Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as he retires from the Foreign Service next week, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh Dan Mozena. He led a distinguished career of public service to the United States, capped by his impressive efforts over the past several years to promote workers' safety and advance fundamental labor rights in Bangladesh.

Following a string of tragedies in the Bangladesh garment industry, including the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory that took the lives of 1,138 workers in 2013 and the factory fire at Tazreen Fashions that took the lives of 112 workers in 2012, Ambassador Mozena has advocated for workers' safety and their right to freedom of association. He has urged Bangladesh to transform its garment sector from a model based on a race-to-the-bottom in labor standards, to one where a ``Made in Bangladesh'' becomes a label valued for the country's commitment to workers' rights and high standards for safety.

Following the U.S. Government's decision to suspend trade preferences and issue an Action Plan focused on labor rights and factory safety, Ambassador Mozena convened the embassies of other garment importing countries (Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union) with the responsible Bangladesh Government Secretariats on a monthly basis to track progress. This model for joint advocacy is one that merits recognition and replication as our Embassies work to elevate labor rights in developing economies.

Ambassador Mozena worked with the U.S. Department of Labor to bring the first Labor Attachee to Bangladesh, and he leaves an institutional framework to help advance labor rights in this young and developing country. Under Mozena's leadership the U.S. Embassy became a place where workers could turn to for help when they faced coercion, repression, and anti-union violence.

Of course, there is a tremendous amount of work that still needs to be accomplished in Bangladesh to ensure that workers are safe and that their fundamental rights are respected in the workplace. Ambassador Mozena has fought to ensure that momentum is going in the right direction in Bangladesh--we must continue this work moving forward.

Ambassador Mozena's accomplishments extend beyond labor rights. Since presenting his Letters of Credence to the President of Bangladesh on November 24, 2011, Ambassador Mozena has strengthened relations between the United States and Bangladesh by promoting a Bangladesh that is peaceful, secure, prosperous, healthy, and democratic. He emphasized understanding the diversity of Bangladesh, making visits to each of the country's 64 districts. In the United States, he has visited Bangladeshi-Americans across the country.

During his time as Ambassador, Mozena oversaw the largest aid budget in Asia outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan, bolstering Bangladeshi food security and nutrition, improving health, and increasing capacity to

cope with climate change, natural disasters, and security challenges.

Beyond Ambassador Mozena's current posting in Dhaka, he had an impressive career advancing U.S. interests in South Asia and Africa. He previously served in Bangladesh as Political/Economic Counselor from 1998-2001 and as a Deputy Political Counselor in India and Pakistan. A member of Senior Foreign Service, Mozena was U.S. Ambassador to Angola from 2007-2010 and previously worked in the Office of Southern African Affairs from 1993 to 1995, during South Africa's transition from apartheid to democracy. Previous postings include Lusaka and Kinshasa and a year as a professor at the National War College.

Ambassador Mozena's family has stood by his side as he has pursued his career overseas. His wife of 40 years, Grace, is a retired elementary school teacher who served with him as a Peace Corps volunteer in then-Zaire. Their two children, Anne and Mark, followed their father throughout the world. I understand that Mozena also looks forward to spending time with the newest addition to his family, a granddaughter named Mira, as well as his mother Edna.

As Ambassador Mozena returns to his family in the United States, we recognize his work in Bangladesh and throughout his career as a Foreign Service Officer.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters.

January 7, 2015.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members

of the National Education Association, and the students they

serve, we urge you to vote NO on the Save American Workers

Act of 2015 (H.R. 30), scheduled for a floor vote this week.

Votes associated with this issue may be included in NEA's

Report Card for the 114th Congress.

We oppose the bill because we believe it would create a

disincentive for employers to provide health care coverage,

negatively impacting employer-sponsored health insurance and

harming families, children and educators who need coverage.

We believe that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) shared

responsibility for employers, sometimes referred to as the

employer penalty, supports the overall goal of expanding

quality, affordable coverage to all Americans.

We are concerned that this bill's changes to the ACA's

definition of what constitutes full-time employment from ``on

average at least 30 hours of service per week'' monthly to an

average of 40 hours per week monthly would adversely affect

overall employer-sponsored health coverage. That change would

make a shift towards part-time employment much more likely.

Employers could respond by cutting employees' hours to under

an average of 40 per week to avoid possible shared

responsibility penalties and could eliminate coverage for

these employees without fear of penalties.

