Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I have been here almost 29 years. This is a disgraceful moment. This country wants compromise. What you're doing with this bill is to undermine the chances of compromise. That's what you're doing. You're trying to throw a monkey wrench in the Reid bill before it can even leave the station. That's what you're doing. You're trying to make sure that the Senate cannot work its will. Why isn't this bill being brought up? Because Senator Reid wants to sit down with Senate Republicans and work out a compromise, and you're bringing up this bill to make sure that this will never happen. This is a disgraceful moment, Mr. Dreier. It is a disgraceful moment.

Mr. LEVIN. No.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Dreier, you have already spoken. What you are doing here is----

Mr. LEVIN. Look, Mr. Dreier, it is very clear what you are doing here. Mr. Reid wants to sit down and work with Mr. McConnell. What you are trying to do is to make sure that a signal is sent to the Senate, don't bother.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman from California has been talking about moving the process forward. It does not move the process forward to pass a bill that's dead before arrival in the Senate. It doesn't move the process forward to pass a bill that is even more partisan than the one yesterday. You know, the country has to be wondering, we are 1 day closer to default and, indeed, one step backwards. The Republicans are trying to squeeze out a majority here, and what they are doing is inserting a provision that requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the House, and that's completely a nonstarter. The American public is looking for a solution, not a stalemate, and the House Republicans have become the party of gridlock. Passing this only increases it. It's a move backwards, maybe to protect your flank, but not to protect America.

