Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Royal Oak Lions Club on the occasion of their 75th anniversary. The Royal Oak Lions Club, founded in 1928, has indeed taken up the challenge that Helen Keller presented to the International Lions Convention in 1925. She asked them to expand their interests and include services to the blind and the visually impaired. The Royal Oak Lions Club has offered their dedicated service to numerous programs and organizations, including Leader Dogs for the Blind, the Penrickton Center for Multiply Handicapped Children, Lions Visually Impaired Camp, scholarships for hearing-impaired students at Madonna University, and the Beaumont Silent Children's speech program. Not only has this community-minded institution devoted its effort to these programs, it has also provided essential support to a myriad of services for our youth and vital community-based charities. The Royal Oak Lions Club and its membership are important parts of the fabric of the Royal Oak and Southeast Oakland County community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their longstanding commitment to public service and wishing the Royal Oak Lions Club continued success in all of their important endeavors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for all of his work. Like the gentleman from Maryland, I favor this extension. The good news is that it is not a step backward. We are going to continue State flexibility, we are going to continue the focus on work. We are going to continue provisions for child care and health care and transportation, but I want to take this opportunity, as Mr. Cardin did, to put this into perspective. I am glad the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is still here. We worked hard in 1995 and 1996 on welfare reform. It was not a partisan effort. It was an effort with a Democratic President and with substantial work from Democrats in the House and in the Senate. Significant changes were made from the bill originally vetoed by President Clinton. Adequate child care, adequate health care, those were placed into the bill before it became a law. This time around what the Republican majority in the House decided to do was to proceed, as Mr. Cardin has said, on a very partisan basis. There was no effort to sit down as was true in 1995 and 1996, eventually, to see if we could work out together Welfare Reform II. So, on a very partisan vote, the first vote was 229 to 197, the bill was passed and was sent to the Senate. Sad it is to say that since that time, and it has been a year and a half ago, there has been zero effort by the majority in this House to sit down with a number of us who were involved in 1995 and 1996 and those who have been active since and try to work out a bill on a bipartisan basis. We have urged that welfare reform be continued and really improved, improved by more adequate child care, improved by more adequate health care. The data is pretty clear that many people who are moving from welfare to work are losing their health care after a year. Welfare reform should be improved by maintaining State flexibility and also by helping those who move from welfare to work to work out of poverty and to work into a decent and adequate wage. So why not sit down and talk about these improvements in welfare reform? Well, the Republican majority here has done on welfare reform what they have done on most important issues: Ram it through, thumb their nose at the minority, including those who very much want to work on an issue, and send it over to the Senate. And like other products here on a very partisan basis, it runs into trouble in the Senate. And so what is said by the majority here? Oh, it is the Senate's fault, when it was really the failure of the Republican majority here to start welfare reform on a proper, appropriate, and effective track. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the extension for 6 months will keep the better part of the welfare reform programs: health care, day care, State flexibility, and the focus on work. The bad news is that we have lost the opportunity to improve, to build on welfare reform, to have a sharper focus on movement of those who leave work out of poverty. Instead, the focus in their bill is really those who stay on welfare being kept busy. That is not the wise focus for welfare reform in 2003 as it was not in 2002, and I hope 2004 will see their reaching out a hand to talk these things over. If not, I am afraid we will be back here with another extension, and you will point to the Senate controlled by the same party as you are a Member of and will blast the Senate. But that is not very constructive. It is not very useful. So do not talk about all the hearings you have held, all the witnesses you have heard. Talk about how many minutes you have spent sitting down with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is our ranking member, and the rest of us on the subcommittee to see if we could work out a bill. Tell us how many minutes. The answer is zero. I say this not really to castigate, but to urge that you give the process a chance. Welfare reform deserves an effort to build a bipartisan and better product. I deeply believe that. So I urge that we vote for this extension, and I also urge that the extension be followed by a true effort at finding a good product for the next phase of welfare reform.