The result of a cut in employee hours would be

substantially less employer-sponsored health coverage--and as

a result, a potentially large increase in federal spending

for the premium tax credits that many low- and moderate-

income people will receive under health reform to help them

buy coverage through a health insurance marketplace

(exchange). Employers and employees would also face a complex

new administrative burden as they tried to determine which

employees paid on a salaried basis fell above or below the

40-hour mark; salaried school employees' exact hours of

service are generally not counted the same way as hourly

employees' hours, but tallying their in-school and out-of-

school hours would suddenly become issues of concern to

employers interested in avoiding penalties.

Additionally if employment-based coverage is reduced, an

even greater number of low-income individuals and their

families in the 23 states that have failed to expand Medicaid

would be unable to afford to buy health coverage. In those

states, childless adults whose incomes fall below 100 percent

of the federal poverty line would not only be denied access

to Medicaid coverage, but they would be ineligible for

premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions through a

health insurance marketplace. Moving the full-time definition

from 30 hours to 40 hours, as this bill does, would only

expand the number of people hurt by this coverage gap.

We believe H.R. 30 misses the mark by substituting ``40

hours'' for ``30 hours'' because it would do nothing to stop

employers' misuse of the ACA's employer penalty provisions as

a justification for cutting employees' hours of service and

health coverage. Experience with this portion of the ACA

shows that one of the biggest implementation challenges in

the education sector consists of making sure that employers

and other health plan sponsors fully understand the law's

provisions related to shared responsibility for employers.

For years, we have engaged with the Department of the

Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to ensure that

regulations on shared responsibility for employers work

consistently well in the education sector, and believe

regulators have taken important steps in this direction.

The changes contemplated in this bill, however, would

simply shift the hours-related context in which these common

errors take place:

Mistakenly believing that the only way to avoid employer

penalties is to cut employees' hours to under 30 a week or to

under six hours a day. In fact, school calendars include so

many unpaid days during the school year--for spring break,

winter break, federal holidays, and other such times--that

hourly employees can normally work more than 6 hours a day

without ever being considered a full-time employee.

Misunderstanding how and when to use proposed regulations

related to an optional hours-counting method called the look-

back measurement method. It's unfortunate that some school

employers wrongly blame the look-back measurement method for

limiting their hours-counting options when regulations

recognize four different ways that employers can calculate

whether an employee is a full-timer or not.

Overestimating the potential cost of complying with the

law's provisions on shared responsibility for employers.

Regulations include many ways that employers can minimize or

even avoid penalties, but some employers fail to factor these

options into their analyses, so they exaggerate and often

incorrectly state the potential for penalties.

Failing to incorporate into their decision-making the

statutory and regulatory provisions that ensure that this

part of the ACA establishes the possibility of a penalty on

large employers rather than an ``employer mandate.'' Just

like before the ACA became law, there is no federal law that

requires employers to offer coverage to employees. Many large

employers will not face penalties at all, or will face

smaller penalties than they initially thought.

These and other ACA-implementation errors can lead to

exaggerated responses that hurt students, workers, and

families alike. Unfortunately, H.R. 30 would just shift the

hours-related focal point for such errors.

Employers who take the time to understand the law and

regulations as they currently stand can develop common sense,

constructive, and consensual approaches to properly

implementing the law. Again, we urge you to vote NO on Save

American Workers Act of 2015.

Sincerely,

Mary Kusler,

Director of Government Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Republicans say that with this bill they are trying to help or, as they put it, save workers. But their legislation will lead to many times more workers becoming part time, losing millions of hours of work.

The Republicans constantly talk about the threat of increased budget deficits, but their bill would increase the deficit by over $50 billion. The Republicans like to say they care about the taxes people pay, but this bill would substantially shift responsibility for paying for health insurance from employers to taxpayers.

These are indisputable facts based on yesterday's analysis from the nonpartisan CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation. This chart helps to illustrate what this is really all about. Today, 7 percent, more or less, of workers work between 30 and 34 hours, while close to half work 40 hours. As you can see, the number working 40 hours overshadows dramatically those who are working less. This is the key point. So if you shift the basis of employer responsibility for health care to begin at 40 hours instead of 30 hours, the result will be a dramatic increase in the number of workers whose hours of employment will be reduced to less than 40 hours per week. You will be creating hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 39ers.

CBO and Joint Task conclude, therefore, that 1 million workers will lose their employer-based health insurance, with half of them shifting to insurance through the health exchanges or through Medicaid--by the way, with some taxpayer support--and the other half--listen to this-- losing health insurance coverage completely.

