Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce in recognition of its 75th anniversary. Beginning in 1934 as a small, localized Chamber, the Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce has grown over the last 75 years to become one of the most innovative business organizations in Oakland County with nearly 300 members, ranging from sole proprietorships to the local offices of Fortune 500 companies. Prior to the incorporation of the City of Ferndale, the first acknowledgement of a ``Board of Commerce'' was made in the minutes of a Village of Ferndale commission meeting in 1918. Comprised of local businessman, known as the Ferndale Boosters, the group worked to promote programs for the betterment of the business community. On May 14, 1936 the ``Ferndale Board of Commerce'' was officially incorporated as a non-profit in the State of Michigan. The organization became the ``Ferndale Chamber of Commerce'' sometime between 1951 and 1965. In 2009, to reflect the growing geographic diversity of its membership, the Board of Directors of the Ferndale Chamber of Commerce voted to change the name to the ``Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce.'' This name change became official in 2010 and is more reflective of the Chamber's current membership, which includes 40 percent non-Ferndale businesses, a large number coming from surrounding communities such as the Oak Park and Pleasant Ridge. As the Chamber notes, many of its goals and ambitions following its creation in 1936 after the Great Depression have been revived as the State of Michigan recovers from its deep recession. As a testament to the Chamber's ability to evolve and strengthen with time, they have partnered with a number of neighboring Chambers to form collaborative relationships that capitalize on the strengths of each Chamber. Today, as in 1936, they are a strong advocate for the betterment of the businesses, communities and residents they serve. The Chamber's mission over the last 75 years has been simple: to support the interests of businesses and the community through dynamic member-driven partnerships and activities. I have witnessed firsthand the success the Chamber has with accomplishing this goal. From morning coffee hours and after hour events for member networking, to educational workshops and large, community-wide events such as the Hilton Fall Festival, the Chamber remains a vital part of the community it serves. As we have all worked together to move Oakland County forward, the Chamber has been on the forefront working with multiple partners across the community toward common goals, such as rapid transit along the Woodward Avenue corridor. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce in recognition of its 75th anniversary and wishing them many more years of effective service to the Oakland County business community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I strongly support the Dingell/Slaughter amendment and urge its adoption by the House. This is not primarily a shipping issue, or a sportsman's issue, or an issue for the environmental community. For me, it's a Great Lakes issue. I believe that all sides of this debate support reasonable and achievable ballast water standards that are protective of our nation's aquatic ecosystems against the spread of invasive species. But we can do better than the standards that have been grafted onto this Coast Guard bill. I represent Lake St. Clair, which is a small but important lake in the Great Lakes system. The lake is heavily used for fishing, boating, and swimming, and it is a source of drinking water for millions. Lake St. Clair is also ground zero for the invasion of zebra mussels in the United States. In the mid-1980s, a ship that had come from a port in Europe dumped its ballast water into Lake St. Clair. From that moment, we have fought a losing battle against the zebra mussels. They have spread throughout the Great Lakes and gone on to invade the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and beyond. The zebra mussels have literally changed the very ecology of the Great Lakes. Millions of dollars are spent each year trying to control them. Unfortunately, the zebra mussels are not an isolated incident. Hundreds of non-indigenous aquatic invaders have made their way into the Great Lakes in the ballast water of ships. At long last, it's time for the United States to adopt strong ballast water discharge standards. It is the failure of the federal government and this Congress to do so that has prompted the states to take action. The proposed ballast water standards in the bill before the House are inadequate and risk further damage to the Great Lakes and other aquatic ecosystems in the United States. I cannot support them. I urge the House to adopt the Dingell/Slaughter amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I'm glad we're having this debate. This bill isn't basically a jobs bill, and it puts a Halloween mask on it to say that's what it is, basically. The gentleman from California talks about manufacturing. The President struggled to save the automobile sector, the domestic sector of this country, over the opposition of many Republicans, including who is now apparently the leading nominee for the Republican Presidential nomination. If we really want to talk about jobs, what we should do is to turn down the previous question on this bill so we can bring up the currency bill. This will put Republicans to the test on a real jobs bill. The estimate is, by Fred Bergsten, that passage of legislation like this changing the Chinese undervaluation of their currency would create a million jobs. No one in authority has said this bill will create any jobs. And Paul Krugman, his estimate is 1.5 million jobs. And you talk about bipartisanship? This currency bill is truly bipartisan. So it will also put to the test whether you believe in bipartisanship when it comes to a real jobs bill. This bill, H.R. 639, now has 230 sponsors, a majority in the House of Representatives, and it has 62 Republicans, and it passed the Senate, a similar, though not identical bill, with strong Republican support. So this previous question, everyone who votes, will put you to the test. Do you believe in a real jobs bill? It won't destroy the bill on the floor. It will add to it. And also, do you really want to not only have bipartisan action, but on a currency bill that will really mean hundreds of thousands of jobs to the American people? Not 6 months from now, as this bill before us might bring about a few, but right in the immediate future, tens of thousands. So I strongly urge that we vote ``no'' on the previous question and free the majority of the Members of this House to act on a bill that they now sponsor. Free us. Take off the bonds.