Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neal, and I salute his eloquent statement. I hope everybody listens. Usually, legislation has either rhyme or reason, or both. This bill has neither. It is dramatically unreasonable. It adds insult to injury. It would further increase our growing Federal debt, this time by almost $100 billion. Driven by the irresponsible 2017 tax law, our projected annual deficit has already more than doubled since President Trump came into office, more than doubled; mainly to benefit, as Mr. Neal has spelled out so well, the very wealthy. The majority thought the first tax bill of theirs would at least be helpful politically. It turned out, for voters, sour music. It was, as described earlier, hyper-partnership at its worst; no hearings. Nothing like it. So, on this last day of votes this session, and close to my last of thousands and thousands of votes over 36 years, I will proudly vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will start first by applauding the leadership of this committee: Mr. Royce, who has worked so hard, and the gentlewoman from Florida. We went to Bosnia together some years ago, and they have worked so closely with Mr. Engel. I think it really demonstrates what can be done when people work together. The Congressional Ukraine Caucus cochairs--Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Andy Harris, Brian Fitzpatrick, and I--issued this statement rebuking the Russian Federation's aggressive attack on Ukraine near the Kerch Strait in the Sea of Azov: ``As cochairs of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, we strongly condemn Russia's dangerous naval assault on Ukrainian ships. This episode, as well as Russia's blockade of Ukrainian ports, is a deeply disturbing sign of continued Russian aggression in its efforts to tighten its bloody grip and illegitimate occupation of the Crimean peninsula. ``We join the international committee and our NATO allies in resolute affirmation of the fact that Crimea and its surrounding waters belong to Ukraine. We call on Russian authorities, in accordance with international law, to cease any and all interference with access to Ukrainian ports and the Azov Sea. Russia must end this bloody and unjust occupation of Ukrainian sovereign territory.'' I was in Ukraine at the time of the Russian attack. I was at meetings where the President of Ukraine spoke out clearly against the Russian action on behalf of the people of Ukraine. He also spoke out on what was the main aim of Russia's military actions: to undermine Ukraine's efforts to build democracy. Today, there is a dangerous tilt to authoritarianism in many places around the world. This makes Ukraine's struggle to resist aggression, safeguard its independence, and develop democracy all the more important. Ukraine has witnessed firsthand that the challenges of democracy are not easily overcome. That makes it all the more important to overcome the threats to democracy, such as injustice and corruption. The United States must support Ukraine in its efforts. We must deepen our determination to help the fight for freedom and democracy, never making heroes out of dictators. That is what this resolution is all about. May it pass unanimously. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Engel and thank my pal from Florida for their work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution calling for the release of the two journalists imprisoned after investigating attacks against the Rohingya ethnic minority in Burma, also known as Myanmar. As I said in the resolution I introduced in early September calling for their release: ``The Burmese police captain involved in their arrest reportedly admitted during the trial that his superior ordered him to entrap the journalists.'' The atrocities committed against the Rohingya--mass killings; rape perpetrated on a massive scale; whole villages burned to the ground, with people being burned alive in their homes; and over 700,000 fleeing the violence to neighboring Bangladesh--have been so extreme that the United Nations issued a report earlier this year calling for Burma's military leaders to be investigated and prosecuted on the charges of genocide. There can be no doubt about the culpability of Burma's military in the oppression and violence inflicted on the Rohingya. I had the privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi a few years ago as part of a delegation led by Nancy Pelosi, joining in admiration for her perseverance and triumph over oppression. There has been a hesitation by some to criticize Suu Kyi, worrying that it could make it more likely the military would take over the civilian government she leads. But her words and actions in the face of what, in reality, has been genocide have been deeply disturbing, contrary to her past example as a beacon of freedom. In 2017, the late John McCain and Richard Durbin introduced in the Senate and I introduced in the House a resolution that encouraged ``Aung San Suu Kyi to live up to her inspiring words upon receiving the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize with respect to ethnic reconciliation in Burma, and in particular to address the historic and brutal repression of the Rohingya in Rakhine State.'' Unfortunately, that resolution was not acted upon. When Aung San Suu Kyi later said: ``We believe that, for the sake of long-term stability and security, we have to be fair to all sides,'' it was a disturbing message of minimization. Suu Kyi later said: ``In a way we can say that we understand our country better than any other country does, and I'm sure you will say the same of yours, that you understand your country better than anybody else.'' As Bishop Desmond Tutu said in a letter to Suu Kyi: ``My dear sister: If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep.'' This resolution speaks out against the genocide and crimes against humanity that occurred in Rakhine State. All of humanity must speak out clearly and decisively. Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support for this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1161) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I proudly present Brenda Jones as a new Member of Congress for Michigan's 13th Congressional District for the remainder of this Congress. Brenda Jones was elected in a special election earlier this month. She very much wanted to essentially be faithful to the votes of her constituents, so all of us are here proudly to be with her. Her career in public service started in 2005 when she was elected to the Detroit City Council. My brother was once president of that city council. She has subsequently been reelected three times and rose to become president of the council in 2014 and again in 2018. Brenda is a former small-business owner, a past president of the Communication Workers of America Local 4004, and a proud alumnus of Wayne State University. We all welcome you here to Congress, especially fellow colleagues from the Michigan delegation. But if I may add, the former Speaker is here, Nancy Pelosi. It is so characteristic of her to join all of us. In addition to the Michigan delegation, I see others who are here who either know Brenda Jones or will come to know her in a short period while she is here in the U.S. Congress. Mr. Speaker, with those words, I appreciate the chance to address the House, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Jones). I proudly leave this place to the Member, now, of the House of Representatives, Brenda Jones.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask so-called fiscal conservatives: Why add to the deficit $3 trillion? I guess it is consistency. If you dig a hole, dig it deeper. Oh, it is for workers. Workers? One-half of the top percent get 50 percent of the benefit. It won't pass the Senate. So why do it? They thought it would be politically helpful. Now it is turning out it won't be. It is going to be immigration. This is a desperate move. It is desperately wrong. Mr. Speaker, I urge we vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has well described the purpose of this legislation. As she indicated, the bill establishes a timeline through which MACs must publish proposed LCDs online. She described what they are so the public can be sure what MACs and LCDs are. It would further require public meetings to review draft determinations and ensure expert input is being sought on all proposals. The bill also provides that stakeholders and beneficiaries, as she mentioned, may request reconsideration of LCDs and that MACs must respond to these requests. These are small but useful improvements to the local coverage determination process. It will help improve transparency and ensure that appropriate coverage determinations are made for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to indicate support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Indiana has described very well the purpose of this legislation. There are, I think, at least five sponsors of this legislation, Democrats and Republicans, and it is another example of bipartisanship on a rather technical issue, technical in this sense. There was always a need for regulation, and CMS proposed, now, 2 years ago, a regulation updating the requirements governing PACE. Unfortunately, under this present administration, CMS has not finalized these rules. What this bill essentially requires is that CMS finalize these regulations by December 31, 2018. Hopefully, that can occur before 2031. We sometimes do too much on December 31 of a year. I have been here in session a few times on December 31, I think. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and recommend its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a technical change, and it needed to be done. The special enrollment period did not initially apply to nondeemed enrollees. So to address this concern, CMS has promulgated regulations allowing nondeemed enrollees to participate in this special enrollment period. So what this bill does is to simply codify this regulation. So it is not clear that it is necessary to codify it, but, surely, there can be no harm. There is a need to take action, and, therefore, I support this bill. As I discussed earlier on this legislation, there was bipartisan support. I wish that that kind of bipartisanship had been spread to issues that aren't technical and issues that involve the lives and health of millions of people. That never has been forthcoming. The opposite has been true. This is an example of bipartisanship on this specific technical issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the first of four bills that came out of the Ways and Means Committee. They came out without much controversy. The only one that really had any is this first bill. I am not sure we will have any speakers on our side. I will say a