Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we should not even be considering this resolution. I repeat, we should not even be considering this resolution. We should be moving forward, not backwards. This resolution is a dangerous distraction from the unprecedented challenge before us. Fourteen million Americans are looking for work. The Census Bureau reported just yesterday that the poverty rate is higher than it's been in 17 years, and median income in this country is at 1996 levels. The President has proposed a jobs bill that one knowledgeable observer, Mark Zandi, estimates would create 1.9 million new jobs and add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year. We need action to spur economic growth and job creation. That's what we should be considering today. Instead, through this resolution, Republicans want to prolong the agony of the debt limit debate and take us back to the brink of default, which would be where we would be if you succeeded. This bill can pass the House only if Members who voted ``yes'' in August on this issue decide in essence to vote ``no'' in September. ``Yes'' in August, ``no'' in September. This Nation wants us to be guided by the needs of the Nation, not the internal politics of a caucus or a conference. We have seen the consequences of that kind of Republican brinkmanship. Standard & Poor's said, in downgrading our credit rating: ``It involved a level of brinkmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year.'' In August, consumer confidence dropped by the largest amount since the peak of the financial crisis in 2008, and the conference board noted a direct link between the fall and the debate over default. I think we need only to check 401(k) statements from August to remember the precipitous drop in the stock market. Were this resolution to become law, all those who speak or vote for it have to understand that the U.S. would default on its obligations for the first time in our history. This would throw our economy back into deep recession, trigger $400 billion in immediate job-destroying cuts, and call into question our ability to pay earned Social Security and Medicare benefits. Madam Speaker, we should not be considering this resolution today. We should be moving forward on the President's plan to jump-start our economy and create jobs for American workers. The American Jobs Act will put more money in workers' pockets through a temporary tax cut, saving the average family $1,500. It would also keep over 6 million workers from losing their unemployment benefits while they continue searching for work and provide new employer incentives to help get them hired. If we don't act on these issues, over a million people will lose their unemployment benefits in January and over 2 million in February. So we need to act. We need to look ahead, not just try to go backwards. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution so we don't waste one more minute on a renewal of Republican brinksmanship. Fourteen million Americans who are looking for a job and 43 million Americans who are living in poverty cannot afford to wait 1 minute longer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman, working together won't work if you undo the work that we did together. I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to another member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. This resolution isn't about a new vision. It's really about blind rage. There may be a new crew in town; but if this were to pass, it would be a wrecking crew because, essentially, we would be back on the edge, once again, of default. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I listened intently, and I don't understand how he could have voted ``yes'' to raise the debt ceiling in August and now, in essence, he's going to vote ``no'' and bring this country back to the brink of chaos. I now yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a very active member of our committee, Mr. Neal.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another active member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel. (Mr. RANGEL 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentleman from New York have any more speakers?