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. In closing, I support this legislation. It should not have been passed in the first place. It was not vetted effectively by the then majority. It's time. We tried before. It's time to now support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill. It should have happened earlier. I think most of us, if not all of us, agree that this provision should be repealed. It is not narrowly targeted, and it would indeed impose significant and costly burdens on Federal, State, and local governments. I think we should all remind ourselves it was passed some years ago; and it was, I think, misguided when it was enacted in 2006 when we in the minority here did not control the Congress. Indeed, the Ways and Means Committee when we were in the majority approved a repeal of the provision in 2009, and the Congress ultimately delayed its effective date. I do want to comment on the title of this bill that refers to job creation, and it should be noted that this is really not going to address the need for creation of jobs in our country. We have been here now 10 months. There is still no effort by the majority here in the House to bring up any meaningful jobs legislation; and when the President brings up proposals to create jobs, they are thwarted by the majority here and by the Republicans in the Senate. So let's support this bill but not pretend that it will create jobs; and in this respect I refer to a recent statement by Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's Analytics who said this about this bill: ``I don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. It's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up.'' Indeed, this needs to be cleaned up. Therefore, we need to pass it. Let me also comment on--and we'll talk about this later on the second bill--the pay-for. I went before the Rules Committee to ask that there be consideration of a different pay-for, what we'll be considering later. I just want everybody to understand the facts, and each can judge on his or her own how they'll vote. The impact of the pay-for that came through the Ways and Means Committee could cause up to 500,000 individuals to lose health care coverage. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have offset the cost of a business tax provision by closing a loophole on the business side that's improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry giants. Unfortunately, my amendment was ruled out of order. We'll talk about that later. We're now on this bill. I urge its support. Let's not pretend it's a job creation bill. Let's get busy here on bills that will indeed help to promote jobs in the private sector of the United States of America, as our President has proposed and he has pleaded that there be consideration by the House and the Senate, only to be responded to with deaf ears. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is a lead sponsor of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a most active member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Crowley, from the State of New York.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Does the majority have additional speakers? If so, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Is the majority ready to close?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York, and then I will close.

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

Mr. LEVIN. First of all, I'm glad that the majority leader came to the floor to talk about jobs. This set of bills is not a jobs bill. To call it that is a pure smoke screen. I quoted Mark Zandi before: ``I don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. It's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up.'' That's the 3 percent withholding bill. The Majority Leader called upon the Senate to act, to act on bills that essentially would allow mercury to continue to be accessible. And other bills that are called jobs bills, deregulation where it's necessary to regulate, that's a jobs bill? And the Majority Leader called again on the Senate to act. We haven't had a single hearing here in the House on the President's jobs bill. Not a single hearing. The President has proposed to cut the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of the businesses. A complete payroll tax holiday for adding workers; extending 100 percent expensing, not a single hearing on that. Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, not a single hearing on that. Don't call on the Senate. The majority leader should call on the House himself and the committees to hold hearings on these bills. The infrastructure bill, a bipartisan national infrastructure bank, not a single hearing. And then unemployment insurance, at the end of this year, in next month, a million people will lose their unemployment benefits if we don't act and extend the Federal program; and a million and a half by mid-February. So I call upon the House to act. A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring the long-term unemployed, not a single hearing. No action. I suggest to the majority they not look to the other body, but to look to themselves. So I'm glad the Majority Leader came here. Now, I want to say just a word about the bill right before us. Mr. Crowley has suggested that we look at the facts, and I think we should. Before we vote, I think all of us want to know what we're voting on. And essentially this revision of the modified adjusted gross income provision in