few words about this bill in a few minutes. I first want to talk a bit about bipartisanship. These four bills do have some bipartisanship. Unfortunately, what isn't bipartisan is the basic dispute about healthcare and about the continuation of the reform that we on the Democratic side started some years ago with our President. It has turned out to be an important piece of legislation--I think historic--and the more people look at it and the more they are covered by it, the greater the support for it. Unfortunately, unlike the bipartisanship in these four bills, ACA continues to be hit by the worst kind of partisanship and continued efforts to undermine and destroy it. In October 2017, the administration ended cost-sharing reduction subsidies. That has led to premium increases of 20 to 25 percent across the Nation. In June of this year, the Trump administration expanded the reach of junk insurance policies that have weakened the risk pool, and these policies are not subject to consumer protections. In July, we saw the impact of this firsthand in Michigan. The administration announced another cut in so-called navigator organizations. They slashed the funding from $63 million just 2 years ago to $10 million. It had an impact throughout this country, and I saw firsthand what it meant in the State of Michigan. Essentially, the administration said we are going to cut and essentially eliminate help for outreach to people in terms of their knowing about the ACA and how, as millions of others have, they can obtain coverage. I think maybe most disturbing, last week, the Federal court heard arguments in Texas v. the United States. It is a lawsuit launched by Republicans that could jeopardize healthcare for 130 million patients living with preexisting conditions. The Republicans like to point to language that says that won't happen. But essentially, I think they have their heads in the sand on this if the court were to rule in favor of the suit. I think, to the disgrace of the administration, they decided not to defend the government's position. So we are here today with bipartisan bills, and it is really sad-- indeed, worse than that. We haven't had a single hearing on any of the issues I mentioned. And the Republicans, while they come here and talk about bipartisanship, which has been so essential until recent years when it comes to healthcare, they now essentially are engaging in very partisan efforts to undermine healthcare for millions and millions of people. So let me just say, Mr. Speaker, a brief word about this. Mr. Roskam has been working on this for a long time, working with Mr. Blumenauer, and I think the gentleman's efforts to strive for some bipartisanship have been a positive. As I said at the beginning, of all four bills, this one had the most discussion in our committee and had some disagreement. The smart card idea has been examined by a number of entities, including the Government Accountability Office. According to their 2016 report--and I have copies of their report of 2016, and there is also another report that relates to this--according to that, their estimate was that smart cards would help in only a minority of cases. In fact, of the 739 healthcare fraud cases that the GAO examined, only 18 would have been fully addressed had Medicare used these cards. That is only about 2 percent of the cases. Also, transition to smart cards is going to be significant, and the estimate is that it is going to cost about $40 million. As we discussed in the committee, some thought there might be a better use of this money. Be that as it may, this has been worked on, and Mr. Roskam and Mr. Blumenauer have combined forces to undertake this 3-year pilot program. So under those circumstances, wishing we had more bipartisanship on healthcare issues that run more deeply and affect the needs of people even more broadly, with that caveat, I do not suggest anything but support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further conversation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise, once again, to speak about the unspeakable suffering of the Rohingya people. Two recent developments have accentuated the vital need for the House to speak formally and clearly about this human disaster. First, last month, a factfinding mission of the United Nations spelled out what is undeniable, that Burma's Rohingya Muslim population has been subjected to ``systemic oppression'' culminating in so-called clearance operations that ``targeted and terrorized the entire Rohingya population.'' The U.N. report called for Burma's military leaders to be investigated and prosecuted on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes related to the atrocities committed against the Rohingya. Let me quote directly from the U.N. report on the violence and brutally inflicted on the Rohingya by operations conducted by the Burmese military last year: ``The `clearance operations' constituted a human rights catastrophe. Thousands of Rohingya were killed or injured. Mass killings were perpetrated. . . . Villagers were gathered together, before men and boys were separated and killed. . . . Women and girls were taken to nearby houses, gang raped, then killed or severely injured. Bodies were transported in military vehicles, burned and disposed of in mass graves.'' ``Villagers were killed by soldiers, and sometimes Rakhine men, using large bladed weapons. Others were killed in arson attacks, burned