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favor of this bill today because not doing so would cause irreparable harm to the States. The current highway funding bill expires 6 days from today, and unless ewe pass this extension, highway and transit programs will effectively be shut down. Passage of the measure before the House will extend the highway program for 5 months, until February 29, 2004. The reason we are in the unenviable position of passing a short-term extension is due to the intransigence of some in the White House and in the Congress, who refuse to provide the funds necessary for an adequate reauthorization bill that fairly addresses the inequities of the current mechanisms by which the Federal government funds roads and transit in this country. My home State of Michigan is a donor State, which means it sends more in gas tax revenue to Washington than it receives back in highway funding. For the past 5 years, Michigan has received on average 88 cents back for every dollar sent to Washington. At the same time, 25 States and the District of Columbia receive more than a dollar back for every dollar sent to Washington. The bill we are voting on continues this inequitable formula for another 5 months. It is to do more to level the playing field. I have joined 141 of my colleagues in the House in cosponsoring legislation requiring a minimum return of 95 percent for all States. We can bring this policy change about in a number of ways, but the status quo is simply not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, we are simply passing a stopgap measure today. The time had come for the leadership in this House to buckle down and bring forth a long-term reauthorization bill that provides fair equity to all States and affords them the ability to enact their long-term goals.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dana Camphous Peterson, who will receive the 2003 Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year Award at the 20th annual March of Dimes dinner on Wednesday, September 24, 2003. Dana Camphous Peterson will be the recipient of the 2003 Woman of the Year Award. Dana is one of the founding directors of the Care House in Mount Clemens. Like the March of Dimes, Care House provides care and comfort to the most vulnerable and important members of the community: our children. While successful in the business world, Dana wanted to refocus her energies so that she could give more to the community. When local community leaders began exploring the idea of founding Care House, Dana immediately jumped on board. And we are glad she did. The continuing goal of Care House is to increase public awareness for the need to expand this kind of service to other communities. Child abuse is a national problem and in many communities around the country, the abuse is left untreated. But thanks to Dana's hard work and dedication, Macomb has a place to serve the victims of child abuse. Her dedication and commitment to the community is demonstrated also through her involvement with the Zonta Club of Macomb, the Downtown Mount Clemens Planning Breakfast Club and the children's clothing store ``It's a Small World's Children's Fashions.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dana Camphous Peterson for her care and comfort to abused children as she receives the Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year--Woman of the Year Award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Reverend Father Demetrios Kavadas of Assumption Greek Orthodox Church, who will receive the 2003 ``Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year'' award at the 20th annual March of Dimes dinner on Wednesday, September 24, 2003. Father Kavadas will be the recipient of the 2003 Man of the Year Award. Father Kavadas takes great pride in accepting this award as the first clergyman and the first citizen of Hellenic background to be honored as Man of the Year. He married Rodothea Palaiologou and they had four children: Iphigenia, Stephen, John, and Basil. Four years after being ordained he was appointed the ``Protopresbyter'' of the Assumption congregation which is now located in St. Clair Shores. He served in this capacity for 42 years before his retirement. Through Father Kavadas's infectious passion, sense of humor, and charismatic sermons, Assumption has grown to become one of the largest churches in the Metro-Detroit area. His commitment to building a vibrant church not only served parishioners, but the surrounding community as well. Our family has had the privilege and pleasure of his friendship for many years. While at Assumption, he created a cultural center that residents of all ages and religious backgrounds have come to depend on for exercise classes, cooking lessons, driver's training courses, basketball games, seminars, senior expos, etc. He also oversaw an award winning PreSchool which was open to all in the community. In his years serving the metro Detroit community, Father Kavadas has received many awards and served in various ways. His achievements include being an active member of groups that have touched the community, especially groups that have fought illnesses, from thalassemia (a disease particular to the Greek community) to MIRA (Mental Illness Research Association, founding member). He coordinated COPS FOR KIDS for more than 25 years, helping needy children of St. Clair Shores. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Reverend Father Demetrios Kavadas for his service to his community as he receives the Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year-Man of the Year Award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Switalski family, who will receive the 2003 ``Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year'' award at the 20th annual March of Dimes dinner on Wednesday, September 24, 2003. The Switalski family will be the first recipients of the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award. This award was renamed in honor of a volunteer who passed away this year. Donna was a great supporter of the March of Dimes and her community. It is a fitting and a richly deserved recognition for a family that serves their communities through civil service as well as community involvement. Norbert and Nancy Switalski married in 1950 and raised seven children. As parents, they inculcated the virtues of faith, discipline, hard work, and public service into their children. Norbert died in 1981 at the age of 58. The Switalskis have made public service their calling. Mark and Matthew are both Macomb County Court Judges in the Family Court Division. Mickey is a State Senator having served as a State Representative, County Commissioner and on the Roseville City Council. Their commitment to family is best reflected through their devotion to adoption. In 1997, Mark adopted three children from Poland; Matthew presides over all Macomb County adoptions as a Family Court Judge, and Mickey worked diligently to get an adoption income tax credit into law. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Switalski family for their extraordinary service and distinguished leadership as they receive the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to review the history of this block grant. I am sorry that tempers have been lost. I really think we need to spend a few minutes looking at the history of this block grant because what happened was this: It was $2.8 billion before welfare reform, and then we reduced it as part of a welfare reform. Many of us were unhappy about that, those of us who were able eventually to be able to improve welfare reform with child care and also with health care. The promise then was made that this money would be returned to the States after 5 years. Then a few years later it was reduced to $1.7 billion. Money was taken from this block grant to pay for transportation, totally unrelated. So we have a commitment to the States to return the money for this block grant, money that goes for child abuse prevention, Meals on Wheels, home care for the disabled, child care, adoption services and domestic violence programs. The Senate has done this. And now apparently the leadership on the Republican side is urging everybody within your ranks to march once again in unison in opposition to the gentleman from Maryland's (Mr. Cardin) proposal. That is inconsistent with what we have pledged, inconsistent with the bill that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I and others have introduced year after year, inconsistent with the position taken by a majority of the Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means. So why are you today again not fulfilling a promise that you essentially made? Oh, the argument is there is money in TANF. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has already answered that. What is happening in TANF now is that more is being spent than is being provided. It is not a good excuse. The excuse is given, well, we provided billions to the States recently. They needed this money, not for the block grant but for other purposes. So I urge support for the Cardin amendment for these important purposes; and I close with this in terms of fiscal responsibility. Look, we try to pay for this. You are digging a deeper hole. If you do not like everything that is in the Cardin proposal, come up with your own. But you insist time after time bringing up bills that cost billions of dollars, and you have sunset the provision for the deductions for those who do not itemize. You know that sunset will never be allowed to persist. We are not going to take away from deductions from nonitemizers after 2 years. You know that. So this bill is really going to cost $20 billion more or less, and the Democrats have said we will step up to the plate and we will be fiscally responsible. And you as part of the leadership are again asking the Republicans to march in lockstep against fiscal responsibility. You should be in support of this bill, in support of the Cardin amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce today, in recognition of the Chamber's 100th anniversary. For 100 years the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce has dedicated itself to the community. The Chamber is a local organization operated by and for the people of the business community of Clinton Township, Mount Clemens, Harrison Township, Macomb Township and New Baltimore. It is a focal point of leadership and a gathering place for those who make the strategic decisions that shape our business lives. The Chamber's history as a champion of downtown businesses started in 1903 as the Mount Clemens Business Men's Association. Negotiating favorable rates with the Rapid Railway interurban line, sponsoring Macomb County days, lobbying for Shadyside Park, and the establishment of Selfridge Field as a permanent military facility were among the many accomplishments of the dedicated members. The Association had become the primary organization of representation for all types of businesses in Mount Clemens. It represented merchants, bathhouses and factories. The name was changed to the Mount Clemens Board of Commerce in 1926 to clarify their purpose and reflect their diversity. Then, in 1959, they changed the organization's name to the Greater Mount Clemens Chamber of Commerce and, finally, to its present name of Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce in 1981. The name may change but the dedication and service to the community remain steadfast. The Chamber's original bylaws and declaration of principles from 1903, ``to encourage the patronizing of home industry; to encourage the bringing of manufacturing enterprises to our city; to promote co-operation among ourselves and to endeavor to advance in every legitimate way the welfare of our city'' continue to resonate today. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce on their 100th year anniversary.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding leader in Michigan's labor community on the occasion of his retirement after over 30 years of service. Sam Hart, Business Manager, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 324, is an operating engineer through and through. Starting as a pipe liner in Michigan, he rose through the ranks to distinguish himself within the state and the nation as a thoughtful and effective labor leader. Mr. Hart was initiated in the International Union of Operating Engineers in 1959. He was appointed the Business Representative for Local 324 in 1971 and was first elected to the Executive Board in 1977. His leadership in organizing members in the Operating Engineers and on issues of health care and retirement security, so vital to the working men and women he represents, catapulted him to the highest tier of leadership and gained the local union a reputation throughout the state and nation. Local 324 is considered one of the strongest local unions in Michigan, with the largest percentage of its workers organized throughout the skilled trades. Local 324 is consistently listed as one of the top 25 locals in the State. Sam Hart's good work has called him into numerous positions of service. He was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the North and Central States Conference in 1990, the largest conference of operating engineers in the United States. He served on the negotiating Committee for the National Pipe Line Agreement for the entire U.S. and Canada. He served as President of the Michigan State Building Trades and on the Detroit AFL-CIO Executive Board. He was elected as a General Vice President to the International Union of Operating Engineers beginning in 1994 and was appointed Chairman of the General Pension in 2000. I have been honored to know Sam Hart as a friend over so many of these years. What friends say about Sam Hart is probably most telling about the man whose career will be honored on Saturday, September 6, 2003. He is ``thoughtful,'' ``level-headed,'' ``decent,'' a ``gentleman'' and a ``family man to the core.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the work of Sam Hart and to wish him, his wife, Darlene, and their entire family health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 75th anniversary of the parish of St. Mary Magdalen in Hazel Park, Michigan. The history of St. Mary Magdalen is one that reflects a deep dedication of the community at large and its parishioners. Volunteers worked for decades to create not only a place of worship, but an institution. In 1928, the Catholic Church established a new parish in the growing community of Hazel Park. The first Mass of St. Mary Magdalen Church was held in the Odd Fellows Hall on Christmas Day of that year. Less than one year later, on Easter in 1929, St. Mary Magdalen Parish occupied their first new building. In 1932, the Sisters of Christian Charity arrived from Wilmette, Illinois. They worked hard to ready themselves for the first school classes to start in September of that year. Their first school buildings were purchased from the Clawson Board of Education, dismantled and reassembled in Hazel Park by men from the community donating their time. The Parish continued to grow, the first hall was built in 1933 using second-hand and recycled lumber. In 1958 the present church was completed, followed three years later by the convent. The next decades saw the establishment of a number of important traditions in the church. The first Fall Festival, now an annual event, was held in September 1971. Surely, since its establishment 75 years ago, St. Mary Magdalen Parish has continued to grow, flourish and serve the community of Hazel Park. It is indeed my great honor today to recognize those who have made it all possible.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), my distinguished colleague on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 25 of our 50 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for the purposes of yielding time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Singapore is not the same as Chile. Each negotiation has to be taken on its own. In Singapore, there was a provision relating to the integrated sourcing initiative, and we were concerned about that. We on the Democratic side initiated efforts to make sure that there could not be use of that provision so that it was misused, so that Singapore would become a vehicle for essentially evasion of the rules. Working together, we were able to very much address, I think, the most major problem, and that is any addition of components or products unless there was the approval of this Congress in the same course as with any other piece of legislation. In both cases, there were immigration provisions. They were of major concern to us. Again, we on the Democratic side initiated a discussion of these concerns, and we worked on a bipartisan basis within the Committee on Ways and Means and between the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Judiciary. As a result, virtually all of these concerns have been, in my judgment, essentially addressed with the additional proviso, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has indicated, and that is a warning to the USTR that Chile and Singapore, in terms of immigration provisions, should not be a template, should not be a model in the future for any agreement. The same is true of core labor standards. Here I want to be very clear. Jordan is Jordan. Singapore is Singapore. Chile is Chile. The agreement as to Jordan was satisfactory. It was, however, changed to some extent by the administration through an