terms of potential impact on health care, according to the Joint Tax Committee and the CBO, will likely have this effect, and I want everybody to understand it: between 500,000 and a million individuals will no longer be eligible for Medicaid. That's their estimate. Of those who no longer are eligible for Medicaid, about 500,000 will be eligible for tax credits unless the Republicans ever succeeded in eliminating them. But of that additional number, between 500,000 and a million, about 500,000 people as a result, if this bill becomes law, will likely lose their health coverage altogether unless they had available to them insurance through their employer. That's the estimate of the Joint Tax Committee. We're talking about vulnerable populations here. We're talking about early retirees, and we're talking about the disabled. And we need to understand those facts as presented by the Joint Tax Committee and by CBO. A second problem here is that essentially we're using a provision relating to health to address a business tax problem. It is a problem for the government and for the business community in the 3 percent withholding provision which we should repeal. But we should understand the implications. The Ways and Means Committee has traditionally said don't do it that way. Let's also remember that we're going to have before us a provision relating to physician reimbursement rates in Medicare, and we're going to have to find the funds to pay for it. And essentially what would be doing now is to use up a provision that impacts health and lose the possibility of using it in terms of improving health programs, such as reimbursement. The last point I want to make is we tried to present an alternative, an alternative within business taxation. It relates to the taxation of the oil and gas industry. Mr. Blumenauer earlier talked about things that were kind of done in the dark of night and this provision, the 3 percent, if it wasn't the dark of night, it wasn't fully in the daylight. But the oil and gas provision in section 199 was added, indeed, in the dark of night. It provided some tax benefits to the oil and gas industry in a bill that related to manufacturing when oil and gas did not fall within that purview. And it was essentially put in in the dark of night, and it would be much preferable to address that issue and pay for the bill that needs to pass rather than essentially starting on a path that Mr. Crowley has described that, according to CBO and the Joint Tax Committee, is likely to lead up to half a million people having no health coverage at all. Everybody should understand that price, and then everybody can make up their own mind, but they should understand what's involved here. This is not a technical change. It isn't a glitch. It is a tax definition, by the way, as Mr. Crowley has pointed out; and it also applies to other areas where I think we need to be very careful in terms of its application. So those are the facts and everybody can make up their own mind. But let's not pretend this is a jobs bill when the majority here has essentially had a deaf ear to bringing up the jobs bill presented by the President. And let's not pretend that this will have no impact on health insurance and health coverage for lots of people who are the early retirees and the disabled. These, by and large, are not wealthy people. And there are examples given that are true in the extreme. But for the mainstream in this country, the early retirees and the disabled, they're not on the fringes in terms of income, in terms of wealth. These are the facts. I hope as everybody comes to vote on this bill-- this second bill--they will look at the facts and make up their own mind. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the enduring beliefs of life in America is that a person can rise through the ranks and achieve success through a combination of hard work, determination, and honesty. This link between hard work and success is one of our country's core values, and appropriately so. Our country is a better place because of the efforts of those who quietly go to work every day, meet the challenges of their jobs, and exceed expectations. These qualities are not uncommon among the men and women who serve in our nation's Armed Forces, but it's not every day that you can point to someone who has lived up to these standards over a career that spans nearly seven decades. I am pleased to recognize a man who has done just that, John Bruce of Troy, Michigan. Mr. Bruce served in the South Pacific during World War II as a member of the Army Signal Corps. After being honorably discharged following the war, he began a career at the Detroit Arsenal in 1946 as a cost/ price analyst. Mr. Bruce has been with TACOM ever since, accepting greater and greater responsibilities. He has served as Chief of Payroll, Chief of Financial Accounting, Deputy Comptroller, and Chief of the Detroit Arsenal Procurement Office, to name only a few of the positions he has held over the years. Mr. Bruce has been honored on many occasions for his service. His awards include the Secretary of the Army Award for outstanding achievement in material acquisition; the Commanders Award for exceptional Civilian Service, the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Achievement Medal for Superior Civilian Service, the Superior Civilian Service Award, the Commander's Award for Civilian Service, and the Department of the Army Decoration for Exceptional Service. Mr. Bruce is a graduate of UCLA, where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration. He and his late wife, Jean, have two daughters, Nancy and Barbara. When John Bruce retires on his 94th birthday on December 3, he will be TACOM's and the Army's longest serving employee. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Bruce for his many years of service to the nation. Congratulations for a remarkable career and a job well done.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a very active member of our committee from the great State of Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. First, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)