Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. Carbon fiber, which is a very lightweight material, is sturdier, less susceptible to corrosion, and more durable than steel. The Michigan DOT has constructed a bridge featuring carbon fiber technology in 2001, and is planning to build 3 more bridges in the next two years. The use of carbon fibers and a new ultra high strength concrete could result in a 100-year sustainable bridge. The institution pioneering this technology is Lawrence Technological University, which is located in my district, but is very much a regional asset in southeast Michigan. This amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to study the costs and benefits of using carbon fiber composite materials in bridge projects and report back to Congress within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This will allow us to review those findings in time for next year's reauthorization of federal transportation programs. Madam Chairman, using advanced technologies like carbon fiber in bridge construction is a classic investment decision: if we pay a bit more today, we can save money ``down the road'' on maintenance and repairs. A cost-benefit analysis of this investment from the Department of Transportation will help us determine how good an investment this will be, and I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make the following changes in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 3890 that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to join me in voting to override the President's veto of the ``Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.'' A vote to override the President's veto of this bill is a vote in support of our seniors and their doctors. It is a vote in support of people who have worked hard, who have contributed, who have earned the best health care available to them at this stage of their lives. It is a vote that sends a clear message that politics should not get in the way of their access to the care they deserve. H.R. 6331 prevents a pending 10 percent reduction in the payments physicians receive for treating Medicare patients. The bill also allows for the expansion of preventive care services under Medicare, reforms the pharmacy payment process for the benefit of our small community pharmacies, and delays and repairs a flawed competitive bidding process for durable medical equipment. We must continue a vigorous effort to ensure that Medicare remains strong for all of the Nation's citizens. This bill honors that commitment without delaying difficult decisions about Medicare's funding future; it is fully paid for. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the veto override.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall votes 471, 472 and 473. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 471 to authorize the Preserve America Program and Save America's Treasures Program; ``yea'' on rollcall 472 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease a portion of a visitor center to be constructed outside the boundary of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore; and ``yea'' on rollcall 473 to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the AMT Relief Act. Once again, we are considering a one-year ``patch'' for the AMT. This bill will protect over 25 million families who would otherwise be forced to pay higher taxes under the AMT through no fault of their own. We all know that the AMT was never meant to apply to middle-class families, and I think we all agree that we need to find a permanent fix to this problem. But once again, the minority wants to insist that we provide this tax relief in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Patching the AMT for 2008 without offsets would increase the deficit by $61 billion. Our colleagues in the minority will argue that because Congress never meant for this to happen, or that because it maintains the status quo for taxpayers, we don't have to pay for it. The reality is that we pay for it one way or another. The minority would have us borrow the money and make our children pay for it. Let me say a word about the offsets we've used here, because this bill is paid for with provisions that end basic inequities in our tax code. The Joint Committee on Taxation's revenue estimate for the carried interest provision indicates that over $150 billion in income will be taxed at capital gains rates rather than ordinary income rates if we do not make this change. This is a lot of income, and according to the Joint Committee, this is not going to ``mom and pop'' operations, a common reference by those arguing against this provision. For anyone who thinks there are ``mom and pop'' private equity funds, or that this is essentially about ``mom and pop'' real estate developers, let me quote the Joint Committee on Taxation. In a memo to the Ways and Means Committee staff, the Joint Committee writes: ``We assumed that nearly all recipients [of carried interest] would be at the highest marginal tax rate.'' The top tax bracket for married couples starts at $357,000 in taxable income. Claims made that the carried interest issue is about ``mom and pop'' business owners just are not credible. More generally though, treating carried interest as ordinary income is not about raising taxes, it's about fairness. Investment fund managers should not pay a lower tax rate on their compensation for services than other Americans. The only thing this does is say to the fund managers, if you're providing a service, in this case managing assets for your investors, you ought to be taxed on that compensation at the same rates as everyone else. If they have their own money in the funds they manage, they will still get capital gains treatment on that portion of the profits. This is no different in concept than options for corporate executives. They are both incentive compensation to encourage performance, and carried interest should be taxed at ordinary rates like stock options. The argument that this proposal will hurt economic growth or even pension plans is just disingenuous. If it will hurt growth, why have senior economic advisers to the last three Republican Presidents publicly supported this proposal? Real estate partnerships, including those that don't use carried interest at all, earn less than 10 percent of all income from real estate development and construction. Regarding the oil and gas provisions, I think it's important to look at the history of how these companies got these subsidies in the first place. In 2004 we had to replace the FSC provisions of our tax code because of a WTO ruling. We replaced them with a deduction to encourage domestic manufacturing. The minority, then in the majority, added the oil and gas industries to what was supposd to be a deduction for manufacturers, even though the FSC provisions we were replacing had nothing to do with oil and gas. This was an unjustified giveaway then, and it is only fair that we correct the situation, especially now that oil companies are earning record profits. ExxonMobil alone earned $40.6 billion in 2007, a U.S. corporate record. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill protects middle-class families from the AMT, it's fiscally responsible and it makes our tax code fairer. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I appreciate the hard work that Mr. Hoyer and others have done on this legislation. The bill before the House is a vast improvement over the administration's Protect America Act, which I strongly opposed last August. The legislation is also a significant improvement over the seriously flawed FISA legislation approved by the Senate earlier this year. In many respects, the bill before the House strikes a reasonable balance between giving the Government the tools it needs to protect U.S. national security and protecting Americans' constitutional rights. In particular, I am pleased that the bill reaffirms that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive legal means by which the Government may conduct surveillance. This stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. I also support the provisions of this bill that protect Americans traveling abroad. They need no longer leave their constitutional protections at home. At the end of the day, I oppose this bill because of the provisions that would confer retroactive immunity on the telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. We are a nation of laws, and it sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to approve a law that dismisses ongoing court cases simply on the basis that the companies can show that the administration told them that its warrantless surveillance program was legal. A program is not legal just because the administration claims that it is. The retroactive immunity provisions in this bill shield the administration from accountability for its actions. The goal here is not to harm the telecommunications carriers, but rather to get to the truth of what happened. A much better alternative would be to grant indemnification to the companies and go forward with the trials. Irrespective of the outcome of today's vote, we need a full accounting of the administration's surveillance program, and the bill before the House provides for an Inspectors General audit describing all Federal programs involving warrantless surveillance conducted since September 11, 2001. The audit is to be completed within 1 year. Congress must get to the bottom of what happened and prevent it from happening again. It is essential that Congress follow up on the audit's findings with robust oversight.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for yielding. Thank you to the Rules Committee, and to you, Mr. Obey, who has been more than a stalwart central figure in this whole effort. And as I'm going to say, there are hundreds of thousands of people who will say to you, thank you, because today the voices of over one million people who have not been heard enough on this floor are finally being listened to with a much-needed extension of unemployment benefits. Some have written us the most persuasive letters about being unemployed, often for the first time, sending out hundreds of resumes, losing their health care, and having difficulty making ends meet. They have not marched on Washington. They have individually been in their communities looking for work. But if they did form a line, these million plus and those who've exhausted their benefits, by estimation, it would extend from this Capitol to Denver, Colorado. I asked the State of Michigan to provide me information on individuals who have exhausted their benefits just yesterday, and we have the figures now. They come from the broadest range of occupations--sales, health care, production, management, financial operations. I would suggest that each Member do the same, because once you look at the data, you will have no doubt that we are doing the right thing today. Today is a victory for more than one million of our citizens and an additional 2.5 million estimated to exhaust their benefits. This is a vital first step, and we will be ready to fight to sustain this program for people who continue to be unemployed through no fault of their own in a truly difficult job market.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I guess 1 more minute if I might.