to death in their own houses. In some cases, people were forced into burning houses or locked into buildings set on fire. Rape and other forms of sexual violence were perpetrated on a massive scale.'' Secondly, reporters who have attempted to expose these atrocities in Burma have been targeted for harassment and arrest. Just last week, two reporters from Reuters were sentenced to 7 years in prison by a Burmese court for violating state-secret laws in what has been widely reported as a sham process. During their court proceedings, a police official testified he had been ordered to entrap these journalists. This is nothing less than an effort to suppress the truth. The leader of Burma's civilian government, Aung San Suu Kyi, must pursue the immediate and unconditional release of these courageous reporters. Anything less represents a betrayal of justice and democracy. Earlier this year, Burma's national security advisor made a series of comments designed to deny or downplay any violence and atrocities against the Rohingya, saying the vast majority remain in Burma, and ``if it was genocide, they would all be driven out.'' He went on to declare that the Burmese Government ``would like to have clear evidence'' of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The evidence, of course, is overwhelming, as presented in the current and previous U.N. reports. The fact is that Suu Kyi and the civilian government too often excuse or deny genocide. The U.N. report stated that she failed to use her position or moral authority to protect the Rohingya, and that civilian authorities have, instead, ``spread false narratives'' about the atrocities. Some have preached patience with Suu Kyi, noting that she does not have direct authority over Burma's military. They say that there is a danger the military may dismantle the civilian government if she raises concerns about their brutal and murderous repression of the Rohingya. I met personally with Suu Kyi a few years ago as part of a delegation led by Nancy Pelosi. Her story of not only perseverance but triumph over oppression was an inspiration to all of us. But none of this justifies silence in the face of genocide. Over three-quarters of a million Rohingya have been forced to flee their homes to seek refuge in neighboring Bangladesh. Many thousands have been killed, raped, and beaten as described earlier. Dozens of villages have been burned and bulldozed into oblivion. The civilian government has the power to free the two jailed reporters who have exposed particular cases of violence against the Rohingya. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak about the unspeakable suffering of the Rohingya people. Two recent developments have accentuated the vital need for the House to speak formally and clearly about this human disaster. First, last month, a fact-finding mission of the United Nations spelled out what is undeniable--that Burma's Rohingya Muslim population has been subjected to ``systemic oppression'' culminating in so-called clearance operations that ``targeted and terrorized the entire Rohingya population.'' The UN report called for Burma's (also known as Myanmar) military leaders to be investigated and prosecuted on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes related to the atrocities committed against the Rohingya. Let me quote directly from the UN report on the violence and brutality inflicted on the Rohingya by operations conducted by the Burmese military last year: The ``clearance operation'' constituted a human rights catastrophe. Thousands of Rohingya were killed or injured. Mass killings were perpetrated . . . villagers were gathered together, before men and boys were separated and killed . . . women and girls were taken to nearby houses, gang raped, then killed or severely injured. Bodies were transported in military vehicles, burned and disposed of in mass graves. Villagers were killed by soldiers, and sometimes Rakhine men, using large bladed weapons. Others were killed in arson attacks, burned to death in their own houses. In some cases, people were forced into burning houses, or locked into buildings set on fire. Rape and other forms of sexual violence were perpetrated on a massive scale. Second, reporters who have attempted to expose these atrocities in Burma have been targeted for harassment and arrest. Just last week, two reporters from Reuters were sentenced to seven years in prison by a Burmese court for violating state secrets laws in what has been widely reported as a sham process. During their court proceeding, a police official testified he had been ordered to entrap these journalists. This is nothing less than an effort to suppress the truth. The leader of Burma's civilian government, Aung San Suu Kyi, must pursue the immediate and unconditional release of these courageous reporters. Anything less represents a betrayal of justice and democracy. Earlier this year, Burma's National Security Advisor (Thaung Tun) made a series of comments designed to deny or downplay any violence and atrocities against the Rohingya, saying the vast majority remain in Burma, and ``if it was genocide, they would all be driven out.'' He went on to declare that the Burmese government ``would like to have clear evidence'' of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The evidence of course is overwhelming, as presented in the current and previous UN reports. The fact is that Suu Kyi and the civilian