So when you take off the label of this Republican bill and look at the contents in the package, this is a bad deal, highlighting the need for a truth in labeling requirement for this Congress. When you go beyond the benign Republican rhetoric, this is a bad deal for American workers and the middle class and taxpayers. That has led even a conservative like Yuval Levin to say that today's bill ``is worse than doing nothing.''

This bill is brought up today without any committee consideration or discussion with Democrats--the minority leader is here, the minority whip--not a single minute of discussion. Unfortunately, contrary to the rhetoric we heard yesterday--again, from the majority--about the need to look for common ground, on this issue the Republican approach is scorched earth.

I urge a strong negative vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

To say this restores the 40-hour week is pure sophistry. What it does is undermine it for hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. That is the basis of the Joint Tax Committee report. It is pure sophistry to say otherwise.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair say again how much time is remaining?

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes at the most to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another active member of our committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, could I ask you for the available time now on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is now the ranking member on Education and the Workforce.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished member of Energy and Commerce.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been some discussion here. The gentleman from Illinois said there isn't anything being taken away. That is simply not true. The basis for the Joint Tax and CBO estimate is that there will be the loss of hours for hundreds of thousands of people. And as a result, 1 million people will no longer be enrolled in employment-based coverage, and of those, 500,000 will have no insurance. So that statement is not correct.

And, if I might say so, when the chairman said the House will take up a bill to define full time as 40 hours per week so more people can work full time, the basis of the CBO estimate is that fewer people will be working 40 hours or more. That is the basis for their conclusions.

So let me just, if I might, emphasize what has been said by a conservative, Yuval Levin--not related:

Putting the cutoff for the employer mandate at 40 hours

would likely put far, far more people at risk of having their

hours cut than leaving it at 30 hours. That would make for a

worse effect on workers and on the economy.

That is just a fact.

The ACA has eliminated discrimination in terms of preexisting conditions. It has dramatically reduced the uninsured rate--now 12.9 percent, the lowest since that began to be tracked. It has increased Medicare benefits, and it has held health care cost growth to record lows.

If you don't like the ACA despite all of these achievements, continue to try to repeal it. But don't punish people who are working 40 hours or more with this bill. That is what this does. And it leaves 500,000 with no insurance whatsoever. This is worse than a terrible bill.

And I will now enter into the Record letters of opposition from the Consumers Union, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the Teamsters.

Consumers Union,

January 6, 2015.

Hon. Sander M. Levin,

House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Consumers Union urges you to oppose changing the Affordable

Care Act's (ACA) definition of full time work from a 30-hour

per week threshold to 40 hours. The Affordable Care Act's

current 30-hour threshold for classification as full-time

employee for purposes of the employer ``mandate'' in the ACA

discourages employers from easily circumventing penalties

that incentivize employers to provide health insurance

coverage to their workers. Raising the full-time threshold to

40 hours per week would reduce access to employer-provided

insurance coverage.

Under the ACA, employers with at least 50 full-time

equivalent employees who do not provide health insurance to

their full-time workers must pay a penalty. This makes it

fairer for employers who do provide insurance and have to

figure that into their costs. More importantly, it helps

reduce the cost of providing care to the uninsured that would

otherwise be picked up by public programs, such as Medicaid,

and, hence, ultimately passed on to taxpayers. In fact, the

Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation

estimate that changing the threshold to 40 hours would

increase budget deficits by $25.4 billion over the 2015-2019

period and by $73.7 billion over the 2015-2024 period.

Currently the ACA penalty is applied to employers who do

not offer insurance to full-time employees defined as those

who work at least 30 hours a week. Raising the threshold to

40 hours per week would make it much easier for employers to

avoid covering millions of Americans who work between 30 and

40 hours a week by cutting their hours slightly. Thus,

raising the threshold to 40 hours will jeopardizes access to

employer coverage for many people who get their insurance

through an employer.

Consumers Union strongly supports retaining the current 30-

hour threshold and urges you to oppose efforts to increase

it.

Sincerely,

De Ann Friedholm,

Director of Health Care Reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Ryan on your selection in election, I guess, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. We look forward to working together.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill. This bill encourages the hiring of veterans. The unemployment rate has continued to decline for post-9/ 11 veterans, and these improvements are part of a larger economic recovery.

In November 2013, the unemployment rate for these veterans was nearly 10 percent. One year later, the rate has dropped to 5.7 percent, the national average; yet for female post-9/11 veterans, the unemployment rate remains high, above 8 percent.

This bill continues as part of our national commitment to help the veterans of this country. I want to emphasize this if I might: as we legislate, we need to balance priorities. We need to maintain--very differently than just spoken--the basic structure of ACA, which is providing millions and millions of Americans with insurance and with coverage they never had.

