Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there was a story in yesterday's Detroit News, Michigan's uninsureds swells by 100,000 last year to 1.2 million people. I do not see how this bill will reduce that amount at all. This is supposed to be the week where we pay attention to the uninsured, but this bill really does not do that. It really turns away from them. I think we very much need to keep that in mind. That is the first point. Secondly, it allows the transfer to savings accounts which really can become a dodge to escape taxation altogether. Even though it is a small amount of this, it is a serious mistake. We do not need more tax shelters in our Tax Code. We should not be feeding any moneys whatsoever into those shelters. This is what this bill in part does. My third point, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) works very hard on tax issues and knows the Tax Code well. I think this is a good pay-for. I think it is really irresponsible to bring another bill forth to this floor and not pay one dime. It is going to add $8 billion plus to our deficit. And the last aspect of this is the following: If they do not like this pay-for, come up with their own, but do not come here without anything to say as to how it will be paid for except by our children and our grandchildren. I support the substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is written as if the administration's war in Iraq was right from the beginning and now is basically going well, and neither is correct. It is written as if support of the troops is an issue. It is not. We fully support our troops. What is at issue is the appropriate response of this House to the horrendous conduct illustrated in the graphic pictures of prisoner abuse. What is in issue is the appropriate response of this House to the American people and to this House hearing the truth on TV while it was sitting undisclosed on the desk of high administration officials. The proper response for this House is not just to pass resolutions but to be an active force in facing up to what is happening in Iraq and its consequences for our Nation and the world. When it comes to events in Iraq, the majority in this House can no longer simply rubber stamp all of the actions of this administration or pass the buck to it or the Senate. Turn down this rule so we can add an amendment requiring this House to step up to its responsibilities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the country should know there is a tax train wreck coming along the tracks here, and what is the Republican answer? Speed up the train, making tax cuts permanent, mainly, heavily, for the very wealthy, and they essentially try to hide the track. First of all, much of what is being given is going to be taken back by the AMT. Secondly, while some is being taken back now, much more will be in future years. So what is the answer of the Republican majority? The answer is, oh, blame the Democrats because of actions taken what, 10 years ago, 12 years ago, 15 years ago. The Republicans have run this place for 10 years, and their answer on the AMT is always wait until next year. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has heard that year after year. When the Republicans took over this place, a third of 1 percent of taxpayers were subject to the AMT. In 2004, that will be 7 times as many. So what do they do? They extend it for 1 year, even though in 2011, the percentage will go up to 11.2, many, many, many times more than the number who paid the AMT when the Republicans took over. So why do they not act? Because it is going to cost so much money. The estimate is that if this bill is extended and essentially made permanent, during the next 10 years, it would cost $550 billion, way beyond 17, and if you add interest, $650 billion it would cost. So the Republicans say, wait until next year because they know they cannot act this year and be honest with the American people. This Republican majority simply cannot tell it straight to the American people. They set up a caucus, the Zero Tax Caucus. Why do they not just act this year instead of setting up a caucus that is nothing more than a smoke screen? The substitute is an honest attempt to do better and to pay for it. The Republican majority does not want to pay for any of their tax cuts, even those that help middle income taxpayers, but most go to high- income taxpayers. Vote for the substitute. Let us begin to be honest with the American public.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we have two alternatives before us; that is not always true on this floor. Often Democrats are not allowed a substitute. This time we have been granted that. We should always have that, by the way. Always, always. The alternatives are very different. The issue is not whether we want this to expire, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). We do not. And surely it is not a question of fundamental tax fairness. Indeed, the opposite is true when you look at your proposal. First of all, it does discriminate between couples of certain income brackets and couples in lower income brackets. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do that. They differentiate, indeed, they discriminate. Why discriminate against working people who have less income and help working people who have more? What is the reason? What is the reason? Well, I remember when we argued over the child credit, and my colleagues thought it was defensible to differentiate between those with kids who have certain incomes and those who have kids with less and lower incomes. All right. That is one difference between the two alternatives. Another relates to the alternative minimum tax. And here, to put it charitably, my colleague is not telling it like it is. Because essentially what my colleague is going to do is to give to millions of couples with one hand, and they are allowing it to be taken back with another. Indeed, the figures I think are pretty clear that about half of what would be given through this will be taken back by the alternative minimum tax. One-half. Millions of couples who think, because of my colleagues' advertisement, that they are going to get some help on a permanent basis, are going to have that taken back when they face the alternative minimum tax. My colleagues have not faced up to the impact of the alternative minimum tax, period. Millions and millions and millions of taxpayers are going to fall within it because of my colleagues' inaction. And it is always next year they