government too often excuse or deny genocide. The UN report stated that she failed to use her position or moral authority to protect the Rohingya, and that civilian authorities have instead ``spread false narratives'' about the atrocities. Some have preached patience with Suu Kyi, noting that she does not have direct authority over Burma's military. They say there is a danger the military may dismantle the civilian government if she raises concerns about their brutal and murderous repression of the Rohingya. I met personally with Suu Kyi a few years ago as part of a delegation led by Nancy Pelosi. Her story of not only perseverance but triumph over oppression was an inspiration to all of us. But none of this justifies silence in the face of genocide. Over three-quarters of a million Rohingya have been forced to flee their homes in Burma to seek refuge in neighboring Bangladesh. Many thousands have been killed, beaten, and raped. Dozens of villages have been burned and bulldozed into oblivion. The civilian government has the power to free the two jailed reporters who have exposed particular cases of violence against the Rohingya. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo should not be imprisoned for shining a light on the truth. Congresswoman Schakowsky is leading efforts to urge Secretary of State Pompeo to demand their immediate release in direct discussions with Suu Kyi, saying ``this case is only the latest example of the ongoing erosion of press freedom in Burma, especially directed at those covering military abuses.'' Representatives Joaquin Castro and Ann Wagner have sent a letter directly to Suu Kyi urging the journalists' release after being sentenced for, in their words, ``their commitment to a central role of a free press--speaking truth to power.'' Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has said ``the conviction of two journalists for doing their job is another terrible stain on the Burmese government.'' Last week, I introduced H. Res. 1057, calling on Suu Kyi to move to immediately and unconditionally free the two reporters. It builds on an earlier resolution that I joined with Senator Durbin and the late Senator McCain that called for both military and civilian authorities to end the violent repression of the Rohingya. I urged that we in the House carry out our solemn duty and come together now and speak with one voice. We should pass a resolution right now saying that jailing reporters for exposing the truth is a grave injustice, especially when that truth is the crime of genocide. We cannot wait to respond to this injustice when it is convenient or safe. Those whose voices have been suppressed through violence and cruelty need us to speak for them now. We must not fail them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Detroit Plumbers Union Local 98, which is proudly celebrating the 125th anniversary of its founding this Saturday, September 8th. In September of 1892, a group of plumbers who called themselves ``The Plumbers Association of Detroit'' met to discuss how to improve their wages and working conditions. This group applied for membership in the United Plumbers Association (the UA) and in December of 1893, their application was accepted and they were organized in the UA as Plumbers Local Union 98. Michigan's history, and that of the middle class in our country, is intertwined with the history of the labor movement. Local 98's fight on behalf of its members has been a vital part of that history. From its earliest days, Local 98 worked to achieve fair wages and working standards for its professional plumbers, but they also went further-- offering their expertise to local government to help improve health department rules related to plumbing and assisting plumbing inspectors in their efforts to ensure that residents could count on plumbing work being done to high standards. Throughout its 125 years, Local 98 has acted in the best traditions of its founding, and has also grown to meet the needs of its members and of the industry. In the 1950s, Local 98 negotiated contracts that included fringe benefits, including insurance and pensions, for its members and for their surviving spouses. Local 98 dedicated its Apprentice Training Center in 1968, allowing members to receive the highest quality professional training in a facility of its own, rather than at a variety of other locations. I had the opportunity as a young lawyer to represent Local 98 during some of these years. And in 2014, Local 98 partnered with Activate Clinic to provide preventative health care, acute care, and more at Local 98's headquarters in Madison Heights, Michigan. Local 98's members have worked on projects large and small throughout Southeast Michigan, including landmark buildings like Little Caesars Arena, where the Detroit Red Wings play hockey and the Detroit Pistons play basketball; Ford Field, where the Detroit Lions play football; Comerica Park, home of the Detroit Tigers; and the many auto plants which are so vital to Michigan and the nation's economy. Mr. Speaker, Detroit Plumbers Union Local 98 has played an integral role in the labor movement, in the lives of its members, and indeed in the creation of the middle class in our country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating the men and women of Detroit Plumbers Union Local 98 as they celebrate their remarkable 125 year history, and in wishing them continued success in their next 125 years.