We also need to encourage the hiring of the veterans of this country who have served this Nation and serve this Nation so well. That is a supreme obligation of this institution; therefore, I support this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as she shall consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), someone who has served this Nation

and now serves all of the people of Hawaii and I think, once again, all the people of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman if he has other speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I said at the beginning, we need to, as we legislate, balance priorities. We have here a very different view of the ACA than has been expressed by several. But that isn't the point of this legislation. This is about the veterans of this country.

This isn't about Keystone. We will debate that some other time. We have very different views. This is no way a precedent to that. We will debate the 40-hour week later this week. We have some very different views, to put it mildly, about the legislation entitled the ``40-hour week.''

I should also like to point out regarding ACA that businesses, small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, aren't even required to contribute to or offer insurance to their employees.

This bill is called the Heroes Act because the focus of this bill is to make sure that there isn't any disincentive for anybody to hire veterans. The rate of unemployment for veterans has been higher. I had the chance in Roseville, Michigan, to meet with veterans, Vietnam veterans, some months ago. I was deeply troubled by the high rate of unemployment for those Vietnam veterans. This country has not done an adequate job in terms of making sure that veterans have a real opportunity to work.

That is the tribute that we must provide, and it is more than a tribute; it is an obligation to those who have served this Nation. That is why this is called the Heroes Act. Let's not distort it. Let's not undermine what is the purpose of this legislation. Those who have served deserve as our priority any reasonable effort to provide them with the opportunity that they want. They have served. Now they want to work. We need to make sure they have that opportunity to work.

It is within that spirit that I support this legislation and urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what was said by the Budget Committee chairman is not correct. This is not about more information. This is a requirement that these official cost estimates really be part of the enforcement of the budget resolution. So what this is, in a few words: Republicans today are extending their embrace of voodoo economics by wrapping their arms around voodoo score keeping. Again, it is not about more information. It is being able to cook the books to implement their long-held discredited notion that tax cuts pay for themselves.

I think the former Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration official Bruce Bartlett said it best:

It is not about honest revenue estimating. It is about

using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican

ideology in the budget process.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me make clear at the outset that this isn't a debate about the excellent work of charities or foundations or their vital role in our society. This House has already taken action to provide for the three provisions included in this bill for this year's tax returns as part of the broad extender bill that passed last week.

When the chairman talks about no surprises, we have already passed through the House and what will become law is an extender bill that makes it clear for this tax season that these provisions are in effect. There is no doubt about that. Everyone who voted in favor of the package has already ensured that taxpayers can benefit from these provisions this year.

Look, this isn't about politics. Frankly, as the lead sponsor originally of one of these bills, I find objectionable any reference to politics. I sponsored that bill regarding food contributions because of my belief that many people wanted to contribute to help supply nutrition.

When the President issued his Statement of Administration Policy, there was no politics at all, zero. He had made that clear in July. I think it is incredible--let me leave it at that--that anyone would say that politics has anything to do with this issue. As I said, these provisions are already going to be available for taxpayers in this tax season.

What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities. What this bill does is take three provisions out of the many in the extender bill--three--leaving aside whether it is R&D, leaving aside whether it is the education provision, leaving aside whether it is the child tax credit that would expire in terms of its improvements in a couple of years, what this does is to take just these three, important as they are, and say that we are going to make those permanent without paying one dime for them, not one dime, adding $11 billion to the debt.

I must say--and we have had some back and forth on this--whatever one thought of Chairman Camp's comprehensive bill--and we had some questions about it, but never questioning the fact that it took some hard work and I think some courage to put these provisions into the context of comprehensive tax reform, and so it is counterintuitive in a way to just pick these three up and to make them permanent unpaid for.

Let me just read the Statement of Administration Policy if I might. I just hope it sets to rest any claim that this is about politics because as an original sponsor of one of these bills, I can just emphasize what propelled me to propose it to all the food pantries I went to and to all of the church groups I went to who were providing food, to the businesspeople I talked with who were essentially donating food, to their credit, that they couldn't sell and to doing so in a way that it was timely and so that the foods were very easily edible and readily so.

With that spirit--and I hope talking about the spirit of the season-- this administration policy, I hope with that spirit it will be received. I quote from it:

The administration supports measures that enhance

nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and

other community organizations in their many roles, including

as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine

for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that

encourages land protections for current and future

generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster

solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The

President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would

enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many

individuals.