say that they are going to do something about it. So that is a second difference between the two bills. We do not discriminate between married couples according to their income and differentiate against those who have lesser income. And we do not give with one hand and take back with another. We address the alternative minimum tax issue. And, thirdly, and my Democratic colleagues have talked about this, and it relates, really, to the AMT, is my Republican colleagues' fiscal irresponsibility. They do not pay for this at all. They say the more debt, I guess, the better. That is their philosophy. The more the national debt goes up, the better. The deeper the hole, their philosophy is, dig it deeper and my colleagues think over time growth as some magic wand will fill in a deepened hole. That is irresponsible. Indeed, it is worse than that: it is dangerous. So there are three basic differences between those two alternatives and why I urge serious consideration, indeed, all of my colleagues to vote for the substitute. It does not discriminate according to income. It addresses the alternative minimum tax so we will not take back from millions those that we pretend, or my colleagues pretend, to help; and it is fiscally responsible. And if my colleagues vote otherwise, essentially what they want is not tax equity; they want what they think is a political issue. They are dead wrong. Americans do not want discrimination against low-income families. They do not want them to say one thing and then another thing be done through operation of the AMT. And I think they are increasingly sick and tired of the fiscal irresponsibility of the majority in this House, the majority in the other House, and the chief executive of this country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 89th anniversary of one of history's most terrible tragedies, the Armenian Genocide. On April 24, 1915, 300 Armenian leaders, intellectuals and professionals were rounded up in Constantinople, deported and killed, under orders from the Young Turk government. This was the beginning of a campaign of terror resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and the deportation of more than 500,000. The government of the Ottoman Empire justified this policy by claiming it was necessary to suppress revolts being launched by Armenians as a consequence of the ongoing military operations of World War I. This assertion was patently denied by survivors and witnesses. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau reported at that time, ``Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.'' Not content with perpetrating this atrocity, the Young Turks denied a genocide had taken place. Generations have since been raised denying this tragedy. Such denials are refuted by the archival documents and first-hand accounts found in such recent scholarly works as Peter Balakian's The Burning Tigris and Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell. Director Atom Egoyan presented the horror of the siege of Van in his film Ararat, which was based, in part, on the memoirs of Clarence Ussher, an American physician and missionary working in Turkey at the time. In Detroit and its surrounding suburbs live one of the largest Armenian-American communities in the United States, many of whom are the children and grandchildren of survivors or actual survivors themselves. This weekend, I will be attending a commemoration ceremony at St. John's Armenian Church in Southfield, Michigan, in which some of these individuals will be in attendance. To those who suggest that this ruthless genocide of a people and culture did not happen, I ask, what further testimony could the world possibly want? Mr. Speaker, for myself and my constituents, I rise today to urge those who deny this genocide to accept it as fact. Only then can we move forward and stop these atrocities from repeating themselves over and over again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. I assume everybody else will. But let us recognize it as a baby step when we should be taking a much larger one, I would say a giant step. I do not think any of us know enough about what is happening in the lives of the families of those who are serving, in many cases serving longer than they ever expected, and the hardship that is happening financially as well as otherwise to these families. So we should be doing more than this. Indeed, we should have had a Committee on Ways and Means discussion of this, this bill did not come before us, to look at the panoply of legislation that we could be considering and enacting. One has been mentioned relating to the child credit. Another relates to the withdrawals from the IRAs. The penalty is now being taken care of. But how about when there is a recontribution to make up for what had to be withdrawn because people are serving, they are doing their duty, they are receiving much less pay, the families are living on much less? This was not expected. It was not something they could readily plan for. So today we ought to be looking at this legislation as something that should be passed, but as something that should just be the opener in a full discussion in this House, in our committee, about the consequences that are being imposed really upon the families who are really in many cases in some economic distress. So let us just make this the beginning and not the end.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my heartiest congratulations to Anna Sauger, a beloved mother, wife, and citizen who was born a century ago on April 4, 1904. Born in a coal mining town in Portage, PA, Anna often speaks of the hard life for the family of eight boys and three girls. The family kept two cows for milk, two pigs and some chickens for fresh eggs. Her father, brothers and other coal miners fought for an 8-hour workday, better safety in the mines, and ultimately formed a Union, only to face a lockout in this company town, and were forced to leave their homes. Ultimately, the company settled; Anna continued her education in a one-room school house and married John Sauger, a young miner. They lived in a small house in an area known as ``Whiskey Row'' until they moved to Detroit in 1925, where she raised a family of six boys and three girls. During WWII, Anna was one of many working women who helped build the arsenal of democracy. She worked at the old Packard plant helping build Packard-Merlin engines used in the P-51 Mustangs. Her other jobs included factory work at Bundy Tubing and Glo-Tone cleaners. Then tragedy struck and Anna lost John, her partner and best friend, in 1971. John was also her means of transportation, taking her from place to place. At the young age of 70 years old, Anna secretly took driver's training and got her driver's license. She became the proud owner of a driver's license and a green Dodge Scamp. Last year, when Anna was honored with a visit to her home by Governor Jennifer Granholm, she presented her with a handmade pillow and blanket, made on her 1956 Pfaff sewing machine. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding and honoring Anna Sauger on the wonderful occasion of her 100th birthday. I am pleased to join her many friends and family in paying tribute to a new centurion and a life that represents so very well the challenges and opportunities of our great country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Larry Doyle, a friend and a talented local government administrator, who is retiring today after 21 years of dedicated service to the city I am pleased to call home: Royal Oak, MI. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Doyle was instrumental in guiding the city of Royal Oak through many exciting changes. I have been privileged to work with him and have seen first hand his professionalism and his dedication to the city and its residents. His service began during the initial stages of the city's revival, first as Deputy City Attorney in 1983, then as city attorney in 1990. With the completion of Interstate 696 on the southern border, Royal Oak began reaping the benefits of its central position in southeast Michigan. With his active involvement businesses quickly utilized the location and the opening of diverse restaurants and unique shops brought visitors as frequently as local residents. After a nationwide search, the city leadership rightly asked Larry to take the management helm of the city in 1994. Over the following years, he set policies that aided in bringing the city a new ice arena, a new district court, improvements in city parks, as well as tremendous growth in property values. These efforts lead to the recent ``Cool City'' designation by Governor Jennifer Granholm, not only for a vibrant downtown, but for a desirable hometown community for residents. Larry's commitment to the city did not end with the workday. As an advocate and a resident, he can be found supporting any number of local events such as the Woodward Dream Cruise or the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The people of Royal Oak have indeed been well-served by all of his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a dedicated public servant. I am pleased to join with the residents of Royal Oak in thanking Larry Doyle for his service to our community and wishing him and his wife of 30 years, Sue, good health, happiness and success in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland as usual has put his finger on what the issue is here, that is, whether we want to move forward with welfare reform or we want to move backwards. The problem with the approach taken by the Republican majority here has been, instead of trying to reach out and move welfare reform to another stage, they have instead decided, on a very partisan basis essentially, to craft their own bill that really moves this backwards. Let me just indicate why. The gentleman from Maryland has pointed out a number of ways. We need to accentuate this. The gentleman from California says we have to help families who are still on welfare, but the child care provision in their bill is very, very inadequate. The literature is not complete, we do not have all the data, but it is very clear that one of the reasons welfare reform has worked is because there has been considerable money set aside for child care. Indeed, President Clinton, who brought this issue to the fore many years ago, vetoed bills originally passed in this House because there was inadequate money for child care. Eventually this House, on a bipartisan basis, stood up and was counted on this issue; and we passed many, many more moneys for child care and eventually President Clinton signed the bill. The contrast between the House and the Senate on child care moneys is very striking. The gentleman from Maryland mentioned that the Senate has now passed a $6 billion proposal, and I think it was a vote overwhelmingly in favor, while the gentleman from California and others get up here and defend a child care provision in the bill that was passed here on a partisan basis that is minor compared to what is needed. Health care is another problem. If we want to help families move off welfare, we should provide adequate health care coverage during the transition period. The Republican majority here has absolutely refused to step up to the plate on transitional Medicaid. Absolutely refused. And then as to the families on welfare, the gentleman from California mentioned they are moving out of poverty. An essential ingredient of that is some training so people are trained to be able to move up the economic ladder. But, instead, what they did in their bill was essentially to take out the training element as one of the ingredients of a successful effort by people on welfare. Those are just three of the reasons. By the way, this training aspect is so vital, and I think the Republican majority in the House and the President of the United States have failed to understand, to face up to this fact: poverty is increasing in the United States of America under their domain. It is increasing. We do not have all the figures; but it is clear, I think, that many of those still in poverty are people who have moved off of welfare, who have not had the adequate training to be able to move up the ladder and still remain in minimum wage jobs. By the way, they refuse to raise the minimum wage, too. We need to extend the present system, but we also need to move on to the second phase of welfare reform. I am hopeful if there is a bill that passes the Senate that there can then be a conference and you will not on the Republican House majority side be so recalcitrant and insist on taking good elements out of welfare reform, one, and also refuse to put some added ingredients into welfare reform, two. You have stonewalled. It is not the Senate. They are now moving ahead. The question is whether you are going to be willing to be a partner with them and with Democrats in moving this ahead instead of moving backwards. Partisanship in welfare reform is a dead end. I hope you get off it and we can move as we did many years ago on a bipartisan basis and make a further improvement so people who are now on welfare indeed can move off it, can have the training, can have the child care, can have the health care so they and their kids can move out of poverty.