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I close, I think back some years ago when we were working on ACA. It was one of our proudest achievements. The Republicans, from day one, were determined to destroy it. ACA can be made better, but destruction is not improvement. This bill, when you put it together, is not only unpaid for, but would be a step to try to undermine the basic thrust of the ACA, to replace these basic provisions with something much less. In a word, the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, and the clock is ticking. These bills, when you put them all together, essentially say, these are another way to undercut ACA. This is a very, very weak--and I think worse than a weak set of alternatives. They have never been able to come up with a comprehensive bill, and this effort is the opposite. As we have mentioned, relatively few people with lower income can access these. So many of the people who access HSAs are people who can afford it. We can make it better. But don't come here when you have had no alternative to say that this is something that could replace ACA. You don't pay for it. You are reckless. This, as I said earlier, is a reckless bill of the chairman of our subcommittee. So I urge my colleagues to reject this and to not be fooled. We Democrats come to the floor with a sense of being on the right side of history. What is happening in this country is that more and more of the public acknowledge it. Compared to when we first started, I remember going back home, there was so much opposition, so much misguided. But when people--20 million--for the first time, in most cases, had healthcare, the clock began to tick in the direction of universal care. You are trying to turn back the clock, you Republicans, but it is ticking more and more towards universality. That is what is happening in this country. And this is becoming part of the bedrock, the foundations of care and of provisions for the benefit of the American people as Social Security was, as Medicare was, and as Medicaid was. You are going to pay the price for your blind opposition. The public is more and more aware, as their eyes have been opened and as their health has been protected, what this has meant to millions of families in this country--millions. I run into it every day I go home, people who come and say: Without healthcare coverage, where would I be? Not only financially, but where would I be and what is so dear to me, my health and the health of our families and the health of our kids? I urge we Democrats to stand up tall and say to the American public: The ACA was a major historic step in the right direction. The Republicans continue to try to destroy it. History is showing that, once again, they were moving in the wrong discretion. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we reject this bill and move proudly forward. We put together this step. We are going to continue to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), my colleague.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a true fighter.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is so active and there all the time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the so-called fact that more people have HSAs than those who are covered by ObamaCare. That simply is not true. ObamaCare includes expanded Medicaid. So if you want to talk about more than in the exchanges, we can discuss that and argue it, but don't come here and minimize the impact of ACA. We worked hard on it. We meet so many people who have benefited from what we Democrats did, and the public, more and more, is expressing that. You were on the wrong side of history, and you are now on the wrong side of public opinion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, or more if he would like, to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), an active member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves: What is this bill all about? Why are we here today? H.R. 6311 is the final of three bills regarding health savings accounts and health taxes that we will be considering this week. I find it sad we are not spending our time today addressing the most pressing concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet because of the Republican sabotage of healthcare coverage. Nothing in H.R. 6311, or any other bill we have considered this week, undoes the ongoing harm caused by the actions of the Trump administration or this Republican Congress. For example, earlier this month, the administration created needless confusion by refusing to make legally required risk adjustment payments until, when there was major protest, it reversed course last night under public pressure. But in June, the Justice Department refused to defend protection for the 130 million Americans living with preexisting health conditions. Last fall, the President terminated cost-sharing reduction payments for Americans earning 100 to 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. The GOP tax bill gutted the individual responsibility requirement, causing a 15 percent spike in premiums, according to CBO. Recently, the administration again cut funding for navigator organizations to just $10 million for the upcoming open enrollment period. I saw at home what these navigator provisions meant to nonprofit organizations that were reaching out to people who wanted information and healthcare. Cut, cut, cut