However, the administration strongly opposes passage of

H.R. 5806, which would permanently extend three current

provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain

donations. As the administration stated when strongly

opposing similar legislation this past July, if this same,

unprecedented approach of making certain traditional tax

extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the

other traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or

more to deficits over the next 10 years, wiping out most of

the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer

Relief Act of 2012. Earlier this year, House Republicans

themselves passed a budget resolution that required

offsetting any tax extenders that were made permanent with

other revenue measures.

As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a

double standard by adding to the deficit to continue tax

breaks, while insisting on offsetting the proposed extension

of emergency unemployment benefits and the discretionary

funding increases for defense and nondefense priorities such

as research and development in the Bipartisan Budget Act of

2013. House Republicans are also making clear their

priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent

without offsets even as the House Republican budget

resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working

families and students by letting important improvements to

the EITC, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit,

and education tax credits expire.

The administration wants to work with the Congress to make

progress on measures that strengthen America's charitable

sector.

I want to repeat that.

The administration wants to work with the Congress to make

progress on measures that strengthen America's charitable

sector. However, H.R. 5806 represents the wrong approach.

If the President were presented with H.R. 5806, his senior

advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The way we have acted here, taxpayers will be able to use the IRA rollover for this tax season. That is for sure. People who want to make donations, however they do it, relating to nutrition and food will be able to do that for this tax year.

So the issue is not whether we care much about those provisions. As I said, as someone who has worked so hard in terms of nutrition policy, food donations, who has been to so many pantries, who has been to Forgotten Harvest, worked with them, and Gleaners in southeast Michigan, I know how important it is that these contributions continue. They will under the action of this Congress.

That is not the question. The question is whether this institution will take three provisions out of the extenders bill that we passed and make them permanent, unpaid for--unpaid for--permanent and unpaid for, increasing the deficit by $11 billion without giving the same consideration to every other single provision in the extender bill, whether it is education or research and development and so many other provisions that also have some urgency to them.

No, I don't think anybody should worry here about voting ``no'' and having challenge by anybody to their dedication to tax policies that give people incentive to give to charities, to foundations, or to nutrition programs, or their dedication in terms of conservation.

What the majority has decided to do is to take, as I said, out of the extender bill three provisions, knowing that the President would veto them, I guess trying to score points against the President instead of scoring points for those whose programs are in question here.

So that is what this is all about. I want to close by just urging everyone who votes ``no'' here, you can say with total honesty that you have voted for legislation that makes sure for this tax season, like for all other extenders, that people will be able in this case to give contributions, to deduct them, to roll over their IRAs, whatever. It will be up to the citizen to make that decision. We are providing that opportunity for citizens.

Anyone who tries to undermine the deep dedication of anyone on this side or the President of the United States to the importance of charity I think is

doing a real disservice to the Nation and to themselves--and to themselves. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this needed legislation.

In Michigan, we're blessed to be surrounded by the Great Lakes. In so many ways, the Lakes define our state, and our region, as well. For many years, though, we did not treat them as if they were very great. For the better part of a century, the Lakes and their tributaries were polluted to the point that they were dying.

A century of environmental harm cannot be undone overnight, but we've made considerable progress. That's where the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative comes in. Through the GLRI, we are finally addressing longstanding problems, such as toxic hotspots, invasive species like the Asian carp, habitat restoration, and runoff pollution.

The GLRI was created by the Obama Administration and, since 2010, Congress has wisely funded it. Now it is time for Congress to take the next step and formally authorize this vital program. Congress must remain a full partner in the restoration effort in the Great Lakes, and authorizing GLRI is the best way to do that.

I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my colleagues who have worked so hard to support GLRI over the last five years, especially Representative Joyce, Louise Slaughter, and my good friend John Dingell. I would also like to underscore the longstanding efforts of Senator Carl Levin and his staff in the area of Great Lakes restoration.

As we continue to make meaningful progress on restoration of the Great Lakes, this will be a hopeful sign that other difficult environmental redemptions are also achievable. Let us move forward together today by passing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If a test of a career is whether you made a difference, Big John's career has been a big success. In so many ways, John was tall in stature physically and in every other way.

There has been much note about his particular accomplishments. I would like to spend just a few minutes today talking not about those accomplishments that are so vivid and so clear, but to talk about John Dingell and his character.

He remembered his roots, never forgot them. There was always, I think, a sense of the underdog. I think his family came to this country and felt, in a sense, like the underdog, but were thankful that they had an opportunity in this country to rise. And it is so clear that John succeeded.

You might sum it up this way: John Dingell was a legislator's legislator. He combined courage and civility, dedication and decency, strong views with strong friendships.