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are asking that the previous question be defeated and that we be allowed to bring up unemployment compensation to extend it; and here is the reason: I am glad we are debating this because the gentleman from Florida, by his discussion, has exposed exactly what is the thinking of the majority in this House. Last Friday, I met a fellow, 55, an electrician, working for more than 30 years. He told me he was going to take his retirement, his pension, from the Electrical Workers Union. He was going to do so even though he lost a level of benefits. And I said why? He said, because I have only 2 weeks of unemployment compensation left and if I do not take early retirement, I am going to lose my house. And you on the majority side call unemployment compensation a handout? It is part of the employment structure of this country because with employment sometimes comes unemployment. And you say get a job? You in the majority, who have been in the majority in this city, in the Senate, and occupying the White House, under whose dominion three million jobs have been lost, tell this fellow, and there are hundreds of thousands of men and women like him, get a job? That is an insult to the working people of this country. So we are bringing this up because you will not bring this bill up for a straight ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. If you brought it up, you know we would carry our position. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has mentioned it was said by Mr. Snow, the Secretary, that the President would sign an extension when there are $18, $19 billion in funds set-aside for this purpose. We do not want a President to passively say he will sign it. We want some leadership from the President of the United States for the millions of people who are unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of people who exhaust their benefits every month. Defeat the previous question.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for the Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, H.R. 3873, which the House approved yesterday. This reauthorization, which only happens every 5 years, provides Congress the opportunity to examine the program, fix problems, and build on past successes. I am greatly disappointed that this year, my colleagues needed to waste valuable energy protecting existing programs from damaging Administration proposals, rather than using what our schools have learned to move forward. When we started this debate a year ago, President Bush declared that the problem with the nutrition programs was too many children getting lunch. The President imposed burdensome new eligibility verification rules on our local school districts, despite research from his own Department of Agriculture showing his proposal would likely result in a reduction of eligible children participating in the program. I commend my colleagues on the Committee for ensuring that H.R. 3873 does not harm the School Lunch & Breakfast Program, or take food away from children who need it. I am also pleased that the bill expands pilot programs such as the Lugar Summer Food Pilot Program and the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program. In the State of Michigan, 11 percent of our children are considered overweight. Children participating in the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program not only ate more fruits and vegetables, but actually purchased less high fat vending machine options, had better attention spans in class, and experienced fewer disciplinary problems. This pilot program has shown that, given the resources, schools can create an environment where healthy snack options can be a reality without limiting choice, and I am pleased that more children will be able to participate. While H.R. 3873 does not damage the very successful National School Lunch & Breakfast Program, WIC, the Summer Food Service Program, and the Child and Adult Food Program, I believe we missed an important opportunity to help our schools expand their efforts to fight child obesity, which leads to adult diabetes and heart disease. We call on our schools to provide a model of healthy eating habits, but often do not give them the full resources necessary to meet this challenge. Right now, the federal government reimburses schools $2.14 per free lunch served, $1.17 per reduced priced lunch, and $.20 per paid lunch. Our schools struggle to create any meal for only $2.14, let alone a nutritious one with more expensive fruits and vegetables. If we are to ask our schools to provide healthier lunches, we must provide them with the money to match such a request. We also missed an opportunity to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens for schools already laden with burdens from No Child Left Behind, by eliminating the reduced price lunch category, and providing all children 185 percent of the poverty line with a free lunch. We should listen to school administrators when they describe the cost of this extra category in staff hours, and children not fed because they can't afford even the low cost of a reduced lunch. Again, I commend the members of the Committee for protecting the successful child nutrition programs, and I am hopeful that in the future we can listen to our schools needs as they implement these important programs.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sgt. Larry Gibson, who is leaving the Madison Heights Police Department after 25 years of dedicated service. During Sgt. Gibson's service, he devoted a good portion of his time to the young people in the community. Specifically, he created the Madison Heights, ``Say No To Drugs'' rally, and he started the D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. programs in the city's schools designed to help our students resist drugs and reduce violence. He was a specialized training instructor in a myriad of areas ranging from accident investigation to gang resistance education. Sgt. Gibson is the recipient of many well-deserved awards and commendations, beginning in 1984 until the present. The people of Madison Heights, and especially the young people, have been well-served by his commitment to making their city a safer and better place. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing good health, happiness and success to a dedicated police officer, Sgt. Larry Gibson.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution, and urge its rejection by the House. Either budget deficits matter or they don't. If anyone here believes that deficits don't matter and that the Federal Government can continue to borrow and spend hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year in perpetuity, then you should vote for the Republican budget. Even if one takes the majority's budget resolution at face value, by its own admission the Republican budget adds another $1.35 trillion in red ink to our Nation's already soaring national debt over the next 5 years. In fact, the deficit would be far lower if the Speaker simply adjourned the House and sent it home for the next 5 years. The reality is that the majority's budget cannot be taken at face value. This plan's deficit projections are understated. For example, the Republican budget provides $50 billion to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005, but then includes nothing over the next 4 years. Does anyone here seriously believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will simply drop off the map and out of the budget after 2005? The Republican budget also largely ignores the growing problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Some two and a half million households will get hit by this glitch in the Tax Code as they sit down to do their taxes this year, with the result that they will lose many of their itemized deductions and pay more taxes. The AMT problem gets worse year after year, affecting more and more middle class families. If this Congress does nothing, the number of households affected by the AMT soars to 12 million in 2005 and nearly 15 billion households in 2006. If we do nothing, the AMT will raise the taxes of 30 million taxpayers by 2010, and yet the Republican budget resolution assumes that Congress will do nothing to correct this growing problem in the Tax Code. All of us know that we will have to address the AMT problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, keeping the AMT at bay will cost more $600 billion over the next 10 years. Since the majority's plan does not budget for this expense, the funds needed will be put on the national credit card to be paid by our children. The Republican plan seeks to lock in permanent tax cuts this year whose costs explode outside the 5 years covered by this budget, including the tax cuts for the very wealthy. The majority's budget puts its tax breaks for the very wealthy ahead of everything else: ahead of deficit reduction; ahead of preserving Social Security for the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation; ahead of Medicare; ahead of veterans programs; ahead of needed investments in education, transportation, environmental protection, and health care. Even worse, the Republican tax cuts are heavily tilted to the very wealthy. I believe that deficits do matter. Because of the bankrupt policies of the Bush administration and the majority party, the Federal Government will need to borrow half a trillion dollars this year alone. If this House approves the majority's budget resolution, you dig the deficit hole deeper year after year to the tune of several hundred billion dollars each and every year. This is not a sustainable policy, and it is a terrible legacy to leave our children. I urge the House to reject the Republican budget and vote instead for the budget alternative offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt alternative balances the budget, provides middle-class tax relief, and funds national priorities such as education, environmental protection, veterans benefits, and health care.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a Member of the Hellenic Caucus, to celebrate the 183rd anniversary of Greek Independence Day. Today, the Olympic flame was lit in Olympia, Greece marking the day in the Julian calendar that the Modern Games began in Athens in 1896. It is fitting that the Olympic torch returns to its homeland, as we mark the independence of a nation Thomas Jefferson called ``the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' Ancient Greece sparked many flames of political, social, and artistic innovation--the philosophy of Plato and Socrates, the plays of Sophocles and Aristophanes, and the epic poetry of Homer. But Ancient Greece's greatest legacy is the establishment of democratic government and the Hellenic belief that the authority to govern derives directly from the people. After 400 years of rule by the Ottoman Empire, independence was especially meaningful to the people who burn with a deep rooted commitment to freedom. Greek ancestors passed on the traditions of liberty and freedom, of hard work and an appreciation of culture to their children and grandchildren, many of whom are proud Greek Americans and continue to provide important contributions to American life. Today Greece is a true ally of the United States, a valued partner in NATO, and host to the world for the 2004 Olympics in Athens. My district celebrates the Greek heritage as an important part of community providing diversity and culture to our churches, schools, and neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Greece for its contributions past and present, as they continue to light flames of freedom.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mount Clemens General Hospital on the opening of their new Radiology Oncology Center and the completion of the first phase of the Ted B. Wahby Cancer Center. I also want to join the staff and trustees of Mount Clemens General in honoring my friend Ted Wahby for his long dedication to providing quality health care and to the service of Macomb County. Ted currently serves as Macomb County Treasurer and has a long record of dedicated public service. He was voted one of Crain's Detroit Business 25 most influential leaders last year. Prior to his service as Treasurer, he was the long-time mayor of St. Clair Shores and a trustee of the Lakeshore School District Board. Among his many charitable efforts, he serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Mount Clemens General Hospital and has played an active, instrumental role in making this much-needed cancer center a reality. Macomb County currently experiences a higher cancer rate than its neighboring counties. The county is also growing faster than any other Michigan County. In the next 50 years, the number of Macomb County cancer