Mr. LEVIN. If you counted the people who are now exhausting their benefits, or have, and those who are likely, it would reach, the line, from here, this Capitol to Denver. So don't talk about energy policy. We have to face up to that. Don't talk about trade policy. We have to face up to that. Talk about the lives in the homes of over a million people. I just hope that, you withheld, or there were withheld the three votes necessary to get to two-thirds yesterday. I know the maneuvers on this floor. But essentially, they're obeying the position, if not the orders, from the White House instead of the orders from the people at home. I urge strong support of this. I urge that we pass it with even more votes than was passed last time and send it to the Senate so we can get this job done.

Mr. LEVIN. I asked the gentleman from Illinois how he would respond to people in certain areas. I don't know how you do that. I asked the gentleman, and I didn't mean to get personal really, but just to raise the issue poignantly. If you're from the State of Washington, as he is, and there's higher unemployment than 6 percent in Yakima, how do you say to the people there, you don't get the extension, while people in other States receive it. It is simply not-- --

Mr. LEVIN. I think the more we discuss this, the clearer the issue becomes, including the last statement that we heard. There's no disagreement about the need for growth policies. But to say that, and use it as an excuse not to provide extended unemployment benefits is really indefensible. You can't say to people who have been out of work for 26 weeks, who are there through no fault of their own, and who must be looking for work, that because of the absence of growth policies they should, essentially, be out in the cold. That's close to a cold-blooded approach to this issue. And, if you mention States like Iowa, look, in some States, if there's a surplus, people who are out of work, in most cases, if they're looking for work, and they must, will find other work. But it makes no sense to take the position of the administration, and that's what the gentleman from California, essentially, was reflecting, where they say that historically, the unemployment rate has had to be at a certain level in order for Unemployment Compensation to be extended. And there was, they say, an exception after September 11, 2001. It's really hard to fathom who people would use 2001, September 11, as an excuse not to extend benefits. The unemployment rate when President Bush signed the extension was 5.7. It's now 5.5. And essentially, what you're saying is we're going to deny benefits to well over a million, with 3 million more likely to come, because of a difference of \2/10\ of 1 percent. And then you say you want it to be targeted. But, as we pointed out, the data vary from month to month. One month it's 100 metropolitan areas with unemployment rates over 6 percent. More recently, it's been 65 or 66. It will probably go up. How do you, in good conscience, stand before people in those areas and say no? I mentioned to the gentleman from Illinois----