is the administration's answer. And this Congress' response to that administration action is zero, silence, silence, silence. These and so many other actions by Republicans have led to direct increases in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for middle class families. Expanding HSAs and shifting more Americans into catastrophic coverage, as H.R. 6311 does, will not meaningfully help middle class families harmed by Republican sabotage of ACA. Instead, it will primarily benefit wealthy Americans and large insurance companies. According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 80 percent of the tax benefit for health savings accounts goes to individuals earning more than $100,000 annually. We pointed that out in committee. What was the response? Obfuscation, obfuscation. That is a fact and analysis given to us by the Joint Committee on Taxation. So all these crocodile tears for mainly middle class families, I think, are shown for what they are. Very few families with modest incomes can afford the high, out-of- pocket expenses required in order to participate in a HSA. Doubling the amount that individuals can contribute tax-free--tax-free--as this bill does, will make no difference to the millions of working families who don't have thousands of dollars available to contribute to an HSA in the first place. I suggest that everybody go home and talk to the general public. In addition, a 2-year delay of the health insurance provider fee will have only a minimal impact on premiums. Indeed, this provision will mainly benefit insurance companies, while adding more than $25 billion to the deficit. Not only do the bills we have considered this week not address these pressing issues, they also recklessly add to the deficit. Republicans have failed to produce even $1 for the enormous cost of these bills. So I said to the chairman of the committee that I once chaired, I was sometimes asked that question: Will you pay for it? And I said yes. I asked the chairman: Will you pay for this? At first, it was said: Well, we don't have to do that in committee. So I said: Will you do it on the floor, yes or no? He said no. So here we are. Although we do not yet have a final analysis from the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation, past estimates of similar provisions have shown us this: H.R. 184, which would repeal the medical device tax, will cost about $20 billion over 10 years. H.R. 6199, which would expand HSAs to include over-the-counter medications and gym memberships, will cost roughly $20 billion. And this bill, which expands HSAs and delays a tax on the health insurance industry, would increase the deficit the most. This is, in a few words, a Risky Roskam bill that would cost up to $50 billion, $50 billion. When all is said and done, our actions this week could add up to $90 billion to our Nation's debt, increasing pressure to cut vital programs like Medicare. This comes just months after a tax cut bill that would add an additional $2 billion to the debt. So, look, we need to come and ask ourselves: Why are we here? These bills will not likely pass the Senate or become law, so here we are. We are going to recess, adjourn tomorrow for 5 weeks or so. I think the reality is that these bills, which will not likely pass the Senate, will not ever become law. I think it is likely that they have a different purpose, and I think that was described in a recent article in The Hill. I read it because I want the public to question what we do, and I quote: ``The bills on the House floor next week could give victories to the bill sponsors who are also vulnerable in November.'' The chairman of the subcommittee, where I am ranking member, is facing, this article says, ``a tough reelection race in his suburban . . . district.'' ``But overall, the measures slated for consideration are minor and won't make a major dent in premiums, according to Joe Antos, a healthcare expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.'' I want to quote that again: ``These measures slated for consideration are minor and won't make a major dent in premiums, according to Joe Antos, a healthcare expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.'' So I think that is really what this is all about. It is a political exercise. It is aimed to help people who are in a vulnerable political position. But that is not a reason to bring up these bills today, when, as I described earlier, there are so many issues relating to healthcare coverage. The Republicans have undertaken these last months under this administration to do everything they can to sabotage healthcare for Americans. As a result, 3 million people less have healthcare insurance. But ACA works so well that 20 million people received healthcare coverage they did not have. So, this is kind of a sad moment. We are turning this place into a campaign entity. We should not be doing that when it comes to healthcare coverage. We tried, in recent times, to say to the Republicans, if you want to improve ACA, we are ready. Never has there been any offer to do that. Instead, it was repeal, repeal, repeal. I won't say that 55 times, but that is how often it happened. More recently, it was sabotage, sabotage, sabotage. That isn't what we should be doing for what is so dear to Americans, healthcare coverage. It is a sad day, as I said earlier, that, here we are, when so much needs to be done, and this, essentially, is a political exercise. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the City of Sterling Heights, Michigan, as it celebrates the 50th Anniversary of its founding. It is a privilege to represent the city, and I am honored to be attending the anniversary celebration on June 28th. During the mid-1950s, the booming auto industry in Michigan led the Big 3 automakers to build new auto plants outside of the City of Detroit. The Ford Motor Company and the Chrysler Corporation settled into what was then Sterling Township. Following this tremendous growth, auto workers relocated with their families to the township. After an initial effort to create a city charter fell short in 1966, a new charter commission favoring a City Management government was formed in 1968. On May 25, 1968, voters overwhelmingly passed the new city management charter, and the City of Sterling Heights was officially incorporated as a municipality on July 1, 1968. Today, Sterling Heights is the fourth largest city in Michigan, and has much to offer for both its residents and the surrounding communities. Sterling Heights is home to vibrant parks, including the newly renovated Dodge Park, where the anniversary celebration will be held, strong public schools, and a quality of life which has helped lead to its impressive population growth over the last several decades. Sterling Heights has long been a leader in celebrating diversity and inclusion. The City was one of the first ``Welcoming Cities'' in Macomb County, and has welcomed immigrants and refugees since its founding. The city hosts the American Polish Festival, to celebrate Sterling Heights rich Polish-American history. Sterling Heights is also home to rapidly-growing population of Iraqi Christians, known as Chaldeans, leading to the recent opening of a major Chaldean Community Center in the city. Over the years I have had the privilege of attending the Sterling Heights Cultural Exchange dinner and numerous other events celebrating the diversity of the City. Economic opportunity in Sterling Heights has been driven by a wide variety of industries, including auto, manufacturing, and defense. Fiat-Chrysler Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, the Fiat-Chrysler Stamping Plant, the Ford Van Dyke Transmission Plant, and the Ford Axle Plant employ thousands of skilled workers and help to anchor a strong manufacturing sector in the City. The Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry has become a leading business organization in Macomb County with more than 1,600 members. I am also proud to have been able to assist in appropriating more than 700,000 dollars in federal funding for the Macomb-Oakland University Incubator. The Macomb-OU Incubator in Sterling Heights supports economic development in the city, and more broadly in Southeast Michigan, by accelerating high-tech businesses and by encouraging innovation and research and development. On June 28, 2018, residents and leaders will gather to celebrate the past, present, and future of this great community, which was founded 50 years ago. As the City of Sterling Heights commemorates this milestone, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the leaders, residents, churches, businesses, and organizations that make this city so great. And I especially want to thank the residents of Sterling Heights who have provided me with the honor of representing them in Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 10th Anniversary of FernCare Free Clinic. FernCare is a nonprofit free healthcare clinic located in the City of Ferndale, MI. The clinic specializes in the treatment of individuals without healthcare coverage and helps eligible, uninsured people obtain coverage through the Federal Marketplace or through Healthy Michigan, a Medicaid plan created thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The clinic is open for medical services four days each month, and provides counseling services twice each month. In 2008, a group of concerned citizens in Ferndale decided to open a free health care clinic under the direction of Ann Heler, to serve the uninsured members of their community. Two years later, FernCare first opened as a popup clinic at a local community center, requiring volunteers to set up and tear down the operation each day. In 2009, I was honored to support FernCare's successful efforts to obtain a grant through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which helped to enable them to renovate a property to permanently house the clinic. Over the last ten years, FernCare has served more than 1,200 patients. FernCare currently maintains the clinical care of over 300 patients a year with a small staff and more than 100 dedicated volunteers. Patients of FernCare receive primary care services including generic and over the counter medication prescription, lab testing, wellness coaching, and counseling services, as well as other vital assistance. Mr. Speaker, FernCare continues to be an invaluable organization within Michigan's 9th District, providing essential services to those most in need. I often hear from patients and volunteers about the work FernCare does, and their stories are truly inspiring. I encourage my colleagues to join me in celebrating and honoring the 10th Anniversary of FernCare Free Clinic, its Board, led by Ann Heler, for its dedicated leadership, and the staff and volunteers for the irreplaceable service they provide to people in need.