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Very briefly, in one sense this is a meaningless resolution. My guess is that opinion makers in this country and I think abroad will consider it not meaningful, that it's going through the motions. But there is a real danger here, and that is what it says about the dynamics on the majority side. That's the worrisome thing. It isn't that we would slow things down. If this were to pass and become law, indeed, the ceiling would fall. We would go into default very soon. And I guess what this resolution being allowed to be brought up says is that there's a feeling within majority ranks that we have to let some bring this up, and perhaps a lot who voted ``yes'' now in essence vote ``no'' in order to bring some kind of peaceful equilibrium within the ranks of the majority. The problem is that we need to be able to reach across the aisle. Having set up a select committee, it says we need to worry less about the dynamics within our caucus or conference and more about reaching common ground. That's why this exercise isn't meaningless. The danger is that it will become very meaningful and that we will become--this Congress-- essentially handicapped, if not imprisoned, by the inability of the majority on this side to step up to the plate and realize that in order to solve our problems there needs to be a balanced instead of imbalanced approach; that we have to look at revenues as well as spending cuts. That's the significance of this being brought up here. I think all of us need to take another look before we essentially change our votes. And, essentially, it would mean ``signaling.'' It will be still more difficult than the present perilous path to make meaningful our effort to move ahead in this country to address the job needs in this country, and yes, to address the deficit, but mainly or essentially to get our economy growing again. If we don't send that right signal here today, and send the wrong signal, I'm afraid this vote will become too meaningful. I strongly urge that people vote ``no.'' I strongly urge on the Republican side that those who stepped up to the plate last time, step up to the plate this time and not duck for what is essentially an internal political dynamic. The dynamics of this country in terms of jobs and job growth, those dynamics are too essential for partisan internal politics to reign supreme on this floor at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I shall consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2832. Unfortunately, today we are acting to rectify only one wrong in the Republican agenda of disregard for workers and economic recovery. The Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, that we extend today for 22 months should never have been permitted to lapse at the beginning of the year. The Andean Trade Preferences program should also not stand expired. And, importantly, it is inexcusable that the Trade Adjustment Assistance that we improved on a bipartisan basis in 2009 has stood expired since February. The only reason we are considering this legislation today is because House Republicans have been unwilling to support a simple extension of the expanded TAA Program. They have been unwilling to support a program targeted at helping unemployed Americans get back to work, this at a time when more Americans have remained jobless for a longer period than ever recorded in our Nation's history. In FY 2010 alone, more than 227,000 workers took advantage of TAA, receiving assistance such as case management, training, and income support. And there is broad support for the program. I quote just one such evidence, a letter circulated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable in May 2011, which states: ``TAA is as vitally important today as it has been over the years. It helps American businesses get into exporting and is designed to give displaced workers the new skills and resources they need to reenter the 21st century job market. Accordingly, we urge Congress and the administration to find a way forward to ensure that the United States has in place an effective TAA program to support U.S. global economic engagement.'' I support the GSP program and the legislation before us today. That program is an important tool in U.S. trade policy. It is a means by which the U.S. can help developing countries to capture the opportunities and meet the challenges of trade and globalization. One hundred and twenty-nine developing countries participate in GSP and depend on it to spur economic growth. This includes some of the poorest countries in the world. Moreover, GSP benefits Americans. I emphasize that. In fact, the majority of U.S. imports under GSP, approximately 65 to 75 percent, are inputs used to support U.S. manufacturing, including raw materials, parts and components, and machinery and equipment. This program is important enough that it should not have been allowed to lapse, and can now be considered on its own merits. It appears that the prospect is that the Senate will act on GSP by adding TAA. If that is the path for the renewal of TAA, the Republicans have an obligation to ensure that it happens immediately as a primary action. The Republicans often talk about a languishing trade agenda. What has been languishing is action on trade items ready for action--GSP, TAA, ATPA--languishing at the hands of the Republican majority here while action has been underway to address the shortcomings of the Bush trade agreements. I am confident that each of the free trade agreements can be considered on their own merits. Other programs, especially those vital to workers transition during this difficult economy, should never have been held hostage. I would like now to ask that the balance of our time be managed by the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, Jim McDermott of Washington.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, a most distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee for a long time, Mr. Charles Rangel of New York.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. LEVIN. The Republicans in this House have taken this Nation to a dangerous and unnecessary brink. I definitely do not want our Nation to default on its full faith and credit, but I also don't want our Nation to default on our solemn obligations as a Nation, as a community to all of our citizens. That's why we need a balanced approach to keep us on an even keel as we move ahead. This means savings and revenues. So as I vote today as the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, I will keep in mind how we must not let down our citizens who need programs. One example is unemployment insurance. It's set to expire at the end of this year as millions desperately look for work. And I just now have received a report that this year's extension and the next year's extension would cost $45 billion. We need to get those resources. If we're not on a balanced path, we will not be able to address critical needs of our fellow and sister citizens such as unemployment insurance. We need balance to be true to ourselves. I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Dreier, that is pernicious nonsense. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.