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me just take back my time. Look, the position, that hasn't been the position of the administration. It's used the 6 percent level. That's what they're talking about here. And you have to go home and explain to the areas, I mentioned three in Illinois, because the State isn't above a certain level, but areas are, you don't get it, while people who are in a State like Michigan with over 6 percent, everybody does. But the trouble is, everybody counts in this country. Everybody who's out of work 26 weeks, through no fault of their own, and looking for work, they have to be looking for work. I read these letters from people in Michigan, and I just say this: Just read letters from people in your State. No longer can you go to unemployment offices in most States, because they're not there, so people aren't in line. But they're in line in this country. As I said, if you're counted----

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I understand that.

Mr. LEVIN. Taking back my time. The 2-week window, you talk about, 26 additional weeks, 52 weeks. You can't give a single example.

Mr. LEVIN. If I have the time. Will you grant me a little time?

Mr. LEVIN. To the Chair, to the gentleman from Illinois, in Michigan, you have to work two quarters to be eligible. The 1-week example is a straw man and woman example. Let's be faithful to the reality here.

Mr. LEVIN. And you raise a straw man and woman when we're talking about real men and women who have been laid off, who've been looking for a job, who can't find it. And you come here with these straw arguments. You go home to Yakima. Others of you go back to Pennsylvania and other States, and talk to the hundreds of thousands of people looking for work and say to them, I voted ``no.'' That's unconscionable. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Washington.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me say to the gentleman from California who talked about our trying to embarrass the Republicans, we're not trying to embarrass you. You're embarrassing yourselves. You come here when we're talking about 8 million unemployed, 1\1/2\ million who have exhausted their benefits, and soon it will be an additional 3 million, and you come here and talk about energy policy? You won't provide unemployment comp benefits so people can buy the gas to look for a job? You talk about trade policy. Look, the jobless numbers came out this morning. Jobless claims jumped to the highest level since last March. Those claims rose to 384,000, an increase of 25,000 from the previous week, a much bigger gain than analysts had been expecting. And you quote the administration policy. Mr. Hastings, under the administration policy, unemployed in Yakima would not be eligible for extended benefits because Washington, as a State, has less than 6 percent. How can you come here? Go home, if I might be personal for just a minute. Go home and explain your position to people in Yakima, and those from Ohio, those from Pennsylvania, those from other States. I conclude. Look, I'm from Michigan. I would benefit under the administration's narrow approach. I won't vote for it. If you're jobless, you deserve the extended benefits, the million plus and the 3 million plus.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It's estimated that 4 million workers, 4 million, would be eligible under this unemployment extension, over 1 million who have already exhausted and 3 million in the future. You know, in previous downturns when there were unemployment offices giving out checks, we could go there and we could talk to the people. That's no longer true in most States, but we should not let the absence of real faces blur our vision in Washington. If you had the 4 million people line up, it would extend from Washington, D.C., to Denver, Colorado, and we should not differentiate as to what State they live in. If they've exhausted their benefits, they should be eligible. Mr. Weller says targeted, that's over 6 percent. It leaves out a majority of those who have exhausted their benefits. It's not targeted. It's ruthless. It's ruthless. It doesn't take into account the lives of people. We saw the biggest increase in 20 years last night, from 5 to 5.5 percent. When President Bush signed the extension in 2002, it was 5.7. So you're going to stand up here now and quibble because of a difference of two-tenths of 1 percent, you don't want to extend benefits. The 20-week thing is a Trojan horse. It's another excuse not to step up to the plate. This is not a political issue. This is a people's issue. The exhaustion rate is the highest it's been at the beginning of the past five recessions. I urge on a bipartisan basis the passage of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN. No, no. The 6 percent is the trigger for the additional 13 weeks, not for the basic 15 weeks. You misstate----

Mr. LEVIN. I will yield on your time.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to read, Mr. Weller, the metropolitan areas with unemployment above 6 percent that would be left out under your so- called targeting, Danville, Illinois, these are among many, and Kankakee and Rockford. I just picked those three out. And it is unconscionable for you to say----