I don't remember exactly when it was that, down the hall here, when John was being honored, he decided to talk about this institution and what he had seen happen to it. And it was a very frank talk. And he really bemoaned recent events here, where it was much more difficult to have strong views but to have strong camaraderie, to have strong views but have the ability to compromise on them, to have strong views but find a way to seek and find common ground. That was so convincing, so persuasive for someone who has been in this institution longer than anyone else in the history of this country.

So I think our best salute to John, maybe the best way to remember his contributions--in addition to all of the particular legislation that came to be and meant so much to millions of people in this country--is to try to pick up the mantle that surrounded him all of his career here, to really see if we can seek and find some way in this institution to operate the way John Dingell saw so much of his career, and why he felt it was such a loss when it dwindled.

So I would like to just join everybody else with some emotion. Our two families have been so close for so many decades. Our two families, the Levins and the Dingells, the Dingells and the Levins, have had their lives so interwoven, so interwoven, coming from somewhat different backgrounds. But those weren't an obstacle. Those were really opportunities.

So I join so many others in saying to John and to Debbie, who has been his partner, more than a job well done--a path that all of us should seek to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With this bill, we can help millions of Americans who are living with disabilities become more financially secure. Just as families today can open tax-free accounts to save for the future costs of college for their children, this legislation would make it easier for families to save money for disability-related expenses like transportation, housing, and health prevention and wellness. The ABLE Act aims to ease the financial burden on these individuals and their families.

I applaud the efforts of Congressmen Crenshaw, Van Hollen, Sessions, and you, Chairman Camp, among others.

The CBO estimates the cost of the bill will be $2 billion over 10 years. The bill is paid for through $638 million in revenue offsets and $1.4 billion in spending cuts.

There has been active bipartisan work on paying for this bill, and there is broad agreement on the revenue offsets. There is some opposition to the Medicare offsets included in the bill because the legislation uses Medicare savings for nonhealth purposes.

We have challenges ahead, including important work on SGR. I understand the concern about Medicare offsets. I think it is important as we proceed on this bill to stress that it must not be considered a precedent for using Medicare savings to pay for unrelated costs associated with tax changes.

The ABLE Act provides much-needed relief, as we have said, to families and their children with disabilities. This is an important step forward for them in a very personal way. I support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), another person like Mr. Crenshaw and others who have been working so hard on this issue for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), another distinguished member of our committee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Let me ask my colleague if he is ready to close?

I do not.

Okay. I would like to give your colleague a chance, but shall we proceed? Is that okay?

Okay. I can do so very briefly. I think we face a somewhat unusual situation here. We have an opportunity to help people who have some very major challenges, including challenges related to their health, and so on balance I think there is a need for us to act, and so therefore I support this bill.

I just want us to remember, in a sense, the unusual opportunity that we have here to help millions of people who are living with disabilities that affect their lives, including their basic health status.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This legislation is crucial as much for what it avoids as what it accomplishes. A 1-year extension avoids the dangerous plan pushed by House Republicans for much of this last year to make permanent a select number of provisions at a cost of nearly $1 trillion.

That plan was not only fiscally irresponsible, it also left many provisions behind that are vital to working families and small businesses, including the exclusion for mortgage debt forgiveness, new market tax credits, continuations of the expansions to the earned income tax credit, and the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

This bill also avoids an almost equally harmful proposal under consideration last week that would have permanently extended a select group of expiring provisions and would also have given permanent breaks to a relative few while costing more than $400 billion and leaving out critical provisions that help working families.

I actively and publicly opposed that proposal. Fortunately, it generated a veto threat from the President.

The provisions in today's extender bill need more serious consideration than would have been provided in that proposal both as to substance, whether they contribute to economic growth and jobs, and how they fit into the need for both equity and fiscal responsibility.

Some of the extender provisions have contributed to economic growth, such as the provisions for R&D, promoting development of renewable energy, encouraging development of small business, and increasing educational opportunity. Others should not be part of any permanent action, such as bonus depreciation, which was always contemplated as a temporary measure to stimulate economic growth and activity.

Some of the provisions in tax extenders should end, and others need to be addressed as we make better sense of the international tax structure, including closing tax loopholes. While I did not agree with many of the provisions of the tax reform proposal of the chairman, he did attempt to address issues in a more comprehensive way, unlike what was passed through the House up to $1 trillion and was attempted last week.

It was a serious mistake, as I said, for the Republicans to have taken pieces of it, trying to make them permanent without paying a dime to offset the more than $800 billion cost of doing so.

