to working with the Commission, as it begins its second century of work, to ensure that the analysis of international trade addresses 21st century economic issues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is more than deeply troubling. You talk about bipartisanship, and you come forth with a bill that completely breaks it down. This issue is too essential to become a total tool of partisan jockeying. Our relationship with Israel is too vital to become a total political plaything. I refer, as my colleague from North Carolina did, to the statement of 75 national security leaders. I quote: ``Dear Mr. President, ``On the first anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, Americans should be proud of your leadership in bringing about this landmark diplomatic agreement. ``As a result of the JCPOA all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked, thereby providing greater security to our friends and partners in the region and to the world. From November 2013, when the interim nuclear agreement was reached, until today, Iran has remained in compliance with its commitments as verified by regular reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency.'' This letter is signed by 75, including Brent Scowcroft. Why don't you totally partisan Republicans, who are approaching a convention and a Presidential race, listen to very much-respected people within your own party? Instead, you are thumbing your nose like this at them and at all of those who endeavor to bring about an effective policy regarding nuclear weaponry.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today is simply unmasked political chicanery. This issue deserves better than the majority leader coming here without any notice, really, and putting forth a resolution that does nothing but harm what used to be a centerpiece of foreign policy: bipartisanship when it comes to the Middle East and the security of Israel.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we Democrats are here to act. The Republicans leave here with stony silence: the silence of inaction on Zika; the silence of inaction on the needs of Flint; the silence of inaction on the no fly, no buy and background checks. Years ago there was reference to an American silent majority. Today it is the Republican congressional majority that is silent. What the vast majority of Americans want is action on Zika, action on Flint, and action on gun violence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5252. Private Marcelino Serna was an undocumented Mexican immigrant who became the most decorated soldier from Texas in World War I, and the first Hispanic to be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the highest military decoration of the United States Army after the Medal of Honor. By designating this port in his name, his exemplary service to our country is fully recognized. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Lizzy Williams, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on this House floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, hoping you will change your misinformed judgment, again, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Enedia Branch, a victim of gun violence who never received one moment of silence on this House floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, reforming our mental health system has been an active priority of mine. That's why I supported legislation increasing access to the mental health care, including the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, and the Affordable Care Act. Among its provisions, the Affordable Care Act expanded mental health parity protections by including mental health coverage as one of ten Essential Health Benefit categories. The ACA also ended insurers' ability to refuse to cover someone due to a pre-existing condition. Prior to the ACA, insurers often declined to cover someone who had diagnoses of mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anorexia. This was no accident, and these important mental health reforms were yet another reason I supported the ACA. The amended version of H.R. 2646, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act as reported out of Committee on the Energy and Commerce, takes another meaningful step towards reforming our mental health system by strengthening enforcement of mental health parity requirements, increasing access to community-based treatment, and growing the mental health workforce. I am pleased to support this bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to continue to improve the nation's mental health system.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The House was originally scheduled to take up this bill tomorrow-- tomorrow. There was a hole, a hole created by Republicans' refusal to consider meaningful legislation to address gun violence in this country. I was on the steps of the Capitol earlier today hearing the poignant stories--at times, virtually unbearable to hear--from victims of gun violence, the shattering impact on themselves or their children, and what it means in real terms for the lives of their families. The bill now before us can be simply described: a tax cut mainly for the most wealthy, being paid for by the loss of health coverage for 130,000 Americans. As the White House noted in its Statement of Administration Policy: ``The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1270, which would create new and unnecessary tax breaks that disproportionately benefit high-income people, increase taxes for low- and middle-income people, and do nothing to improve the quality of or address the underlying cost of health care.'' The Republicans have totally failed during the 6 years of healthcare reform to present an alternative. Instead, it is repeal or destroy the ACA. This is the 64th vote to repeal or undermine the ACA. This bill is one of their scattered proposals on health care. According to the Joint Tax Committee, of the approximately 1.2 million returns in 2013 with an HSA deduction, more than 50 percent are from people with incomes ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 to over $1 million. This bill would double their tax benefit. For Republicans, their banner is ``the more income inequality, the better.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who is the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last week I joined my Democratic colleagues from Michigan for a standing-room-only meeting of community members concerned about gun violence in our country. We were joined by representatives from law enforcement, the faith community, domestic violence advocates, the LGBT community, and grassroots organizations. We are at a turning point. The Speaker called our sit-down efforts a stunt. How wrong. It is the proposal that he is offering that would be a stunt instead of really addressing tragic gun violence confronting this Nation. We should be considering the bipartisan, commonsense legislation that Americans overwhelmingly support: preventing suspected terrorists from buying guns, known as no buy, no fly, and closing loopholes that allow online and gun show sales to go forward without background checks. There is strong public interest for action. We witnessed that last week. The Speaker must no longer stand in the way.