Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this short-term bill to extend the FAA authorization for three months and tax revenue for one year gives us more time to negotiate bipartisan reforms that are needed. While I will support this extension, I'm concerned that Republicans are using this bill to buy time for privatization. Let me be clear: we should not privatize the FAA. Privatizing the FAA would put control of our skies in the hands of a private corporation that put profits over passenger safety. It gives that private corporation the power to tax the flying public who have no alternative. It would increase complexity and lead to higher costs for passengers. It would reduce air service to small and rural communities. And it hands a private corporation billions of dollars' worth of taxpayers' property and other assets--free of charge. Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, the US Airways pilot who landed his disabled aircraft on the Hudson River in 2009, agrees. He told POLITICO: ``There ought to be other, better ways to make sure that air traffic control has long-term, consistent funding for capital improvements other than eviscerating access to the air traffic control system for anyone other than airlines.'' I think we can all agree that there are improvements that can and should be made to the FAA, and this bill gives us time to work toward them. But we should not cloak those improvements in a bill that gives up Congress's jurisdiction and harms taxpayers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct my vote from earlier today on rollcall 80, which was the Schrader amendment to H.R. 2017. While my vote was recorded as a ``nay'' it was my intention to vote ``yea.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman said this bill came out with strong support and it is relevant. Now, the vote in the committee--this was many, many months ago--was strictly partisan, and this bill is really a diversion. It was marked up at the same time as that Pay China First Act. Does anybody remember that irresponsible legislation that came to the floor that was passed by the Republicans and died the death legislatively it deserved? So here we are with this bill, part of a two-package bill, that also is going nowhere. It is worse than that, because it is really a diversion, a diversion from what we really should be talking about. It requires the Treasury Department to provide to Congress information on the debt limit that we already receive, distracting from Republicans' repeated recklessness about default and reinforcing the false belief that the debt limit is a tool for managing the debt. House Republicans refused to invite OMB Director Shaun Donovan to Capitol Hill this week to testify on the President's budget--an unprecedented action. We asked this morning in the Ways and Means Committee: Why did neither the House nor the Senate controlled by Republicans invite the OMB Director? Well, the chairman of the Budget Committee was there at the time and said something like: We don't have time. That is really shameful. We are debating this bill together, which would require the Treasury Secretary to provide a report and come testify before Congress on the very debt reduction proposals they are refusing to hear about now, including from the Budget Director. If nothing else, Republicans are proving they are consistent with their inconsistency. If we were to request from Treasury a new report related to the debt limit, it should focus on the dire consequences of default. It should provide detailed information on the veterans who would not get the benefits they earned. It should tell how many doctors and hospitals who treat Medicare patients won't be paid for care they already provided. It should enumerate the Pell grants we will not pay to students who rely on them to pay for college. And it should explain and enumerate the catastrophic consequences of default to our economy. That is the kind of information Congress might need the next time we debate the debt limit if Republicans once again propose default instead of responsible action. Instead, Republicans are insisting on a report that would distract from the danger of default and do nothing to help reduce the debt. If the real goal is debt reduction, as I said, Republicans should welcome OMB Director Donovan to explain the administration's ideas, and then they should sit down with Democrats and take bipartisan action now, as we did during the Clinton administration, when bipartisan legislation generated record budget surpluses. So the Republicans, I guess, are trying to divert the focus from their inability to take action to reduce the deficit and instead blame Treasury and the administration. The administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy. They indicate, if the President were presented with H.R. 3442, his advisers would recommend he veto this bill. Let me close by just saying how unfortunate it is to bring up this effort to obscure the problem instead of acting on legislation that is so badly needed, including addressing inversions that are going on one after another in this country. This, I think, demonstrates the total failure of Republicans to face up to what we are now facing. We should be acting on that instead of this bill. Well, this is going to have the same fate as the Pay China First Act, such a terrible mistake it was. It is going nowhere. It will be strictly partisan. So I say to the Republicans in this House, you talk about common ground; instead you bring forth something that essentially is a sham, and you can't stand together on what is essentially a sham. Mr. Pascrell, a distinguished member of our committee, at this point will control the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished minority, the gentleman who has worked so hard on budgets, for yielding. The majority