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. You know, as I've been listening to this debate, I think it's critical that the House needs some truth in speaking. This bill is not bipartisan. The vote will soon show that. This bill is not a compromise. It does not seek bipartisan common ground. Indeed, it is orchestrated only to find enough common ground among House Republican partisans. This bill does not reflect compromise. It would compromise, indeed, Medicare and Social Security. It forces massive cuts, consistent with the ideological Republican budget that was unanimously opposed by Democrats. This bill does not promote certainty for our Nation's economy. Instead, it brings more uncertainty for families facing major financial decisions, for businesses deciding whether to invest or hire, for markets unsure when the next shoe might drop. This bill is not balanced. Instead, it embraces the Republicans's one-dimensional mantra just again expressed by the chairman of our committee: no end to unjustified tax loopholes or to tax breaks for the very wealthiest, even as so many middle class families have been losing ground. In a few words, our Nation's economy and jobs are too much to risk on a bill that is a bridge to nowhere between our two Houses. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Could I inquire of our time, please.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great State of California, Xavier Becerra.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is a member of our committee and the chair of our caucus.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. LEVIN. In a few words, what is endeavored here is an abdication of responsibility. This bill is going nowhere. It tries to bind the wounds of a divided Republican caucus. We should do better. We'll have to do better. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. In this bill the Republicans are trying to repeal the second half of the 20th century. We've spent decades trying to knit a truly American fabric around a strengthened middle class. It's a fabric that holds, at its core, retirement security, health care through Medicare and Medicaid, and educational benefits for all through programs such as Pell Grants. For Republicans, the purpose of this measure is to appeal to their base. But in so doing, they are debasing what we have built over the last half century. And it could not come at a worse time for this country. Republicans say they are dedicated to the markets, but they are essentially now saying, financial markets be damned. As one analyst put it yesterday, ``The closer we get to this August deadline, the more anxious investors become.'' One anonymous Republican told Politico yesterday, and I quote, ``I'm embarrassed to be a Republican. These guys don't understand capital markets. This isn't about who wins an election. This is about whether people are going to be able to finance a home.'' It was 46 years ago this month that President Johnson signed Medicare into law. Yet, this measure doubles down on the Ryan budget proposal that, itself, would end Medicare. Retirees would see, at the very least, a 10 percent cut in their Social Security plans. Nursing home care, which makes up half of Medicaid expenditures, would be slashed. And that is not alone. The devastating cuts to endless programs, such as grants for higher education that have been vital in creating opportunity and building a strong American middle class. More than 14 million Americans today remain jobless. But instead of using their new House majority to pursue a jobs agenda, it has come to this. Nearly 7 months after they assumed the majority, instead of promoting growth, encouraging job creation, and reinforcing the economic recovery, Republicans have been bringing about uncertainty. We must, indeed, confront the deficit, but not as the Republicans now propose, tearing apart what has helped create the fabric of the American middle class.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before the House today. The authors of this bill call it ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,'' but this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with clean water. A better name for this bill is ``The Dirty Water Act.'' In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio--one of the tributaries of the Great Lakes--caught fire, and became a symbol of everything that was wrong with the patchwork system of state water laws that existed at the time. Water pollution does not respect state boundaries and that patchwork of poorly enforced state laws nearly killed the Great Lakes and resulted in rivers and streams that were unfit to swim and fish in. In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and replaced the state patchwork approach with a national system of water quality standards. The Clean Water Act has worked. Over the last four decades, we've made real progress in reducing water pollution and are well on the way to meeting the Act's goals of making our nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. In my own District in Southeast Michigan, we've seen extraordinary progress in reducing water pollution. As just one example, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Clinton River was extraordinarily polluted. The River was dying and the beaches downstream on Lake St. Clair were unsafe for swimming. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and the work of many people at the local level, the Clinton River is making a comeback. Pollution is being steadily reduced. Fish are returning, and the river is once again becoming a recreational asset to the communities along its banks. There is more work to do, but the progress is there for all to see. The bill before the House goes in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of building on the Clean Water Act, this legislation takes us backwards to the bad old days when there was a patchwork of state water laws and little enforcement when state standards fell short. In particular, the bill would make it harder to take action against emerging threats to waterways. For example, for a number of years now, a large dead zone has formed each summer in Lake Erie. The problem appears to be getting worse and it is not yet clear what steps will be necessary to combat it. Even now it is evident that we will need a coordinated plan of action involving many states, but this legislation will make taking concerted action that much more difficult. I urge defeat of this bad bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the city of Center Line, Michigan, as it celebrates its 75th anniversary of being incorporated as a city this weekend. The city of Center Line is located north of Detroit in Macomb County and was incorporated in 1936. The city has a rich heritage, and is known as a warm, family-oriented and tight-knit community. Residents have always prided themselves on maintaining the community's distinct identity and small-town feel. After 75 years of growth and change, that local spirit remains embodied in the city. The area incorporated as a village in 1925 and transitioned to cityhood in 1936. The Center Line name derives from the center of three Native American trails named by the French that led north from Detroit to other trading posts. The middle trail, known as the ``Centre Line,'' became the main road used by early settlers travelling between the cities of