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program expires at the end of September. We need to extend this program, and this legislation accomplishes that goal; but we have so much more to do. Once TANF is temporarily extended, our committee and this Congress should work toward a more comprehensive review and reauthorization of the program. We need to make sure that spending under TANF is focused on the core missions of helping needy families and promoting work. We need to further open opportunities to education and training so that TANF recipients can prepare for and find good jobs. And we need to ensure that adequate child care and other supports are available for low-income parents in the workforce. Of course, if we are serious about reducing poverty, improving TANF must be part of a broader agenda that seeks to help Americans endeavoring to help themselves. We should substantially increase the minimum wage for hardworking Americans, expanding the earned income tax credit to childless workers, and expanding access to affordable housing. By the way, those are inputs that relate to outputs and outcomes. And we should be building on successful programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Social Services Block Grant, and the Affordable Care Act. Instead, the agenda we have seen from the Republican leadership of this House is to block meaningful improvements or, even worse, to gut programs that now provide opportunities for Americans. Eliminating the Social Services Block Grant, as Republicans propose, will make child care less available, making it harder for low-income parents to go to work. Cutting funding for education and training, as the Republican budget suggests, would have the same effect of blocking a path to work. And repealing the Affordable Care Act, as Republicans have voted repeatedly to do, would make it harder for people to move into work and to move between jobs. Republicans say they support work, but time and time again, they oppose work supports. The programs that arose out of the war on poverty reduced poverty by over 40 percent, despite erroneous claims to the contrary by some of our Republican colleagues. However, at the same time, we still have 47 million Americans who live in poverty. These struggling families deserve real action, not more of the same old failed policies and empty rhetoric that we have heard in the report from the Republican House Poverty Task Force several weeks ago. And they certainly deserve better than huge cuts to programs they depend on. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it extends the TANF program, a necessary program for low-income families. The bill also includes a 1-year allocation to test social impact partnerships in which the private, nonprofit, and government sectors attempt to come together to address certain social problems. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the reforms in the Affordable Care Act banned employer- sponsored health plans from placing annual dollar limits on benefits paid by the plan to a beneficiary. This is good policy, as, for example, we don't want patients with cancer finding out their insurance company only pays a set amount for their treatment and no more. But it has had the unintended effect of prohibiting stand-alone Health Reimbursement Arrangements because they are employer-sponsored health plans under which benefits are limited to a specified dollar amount. HRAs are typically used by beneficiaries for out-of-pocket medical expenses such as meeting an insurance plan's annual deductible or co- pays for doctor and other medical provider visits. HRAs can also be used to pay for premiums for health insurance coverage. The bill before us would permit small employers to offer stand-alone HRAs to their employees, referred to as ``qualified small employer HRA.'' This bill would also permit the use of the qualified small employer HRAs to purchase coverage in the ACA's public marketplaces. I am pleased to see my Republican colleagues recognizing the benefit of the ACA marketplaces and coverage they offer to millions of Americans. This bill is yet another important way to support the ACA, ensuring more Americans have the health coverage and flexibility they need through the marketplaces. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), one of the sponsors of this bill, and a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Currently, contributions to a health savings account may only be made when an account owner is enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. Additionally, the account owner may not be eligible for other health coverage that is not a high-deductible health plan. This bill would make sure that receiving benefits under an Indian Health Service or a tribal medical care program does not disqualify a taxpayer from HSA eligibility. Furthermore, under this bill, the taxpayer would still have to be covered by a high-deductible health plan to be able to receive or to make HSA contributions. It is unclear how big of a problem this currently is across the country, particularly in Indian country. I have made it clear that HSAs and high-deductible plans move our country in the wrong direction--away from affordable and comprehensive health coverage--but I don't think individuals who are covered through IHS or tribal medical care programs should be forced to forgo one insurance or the other. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention that Mr. Blumenauer wanted to be here but, because of the weather, he has just been unable to arrive. I think the majority may have the same problem. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill before us today, the Family First Prevention Services Act, has a very simple goal: improve the lives of our most vulnerable children. We worked across the aisle on this legislation because we recognize the importance of ensuring that kids grow up in safe, loving, and stable homes. I mentioned that we worked together on this. Mr. Buchanan, who is the chairman of our committee, others on the Republican side, and Mr. Doggett, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Bass, and others worked so hard on this, and I think it has improved this legislation. Our foster care system provides an essential safe haven for abused and neglected children. However, when it comes to our system today, it is clear that Federal funding has been stacked against prevention efforts. That means our Federal dollars aren't being used to effectively help families and prevent child abuse and neglect in homes. In fact, less than 10 percent of dedicated child welfare funding goes toward prevention. This bill is intended to make sure families receive the help they needed before a child goes into foster care, not after, as our current system largely functions. This bill would provide substance abuse treatment for parents, support efforts to improve parenting skills and expand access to mental health care. The Children's Defense Fund, which tirelessly advocates for our most vulnerable children, offered its full support for this bill, and it is my privilege to quote the Children's Defense Fund under its so esteemed leader: ``It takes historic and long overdue steps to direct Federal child welfare dollars to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and families.'' Simply put, this bill would help keep kids throughout our country safe and in their homes instead of placing them in a foster care system that we should use only when clearly necessary. It would be preferable if the bill's key provisions on prevention started sooner to help States facing immediate crises. Furthermore, this legislation certainly does not address every problem facing our child welfare system, including the need to recruit more foster family homes; but, indeed, this bill is an important step forward in strengthening our Nation's child welfare system in the long- term. In fact, as we have seen, more than 50 organizations dedicated to advocating for vulnerable children have come out in support of this legislation, including, as mentioned, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Prevent Child Abuse America, the American Psychological Association, Voice for Adoption, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children. This bill has also been endorsed by the national association representing State child welfare agency directors. This legislation represents an effort to find important common ground in the House and also in the Senate with the leadership of Senators Hatch and Wyden. We have more work to do. We have more work to do, indeed, to ensure our children have the opportunities and support they need to thrive, but this bill would take a very important step on that path. So, once again, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. I would like to thank the staff on our side and, I am sure, the same has been true of the Republican side for all of their diligent and impassioned work on this important issue. I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be governed and managed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Republican majority believes the more hidden money in politics, the better. Freedom of speech, they say, requires more and more dark money or that democracy requires the ability of a few key people to write a check of $100 million without anyone knowing who signed the check or, as a Koch brothers executive claimed, Americans have the right to ``anonymous free speech.'' This bill now would help extend that anonymity to foreign individuals and governments who contribute in violation of our laws. We have a crisis in our campaign system, a crisis. Tens of millions of dollars are being spent without full disclosure. So our constituents know and can make their own judgments about who is influencing our elections. To make matters worse, many of the organizations now doing the spending are organized under our Tax Code as groups allegedly engaged in social welfare activities. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, political spending by such tax-exempt groups at this point in the current election cycle is five times the amount spent at the same point during the 2012 cycle. Spending during the 2012 Presidential election cycle by 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s soared to more than $300 million, up from $100 million in 2008 and just $6 million in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the three largest 501(c)(4) spenders from the 2012 cycle, representing fully 51 percent of the total, have special meaning to this House majority. They include Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which spent $71 million; Americans for Prosperity of the Koch brothers spent $36 million; and the American Future Fund, also the Koch brothers, spent $25 million. It is little wonder that the Koch brothers sent a letter to the Committee on Ways and Means Republicans the morning our committee marked up this bill in April, urging support of this legislation. It seeks to codify the secrecy around donations to social welfare organizations for political purposes. So Republicans are here today to continue their attack on the IRS as they drive, really, to further undermine our campaign finance system. This legislation removes the last safeguard against foreign governments and foreign individuals from influencing our elections. Currently, foreign money cannot legally be given or spent in our elections, and a real protection we have against the use of foreign money by politically active social welfare organizations is that they must disclose their donors to the IRS. This requirement means that tax exempt 501(c)(4) groups know they can be held accountable if they illegally spend foreign money in Federal elections. Thirteen key campaign finance and government transparency groups, including Democracy 21 and Common Cause, have written to Congress strongly opposing this bill. In their letter, they state: ``The . . . bill would open the door wide for secret money from foreign donors to be illegally laundered into Federal elections through 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups . . . House Members should vote against eliminating the existing check against foreign countries, foreign companies, and foreign individuals spending money illegally to influence our elections.'' This legislation would eliminate that protection. The administration opposes this bill. In its Statement of Administration Policy, it states: ``By permanently preventing the IRS from requiring reporting of donor information by 501(c) organizations, H.R. 5053 would constrain the IRS in enforcing tax laws and reduce the transparency of private foundations.'' Therefore, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a truly distinguished member of our committee. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee and chairman of our Caucus.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time is available? How much time do we have, please?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who has worked so hard for so long on this issue. It is a privilege.