cases will double and the number of cancer cases among those over 85 will increase four-fold. The good news is that more and more, we're winning the battle against cancer. The National Institutes of Health estimates that more than 59 percent of those diagnosed with cancer will survive at least five years, and advances in early detection and treatment could soon increase that rate to 75 percent. The bad news is that it's still a long, hard battle. In Macomb County, it has been made harder by patients having to travel to multiple locations, some of them far away, in order to receive care. In 2001, nearly 70 percent of Macomb County residents were unable to get all the cancer care they needed in their own county. The new facility will combine state-of-the art medical technology with a warm, welcoming environment for patients and their families. Patients will have access to clinical trials, interdisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and dietitians, but will also be able to stay in homelike rooms and visit a healing garden. Ted Wahby's leadership and dedication were indispensable to the building of this new facility. On behalf of myself and the people I represent in the 12th district of Michigan, I thank him warmly for his efforts and congratulate him on the honor of having this fine facility bear his name. It is indeed well-deserved.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have said this resolution is simply about commending the troops and the people of Iraq. If that were truly the case, this measure would enjoy unanimous support. On the contrary, in what it says and what it fails to say, it attempts to speak to the handling of the war. It glosses over the serious intelligence failures and serious misstatements by the Bush administration concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It papers over the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the war as well as the initial failure to actively seek international support and continued lack of it. It ignores the equipment shortages that need to be addressed to protect our troops. It fails to make any mention of the 565 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq, or the thousands who have been wounded, or the sacrifices of their families. The resolution before the House today does not bring credit to this institution. It tries a well-used tactic to divide and conquer. Instead, it is a case of dividing and losing: dividing this House when it is a subject that needs unity and losing further credibility for the Republican House that does not even try to act on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today my brother, Senator Levin, and I have introduced a bill that would grant unconditional and permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Ukraine and remove Ukraine, unconditionally and permanently, from the application of the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment. The legislation would provide an historic update in U.S.- Ukraine trade relations. It would strengthen U.S.-Ukraine relations and reinforce progress Ukraine has made in many areas. Additionally, the legislation would ensure that Congress continues to play an active role--with the Administration and with Ukraine--in confronting trade disputes and negotiating the terms of Ukraine's WTO accession. This legislation is the culmination of a month's long effort, involving consultations with the Ukrainian Embassy, Ukrainian groups in the United States, other Members of Congress, including some on the Helsinki Commission, and other groups that have expressed an interest in Ukraine's removal from Jackson-Vanik. I think that it addresses many of the concerns that have been raised in a way that will help Ukraine PNTR on its way through Congress. The legislation expands on a Ukraine PNTR bill that my brother and I introduced a couple of years in the 107th Congress (H.R. 4723/S. 3089). The bill we are introducing today reflects updates and improvements from our previous bill, which we believe will help this one garner the broad support necessary to push the issue along. I am aware that there are elections in Ukraine later this year, and we all know how important it is that those elections be conducted transparently and fairly, in accordance with international norms. My reasons for supporting PNTR for Ukraine relate to the importance of Ukraine and what PNTR can mean for its economic and democratic development, not to any individual candidacy. It is useful to recall that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was itself an amendment to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, a trade statute. In particular, Title IV created a framework for conducting trade relations with non-market economies. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which has been an effective tool for raising freedom of emigration and human rights concerns, is a key element of Title IV; however, the underlying purpose and function of the statute were and remain the conduct of trade relations. Accordingly, PNTR legislation must address fundamental trade issues. Consistent congressional practice is to grant PNTR to a country that is subject to Jackson-Vanik only at the time of the country's WTO accession, or when negotiations on accession were effectively completed. In this way, Congress's vote on PNTR has served as a way to signal approval for the country's WTO accession agreement. Under this approach, Congress was able to exercise its constitutional prerogative to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the American people benefited from the Administration negotiating the strongest possible agreement. This precedent has led to an important series of successful accessions to the WTO, including most notably for China, on terms that reinforced the WTO rules-based system, and brought great benefits to the people of the United States as well as other WTO countries. In the case of Ukraine, WTO accession terms are still being negotiated. I believe it is appropriate to depart from that precedent and grant Ukraine PNTR now, so long as Congress retains a meaningful, effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully addressed in those negotiations. And, there are many critical issues that still need to be addressed--Ukraine's protection for intellectual property rights, commitments to open its auto market, commitments in the services and other sectors, to name just a few. Moreover, there have been a number of recent trade tensions with Ukraine--including in the poultry sector. While these appear to have been addressed, they renewed concerns in Congress about trade relationships with Ukraine. This legislation ensures that Congress will continue to play an active role in addressing trade problems as they emerge and in obtaining a strong WTO accession agreement from Ukraine. While giving up the precedent of using the PNTR vote as a proxy for approval of WTO accession, the legislation allows Congress to consider a resolution directly addressing the terms of agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine on Ukraine's WTO accession. While in its form, this resolution would be non-binding on the Executive, it would provide Congress with an important tool to assure itself continuing oversight over the Executive as it forms the terms of Ukraine's WTO accession. There are two sides to the PNTR coin--the trade issues and the ``Jackson-Vanik'' issues. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was a historic piece of legislation, aimed at addressing a serious problem in the former Soviet Union. It set forth important criteria related to freedom of emigration necessary for certain countries to obtain normal trade relations with the United States. Even from its inception, however, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was not only concerned with freedom of emigration, but also reflected the American commitment to human rights and freedom of religion. This fact is evident not only in the preamble of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, but also in the operation of U.S. relations with the former Soviet countries for nearly 30 years. I think it is appropriate, then, that as we consider graduating Ukraine from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, that we place a strong emphasis on American values of freedom of emigration, religious freedom, and human rights issues. These were the issues at the core of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and continue to be relevant when considering termination of this amendment. I am glad that we were able to craft a bill that addresses these vital issues in a responsible way, rather than giving them ``check-the-box'' cursory treatment or not addressing them at all.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to I.J. Campbell, who received the Community Luminary Award from DTE Energy Foundation for his exemplary volunteerism. I.J. Campbell's commitment of service ``illuminates'' the community and shines as a selfless example for others to follow. A humble yet enthusiastic man, his infectious passion for helping those in need stretches a lifetime of professional and volunteer experience. While working as the chairman of the United Way Community Services' Macomb Advisory Council and administrator for cities Community Development Block Grant Program, he donates his time off to a number of community organizations, including the Hope Network, a housing provider for people with mental disabilities, and the Macomb Homeless Coalition. I.J.'s sense of obligation to help those in need motivates him to work on programs such as Macomb's Prescription Resource Network, Metro Detroit's Promise, a national movement to provide services to disadvantaged children, and the Macomb County Warming Center. Dedicated to strengthening the fabric of our community, he supports programs that develop the potential of residents, institutions and infrastructures. In January, 2002, the Archdiocese of Detroit awarded I.J. with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King ``Keep the Dream Alive'' award for his work with organizations such as Interfaith Center for Racial Injustice and the National Conference for Community and Justice Detroit. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding I.J. Campbell for his efforts to make this world a better place. It is truly fitting that I.J. received the Community Luminary Award, for he serves as a shining example of what a committed community activist can accomplish and a light of hope to all he comes in contact with.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the majority says ``This is not the way'' when you stand in the way. You say, the majority, the jobs are the answer, when under your dominion we have lost 3 million jobs in this country. You talk about this being a political ploy. No. What it is is an effort to force your hand, to lose your iron grip on unemployment compensation. In the 1991-1992 recession, just 10, 12 years ago, the program ended after the creation of 3 million jobs, so people could find a job. Now you have ended this program when there has been a loss of 2 million jobs. So you say the READ Act. That $8 billion went to the States to pay regular State 26 weeks of benefits, not to extend the benefits program that is the Federal extended benefit program. So let me just say to every Member here who votes no on this amendment, it will be interpreted appropriately as a vote ``no'' against the millions of unemployed people in this country, the 375,000 every month who are exhausting their benefits. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I could care less about the moon. I want a job. That was said to me by an electrician during our recess. He is one of 1,200 members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in the metropolitan Detroit area out of work. He is one of 8.9 million Americans, and there are another 4 million Americans not classified as unemployed but who are out of work. The long-term unemployed in this country reached a 20-year high in November, but this House and the President have refused to extend Federal benefits. They expired December 20. Ninety thousand people run out of State benefits every week. In this country, America, Americans deserve more than continued silence from the President of the United States. Let us hope he speaks to this issue tonight.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy moment. This is not a happy moment. We are forced to come up here and ask that the previous question be defeated so that we can give to people who are unemployed, who need unemployment comp, who are looking for work, an additional 13 weeks. And all we get from the Republican side is reserving the balance of their time. There are 9 million unemployed in this country; and here is what is going to happen: December 20, if you are laid off, or I should say if you are drawing benefits, you can continue to receive your extended benefits. But, if you exhaust your benefits on December 21, you are out in the cold. That is the holiday message from the majority in this House. It is unconscionable. All kinds of excuses. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, Every indicator is better than in 1993. But the job picture is entirely worse. Job creation is entirely, dramatically less. Then I heard: Leave it to the Senate. They are not going to act. Where are my colleagues from Michigan on the Republican side? Because of a bipartisan action in Lansing, people who needed it could draw up to 65 weeks; and now, someone laid off on December 21, or I should say who is exhausting their benefits, is out in the cold. Not one more week. We should not have to be coming here, Mr. Speaker. Times are tough. I talked to building trade leaders an hour ago. Unemployment is going up in the building trades in Michigan and in lots of other places, and there is nothing but a cold shoulder from the leadership of this House. And I say to the Speaker, whom it is now being said about, that he can patrol this floor and get the votes, where is your leadership? We should not have to be here today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), myself and others. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I hope in the next 24, no, it is not 24, it is 5 or 6 hours, that you, on the Republican side, will keep faith with the American people, those who are working and those who are not working through no fault of their own. Do not reserve your time. Come here with a bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure that I rise to recognize one of my constituents, Jennifer Downey of Clinton Township, Michigan, for her recent promotion to Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps. The U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps was established in 1958 to develop an appreciation for the United States' naval history, customs, traditions, and its significant role in national defense. The goal of the Cadet Corps is to encourage young people to develop an interest in basic seamanship and teach cadets patriotism, courage, confidence and self reliance. Cadet CPO Downey has been a member of the Naval Sea Cadet Corps Program's Tomcat Squadron for over 5 years. She has completed a large number of advanced training courses over her tenure in the program, including seamanship training aboard the USNSCS Grayfox, Coast Guard training, Master at Arms School, and Petty Officer Leadership Academy. In addition, she has completed sixty-four hours of community service and won numerous citations and ribbons. Cadet CPO Downey's promotion to Chief Petty Officer was brought to my attention in a letter from her Commanding Officer, LTJG Lisa Stoyanovich, who writes me to say that CPO Downey ``is a very personable young woman who takes pride in herself and her unit. CPO Downey's performance of her duties is always top-notch, her leadership abilities are exceptional, and her ability to motivate other cadets is finely tuned. Through her years of Navy League Cadet and Naval Sea Cadet training, she has earned the respect of her peers, and the officers in the unit.'' The letter from Lieutenant Stoyanovich goes on to say that ``Chief Petty Officer Downey has developed into a mature, solid leader and is a fine example of what the Sea Cadet Corps hopes to develop in young people.'' I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chief Petty Officer Jennifer Downey for her achievements as a member of the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I want to say to the Republicans, do not think this is a procedural vote on the previous question. This is a vote of substance. This is a vote questioning whether my colleagues will agree to bring up an unemployment compensation extension program. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said, the majority leader stated, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' He could not be further from the truth. If we do not act, 90,000 a week who are out of work, exhausting their benefits, will be out in the cold; 90,000 a week, 350,000 more or less a month, and they will join the 1.4 million long-term unemployed in this country, and the percentage of unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, will reach an all-time high, almost 44 percent, and even with this modest increase in jobs the last couple of months, the U.S. economy still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than 2\1/2\ years ago. I want to refer to Michigan. The unemployment figures just came out: 7.6 is the unemployment rate, a 3-year high, an 11-year high, actually, and higher than when the temporary unemployment program was set up. So this is not a test on procedure. This is a test whether my colleagues will stand with those who are unemployed, looking for work or turn a cold shoulder to them. There is nothing compassionate about this kind of action, conservatism or anything else. So I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on the previous question and stand up for those millions of Americans, millions who are looking for work, who cannot find it, who want not charity but unemployment compensation that they worked for. Vote no on the previous question.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the key question: Why not add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare like for physicians and hospital bills? Because Republicans want to force seniors to get their drugs from private insurance companies and HMOs, with no set premium, and insurance companies would decide the benefits and could change them every year. So again, why not simply add a drug benefit directly to Medicare? Because Republicans want to make sure the government has zero involvement in lowering drug prices for consumers. Indeed, their bill would prohibit Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs, and the only thing the government could do would be to keep people from buying cheaper drugs from Canada. Again, why not simply add a drug benefit to Medicare? Because the real Republican goal is to use a drug benefit as a vehicle for fundamentally changing and undermining Medicare. The President's Medicare administrator called Medicare a dumb system. Under this bill, there would be a global cap on the size of the Medicare program and a voucher to buy private health insurance instead of getting regular Medicare, with the deck loaded against Medicare, $14 billion to HMOs. Republican reforms are Medicare's destruction. Vote ``no'' on this Republican bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).