Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Now it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ to the gentlewoman from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

Mr. LEVIN. I now have the privilege of yielding 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) a member of the committee.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion.

Mr. LEVIN. I object.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LEVIN. Well, I guess here we start. You know, what's interesting here is the following: Mr. Camp says that they pay for the small business provisions. They're already paid for in this bill. And so how inconsistent can he be? He wants to continue to pay for them when they're already paid for, but he intends to vote against the bill. That is the height of inconsistency, and I think that's a reason to object, even if this turns out to be a motion to recommit that's in order. And then let me just talk a bit about Black Liquor so we know what's going on. Talking about inconsistency, that's a charitable word. The Black Liquor provision is now in the health bill in the Senate, awaiting action. You know precisely that. So what you're now suggesting is, take it out of that bill that's being considered in reconciliation, and put it in here, and you're claiming you're paying for it. ``Inconsistency'' is charitable. There could be other words used for that, including the unwillingness of the minority to face up to the need to pay for bills. We pay for the bill that is now before us. We pay for the bill in ways that are more than defensible; they are necessary. And so a reason to object to this on its substance is that, essentially, this approach here is a sleight of hand. I suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that you walk over to the Senate, ask them what's in reconciliation. It's not a very long distance from here. Just walk over there and whisper to the majority leader, or, if you want, you can whisper to the minority leader, is Black Liquor in the bill that's over there that is now being considered under reconciliation? And I think both of them will tell you it is. So, essentially, what you're saying is we want to take something out of the bill that is being considered under reconciliation and claim to be paying for the small business provisions that you're going to vote against. Now, my suggestion is that nobody is going to be fooled by that; and that what you ought to be doing is to tackle these issues straight on, and also to tackle the pay-for straight on and not pretend that you're paying for something when you're not. So I don't know what's worse, the majority, the then-majority, now the minority, having refused to pay for bills that came through here year after year, bills that came before the Ways and Means Committee that you never dreamed of paying for, whether that's worse than what you're now doing. I guess they're both as bad. Yet what you're now doing is saying, well, we'll pay with something that's in a bill that's in the Senate that's soon going to become law. Point of Order

Mr. LEVIN. So as a result, not only do I think that that motion to recommit deserves to be defeated on its substance, but I now want to press my point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in fiscal year 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

Mr. LEVIN. You want me to restate it? You're getting more notice on the restatement than you gave to us on your motion to recommit. I'll be glad to repeat it once or twice. I make a point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in FY 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

Mr. LEVIN. If I could speak briefly.

Mr. LEVIN. It makes a change. That's all that's necessary to violate section 303. I ask that the point of order be upheld.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, if I could respond briefly.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I think that trying to do this through a motion to recommit is inappropriate. And I suggest that before they bring up motions to recommit, that they very much should look at what the rules of the House are. Therefore, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been much consultation, and I now withdraw the point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. I have withdrawn the point of order after there has been consultation with the parliamentarian, and so now we are back to the substance of the motion to recommit. I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we passed. And also, what it does by a trick of hand is to pretend to pay for this motion to recommit by taking a provision that is in the bill that is now in the Senate, subject to reconciliation, and that I trust will pass fairly soon. That is reason enough. I don't think it is appropriate for this body to vote for a motion to recommit pretending it is paying for it by taking a provision that we have included in a bill that we have passed and now is in the Senate for its consideration. So I would urge every single Member on the majority side to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Chair of our caucus, the very distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 additional seconds. Republicans have turned their back on the problems. Some of them have taken to saying health care reform makes us a different Nation; quite the opposite. Today, in the tradition of America, we will pass health care reform, and it will make our beloved America a still better Nation.

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