The bill today, therefore, only maintains the status quo for this year. Not to act would disrupt the coming tax filing season for millions of American workers and businesses which have relied on Congress to extend these provisions and will, in a matter of weeks, begin filing their 2014 tax returns. As a result, I will support this measure.

As we act in the future, including on tax reform, I believe the lesson that should be learned from the past is that it is critical to try to work on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the importance of maintaining support for the values that must underpin legislative action.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Look, you made provisions permanent, Mr. Chairman, and you paid for them in your bill. There is disagreement how you paid for them, but you paid for them, and then you come forth with up to $1 trillion permanent unpaid for and leave out the child tax credit and the EITC.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Then we hear last week a proposal for $400 billion of it unpaid for, permanent--unpaid for, permanent--leaving out the EITC and the child tax credit, so that is why the President acted, and that is why it was essential he act.

I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

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

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You are never sure what is going to happen the next day around here, so I am not sure if this is the last time you will be presenting a bill--something could come up next week--but let me assume that it is for just a moment and speak on a personal basis if I might. I hope the speaker won't cut me off. You are not supposed to talk to each other, so I will try to speak to you while I speak to the chair. I will try to do both.

Around here we can question each other's positions. In a sense, that is why we are here. Dave Camp leaves here having participated in a discussion of substance and questioning each other's positions in a way to try to come forth with legislation. But I think, in a rather unique way, our chairman has been able to do that with complete integrity, with complete seriousness--now and then a sense of humor, but complete seriousness--and the ability to question within a framework of some friendship.

So if this is your last management of a bill, I simply want to say for myself and, more importantly, I think, for this institution, if I might, that your decision to leave here means that you are leaving with your head so high and with, I hope, a feeling of real accomplishment and complete integrity and seriousness about your work. I am sure that your constituents are very proud to have voted for you 12 times. That was a commendable dozen.

So with some feeling of gratitude for having been able to serve with you, Dave, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 758 as amended, which condemns Russia aggression against her neighbors. In the past year, we have seen Russia's determination to exert influence over neighboring sovereign states such as Ukraine. Ever since November 2013, when the Ukrainian people gathered peacefully in Maidan Square to protest against a corrupt, Russian-backed government, the Ukrainian people have come under siege by separatist forces supported and armed by Russia. It is clear to all of us that in spite of the ceasefire, Russia has never intended to honor the terms of the agreement and has continued to undermine any genuine effort to stabilize Ukraine.

Here in the United States, we must fully understand that such acts of aggression undermine peace and security--not just for Ukraine, but for all of Europe and the international community. At this critical juncture when normalcy seems unattainable, the United States must stand with the Ukrainian people and support their own desire to build a free and democratic country, free from Russia's interference--in complete freedom to determine Ukraine's own course of history.

We and our NATO allies have taken important steps in support of Ukraine. We are collectively providing $100 million in military assistance and have increased military cooperation. We have imposed economic sanctions that force Russia pay a heavy price for its aggression. The international community has spoken with one voice--if Russia chooses aggression, there are clear consequences to its expansionist agenda.

But there is much more that needs to be done. I urge my colleagues to continue their

support of the Ukrainian people by passing additional legislation that provides for military and humanitarian assistance. The Ukrainian people have demonstrated time and again their will to defend their nation against a more powerful aggressor--with no expectation that anyone would come to their aid. Now, we need to do our part and give them the chance to stand up for the same values and principles that define us as a nation.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the rare occasions where the name of the bill speaks for itself.

The No Social Security for Nazis Act is designed to close a loophole that has allowed some Nazi persecutors and their collaborators in the Holocaust to receive Social Security benefits. By leaving the country before they were officially deported, these people were able to keep their Social Security benefits. It is unbearable that those responsible for the deaths of millions during the Holocaust continue to receive Social Security benefits due to this loophole.

This legislation stops benefit payments to Nazi persecutors and ensures that these individuals do not receive spousal benefits from marrying a Social Security beneficiary or through other channels. Congress never intended for Nazi war criminals and collaborators to be able to receive Social Security benefits. This bipartisan legislation reaffirms that intent.

Social Security is an earned benefit, and it is our job in Congress to preserve and protect it. We must stop these inappropriate payments now, and that is exactly what this legislation does. I thank Representatives Johnson and Becerra and the work of Representatives Carolyn Maloney, Jason Chaffetz and Leonard Lance, and all others for their leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and accomplishments of Mayor Richard J. Notte, who passed away on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 following a courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. Richard Notte was a good friend and colleague in public service, and I am honored to pay tribute to him.