Detroit and Utica. It became known as Center Line Road, and today is Sherwood Avenue. The ``center'' of town became Van Dyke Avenue after construction of St. Clement Catholic Church in 1854. St. Clement has been one of the defining landmarks of the city. In addition to the many Catholic families that settled in Center Line, a large number of the residents that migrated from Detroit to settle in Center Line are of French, German, Belgium and Irish descent. These close-knit families have lived in the city their whole lives, many now going on the three generations. The city of Center Line embodies the American dream: Hard-working, middle class families, many of whom worked their way up the economic ladder through employment in the domestic auto industry and also serving honorably in our country's armed services. As the city of Center Line commemorates this milestone, I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating its residents, elected officials, and businesses as they celebrate their history, preserve their rich local heritage, and look forward to growth and prosperity in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. We should learn from the past. There are indeed times when American national interests should overtake political or partisan political interests. I remember the debate on Kosova 12 years ago. Congress refused to authorize American action by a split vote. That was a tragic mistake. House Republican leadership opposed that resolution: 187 noes against 31 yeses. I believe it was clear then that Republicans would not have opposed the Kosova resolution, at least in those numbers, if George Bush had been President. Today, there are echoes from Kosova on this Libyan resolution. The Republicans should not make the same mistake again. We should join together to support the Hastings' resolution that's consistent with the War Powers Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong objection to the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The bill before us is simply inadequate. While there is little disagreement that we must reach agreement on a balanced framework to reduce our deficit, we cannot do so by quite literally taking food from the mouths of children. This hinders our long term prosperity, and it is simply wrong. In expressing serious concerns about this bill, the Administration's statement on this bill says: ``The Administration strongly objects to the level of funding provided for nutrition programs that are critical to the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants, children, and elderly adults. The proposed funding levels would led to hundreds of thousands of participants being cut from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and reduce Federal support for food banks. These cuts would undermine efforts to prevent hunger and support sound nutrition for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.'' The human impact of the bill would be devastating. Hundreds of thousands of low-income children, mothers and seniors would lose WIC assistance. The National Commodity Supplemental Food program estimates that more than one hundred thousand low-income seniors would lose access to nutritious food assistance. Feeding America estimates that approximately 32 million pounds of nutritious food would not be available at food banks and food pantries for working Americans struggling to feed their families. I want to say a word in particular about CSFP. This program is a vital component of our nutrition efforts because it reaches many seniors who qualify for no other program while providing delivery for those that are homebound. CSFP provides 600,000 food packages each month in 39 states and the District of Columbia, including seven new states as a direct result of increased funding in Fiscal Year 2010. This year 97 percent of the participants are elderly individuals with an income at or below $14,157. Food packages are designed to supplement needed sources of nutrients typically lacking in participants' diets, and are delivered through local providers in a very cost efficient manner: the typical food package has a retail value up to $50 but costs the Federal governments less than $20 per participant package. Earlier this year, a number of us wrote to the Appropriations Committee requesting that funding for CSFP simply be held at the 2011 level of $176.8 million. Not an increase, though there is certainly greater need, just level funding. Instead, the Committee cut CSFP by more than 20 percent. As a result, if these cuts become law, more than 100,000 low-income seniors will be at greater risk of hunger. Madam Chair, this bill represents the wrong priorities. Under the guise of deficit reduction, of which it does very little, it imposes harmful cuts on the most vulnerable among us. I urge all of my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. This is indeed an open rule in the sense it's so open that if you vote for the rule, you're voting to end Medicare. Republicans have done this once. If you vote for this, you're going to do it twice. And the gentleman who is handling this for the majority earlier talked about Medicare and said the Republicans are trying to save it. You don't save something by ending it. Purely and simply. And to come to this floor and say you're saving it when you're ending it, that kind of talk is a big lie. We heard this with Social Security some years ago when the effort to privatize it was said to be an effort to save it. The public caught on. And the public said no. The public has now said ``no'' to ending Medicare. But, essentially, you're tone deaf. Now, you're doubling down on your plan to end it, a plan that would force seniors to pay twice as much for their health care, a plan that increases seniors' drug costs, and a plan that puts insurance companies in charge of seniors' health care.

Mr. LEVIN. I will finish. So instead of a bipartisan effort to save it, by this rule you are essentially deeming the budget that you passed that ended Medicare, period. So don't come and say you're saviors when you're eliminating a program. Stand up and be honest and say you want to replace it with something else. That something else is not Medicare. It's turning it over to the private insurance industry and saying to seniors who become eligible, who would be, instead, you are going to see double your costs. That's not forthright. If you vote ``yes'' on the rule, you are the second time voting to end Medicare. Announcement by the Speaker

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Bringing up this bill in this fashion is a ploy so egregious the Republicans have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery. If Republicans were being truthful, they'd admit they're looking for political cover. But in their doing so, they risk blowing a hole in our Nation's economy. They'd acknowledged that their timing is an effort to change the subject less than a week after their plan to end Medicare was dealt a major setback by voters in a New York special election whose democratic winner will be sworn in tomorrow. To act in good faith to solve our Nation's fiscal problems, the Republicans should focus not on this ploy but on the budget negotiations being led by the Vice President. Our Nation's debt is indeed a problem that requires serious solutions--not ploys that risk another global financial crisis. I reserve the balance of my time.