whip referred to November. We are serving notice in this discussion: We are proud to defend healthcare reform and will do so between now, as we did before, and November. Since health care began, the uninsured rate has declined from 20.3 to 11.4, nearly 18 million people now covered who were before uninsured. Now this has also happened: 137 million Americans have free preventive services. The ACA ends lifetime and annual limits on coverage for 105 million Americans. Also what it does--let me just emphasize this--129 million Americans with preexisting health conditions no longer have to worry about being denied care. I met, last weekend, a woman who had breast cancer. She lost her job and lost health insurance. Because of healthcare reform, she received health insurance. Her breast cancer came back. She looked at us and said to us squarely, one on one, each of us: ``I wouldn't be here except for healthcare reform.'' That is what this is all about. This veto will be sustained. It will be sustained because healthcare reform responded to the needs of millions of Americans. We in the Democratic Party are proud of that and will, from now until November, say so with immense ardor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is reckless and has zero chance of becoming law. But most significantly, it is heartless. What it says from Republicans here to millions, an Unhappy New Year. You could take healthcare insurance away from 22 million people. To them, these 22 million, from Republicans, an Unhappy New Year. It will repeal funding for Medicaid expansion in 30 States and the District of Columbia, leaving 14 million low-income Americans without health care. To those 14 million Americans, from House Republicans, an Unhappy New Year. It would eliminate the tax credits for low-income families and individuals, a key part of what makes ACA affordable. It would eliminate the individual and employer mandates, undermining the patient protections and access measures that helped dramatically reduce the rate of uninsured in this country. The Republicans are also using this bill to continue their ideological obsession with depriving women access to affordable family planning services and lifesaving cancer screenings by defunding Planned Parenthood. This bill deserves not only the veto that is coming, but a ``no'' vote on the floor of this House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats did not include the excise tax when we approved the House version of ACA--it was added later by the Senate. I expressed concern about the impact of this provision from day one, and have worked to raise awareness of the problem. I am pleased with the provision in the budget calling for a two-year delay and voted for the Omnibus bill with this provision. When it comes to reigning in health care cost growth, Democrats don't take a back seat to anybody. Indeed, that is one of the main aims of the healthcare law--one that has already had significant success. But this excise tax will shift costs to employers, who, in turn, will shift more costs to employees, who will not make up for these costs with increased wages. We need to use this two year delay to address this excise tax completely. In our continued efforts to control health costs, we must not harm consumers in the process and must continue to support working families.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill adds $622 billion to the deficit, the vast majority of which is through permanent tax provisions. For those who propose to have the increase in the deficit continue to drive down defense domestic spending, this bill will almost certainly accomplish this. By FY17, nondefense discretionary spending will have already fallen to its lowest level, as a share of the economy, since 1962. These cuts seriously threaten programs that assist the middle class or those who are striving to reach the middle class, programs like Head Start and Pell Grants and those in job training and those in basic health research. For those who want, as they have for years, to make tax breaks permanent so that they will not have to be offset in revenue-neutral tax reform, this bill will help them carry it out, leaving more room to cut taxes for the very wealthy, which they will say will pay for themselves. For those who want to continue tax cuts that were only intended for a specific period, like expensive bonus depreciation, the purpose of which is to ease recovery from the recession and to lose its effectiveness otherwise, this bill will help do that. For those who want to continue international tax proposals, often serving as a loophole and helping to move resources overseas, this bill will help do that. The active financing international tax provision, made permanent in this bill at a cost of $78 billion, and the extension of the CFC look-through provision for 5 years, at a cost of $8 billion, which often promotes tax savings, should be thoroughly reexamined as part of comprehensive tax reform--and the sooner the better. This bill is a piecemeal approach to tax reform. It is the opposite of what was done by former Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, who kept some provisions, who changed some, who ended some, like bonus depreciation, and who paid for his revenue-neutral comprehensive tax reform proposal. These shortcomings must be weighed against the provisions that are important priorities for Democrats--the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and the American opportunity tax credit. But the long-term negative dangers of this legislation make the price too high. Therefore, I oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another very active member of our committee.

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

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

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