Mayor Notte was at the heart and soul of the City of Sterling Heights. He served his community with such active and vibrant devotion, and was considered to be a ``working man's mayor.'' He was highly recognizable in his trademark fedora but he was less interested in the spotlight than representing the residents of Sterling Heights and improving the community he cherished.

Mayor Notte was first elected to city council in 1983 where he served for ten years before he was elected Mayor in 1993. He also enjoyed a lengthy and successful career working at Ford Motor Company for 45 years before retiring in 2004. He held several elected UAW positions including plant chairman, recording and financial secretary.

Mayor Notte's love for his city and the automotive industry combined when we needed the most. As a founding Mayor of the Mayors Automotive Caucus he was an articulate spokesperson nationally for the domestic auto industry and the U.S. manufacturing base. Locally his tenacious efforts helped to keep the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP) open and when Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the company invested over $1 billion to construct a new assembly facility and paint shop at SHAP. He was deeply proud of that effort and the resurgence of the auto industry in our state.

Mayor Notte's accomplishments did not go unnoticed. Through the years he was honored with dozens of prestigious awards. In October 2013 he was inducted into the Macomb Hall of Fame and was recognized for his outstanding contributions to improving the economic, family, and community life of Macomb County. He was also a strong advocate for the Sterling Heights Community Foundation and its mission to enhance cultural, educational and recreational opportunities for Sterling Heights residents. In 2010, he funded the ``Richard J. Notte Scholarship for Public Service Endowment.'' Through this permanent endowment, impact on the community will live on in perpetuity, as the Foundation will annually present a college scholarship to a deserving student in his name.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am honored to have worked with Richard Notte during his career and to see up close how rooted he was in his community. I am pleased to join with his family, friends and the larger Macomb County community in mourning his loss, celebrating his life and honoring his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my respects to one of the former members of this body, Lane Evans, who during his twenty-four years in the House of Representatives really made a difference, especially to our nation's veterans.

Lane Evans and I came to Congress together in 1983. During his more than two decades in the House, Lane was a forceful advocate for the men and women who served in our nation's armed forces. His earlier service in the Marines as a young man made him a natural champion of U.S. military personnel, and he rose to be the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans Affairs Committee. He was one of the first to recognize the serious and long-overlooked problems of Agent Orange, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, and the impacts these conditions had on veterans and their families.

Representative Bustos, who today represents the area that Lane Evans served so well for so many years, and others in the Illinois Delegation, have introduced a bill to name the Veterans Clinic in Galesburg, Illinois after Lane Evans. I can think of no better tribute to a person who gave so much to America's veterans, and I am proud to join in cosponsoring this measure.

I am proud to have served with Lane Evans and to have possessed his friendship. I extend my condolences to his family. He is deeply missed.

I thank the ranking member for yielding and also Mr. Gerlach. Many of us have enjoyed working with him. We are going to miss you. We don't do enough work together in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly--kind of emotionally, in a way--support this resolution because of what has been going on in Ukraine. This resolution shows our support for Ukrainian people's right to determine their own future and to build a country that is free and democratic.

We stand firmly with Ukrainian people and condemn Russia's aggression. We should always remember that the impetus for Ukraine's freedom comes from within, from within Ukrainian people. It is their desire to be free that is the ultimate force behind all international efforts.

Time and events have shown, time and again, that Ukrainian people are standing up for their freedom. From the Orange Revolution in 2004 to the protests in Maidan Square earlier this year, it is clear to the world that Ukraine is determined to build her own future.

The past year has been very difficult. Ukrainian people have paid a very high price to govern according to their own wishes. The images and reports from Ukraine have been hard to accept, and we are deeply saddened by the lives lost and by the overwhelming uncertainties that still loom ahead; yet Ukrainian people have spoken through their actions.

Just yesterday, here at the Capitol, the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus held a celebration to commemorate the 400th anniversary of its oldest school, the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.

At the event, I was delighted to see the strong support stemming from the American Ukrainian community. The community's work in my home State of Michigan and all across this Nation has led to close collaboration between our two nations and has reaffirmed our common values.

The community's work is especially important now, when others try to speak for the values and aspirations held true by Ukrainian people.

Tomorrow, we will welcome President Poroshenko to a joint meeting with Members of the House and Senate. We eagerly look forward to his remarks.

The passage of this resolution will be emblematic of the support from the American people, but we should always remember that the impetus for a free and democratic Ukraine comes from Ukrainian people themselves, but we can, should, and will help their efforts to continue to build a free Ukraine.