exchange of letters. We voted for it anyway, despite the exchange of letters, with some hesitation because Jordan, in fact, has core labor standards in their lasws and enforces them. Chile does also. In its own way, so does Singapore. I do not think the Jordan or the Singapore or Chile agreements would be satisfactory as applied to Central America and the conditions for workers in those countries. They are suppressed, and to apply even Jordan to Central America would be a serious mistake because the provisions regarding enforcement of core labor standards by Jordan talk about striving to ensure. That may be okay for a country that has them; it is unsatisfactory for most countries in Central America that simply do not have, in laws or in practice, core labor standards. So, in my judgment, the best way to approach these trade agreements is to take them on the terrain that exists and is likely to exist. In that respect, I am going to vote for these two agreements, as many of my colleagues will, but I think for almost all of us on this side, whether we vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' there is a similar message to USTR and, that is, do not consider these agreements as a model or a template for Central America or FTAA. If you do so, you are likely to jeopardize an important agreement, CAFTA, you will not bring about the benefits that these Central American countries need, and you will have the strong opposition not only of the workers of America but virtually everybody on this side of the aisle. Under those circumstances, I close, urging the Democrats to vote ``yes.'' However we vote, I hope the stated message is clear to this administration and, indeed, to everybody who is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just be sure of the procedure here so that we are clear. I want to be sure that all the Members who want to speak on both sides of this have a chance to do so. I think the way we worked this out, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) would go next, and after the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) will go, and then I will go.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 25 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Clearly, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements have many strong provisions, including comprehensive commitments by Chile and Singapore to open their goods, agricultural and services markets. This will be beneficial to American businesses, workers and farmers, commitments that will increase regulatory transparency and act to the benefit of U.S. investors, intellectual property holders, businesses, workers and consumers. So what is the major source of controversy, especially since the economic impact of the two agreements combined will account for less than one- quarter of 1 percent of U.S. GDP? I believe that it is mainly the potential and the existing inappropriate use by this administration of provisions in these agreements as models for other agreements. For example, the Singapore FTA includes an integrated sourcing initiative. As first drafted, ISI would have allowed in listed instances components from any country in the world imported directly into Singapore to be treated as Singapore content, i.e., Singapore as a proxy for other nations not signatory to the FTA. This local content feature has been restricted through amendments to the agreement and by this legislation at our instigation, making it difficult to use as a practical matter. And, importantly, Democrats took the initiative to prevent any expansion of the ISI list without congressional approval. These efforts should send a clear message: Do not negotiate a similar provision in any future FTA. Second, both agreements contain provisions relating to the temporary entry of nationals which required the creation of a new H1B visa program for workers from these countries. We were able through the implementing legislation on a bipartisan basis to significantly tighten these provisions. As a result, they are not now, in my judgment, a sufficient reason to vote against these agreements. But in this day and age of heavy loss of American jobs, the changes insisted on by this House must send a clear message to the administration not to negotiate immigration provisions in future FTAs, especially where the number of such visas involved would be larger without the active involvement of Congress. Third, both agreements contain separate dispute settlement rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforcement of the labor and environmental provisions. This is a mistaken approach, the difficulties of which would only be magnified if used as a precedent for future FTAs involving very different circumstances. Fourth, while substantial progress was made in the critical area of investment, these agreements should not be a model for all future FTAs. Additional steps should be included in future trade negotiations to ensure fully that foreign investors have no greater rights than U.S. citizens have under U.S. law. Fifth, of great concern about these agreements is the actual use by USTR in the ongoing Central American negotiations of the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in the Singapore and Chile FTAs relating to basic labor standards. The laws of Chile and Singapore incorporate five internationally recognized core labor standards, prohibition against child labor, forced labor, discrimination, and, vitally, the right to associate and bargain collectively; and they basically enforce them, though there are cultural differences in their doing so. In clear contrast to Chile and Singapore, the laws of most Central American countries irrefutably do not embody these five standards and the inadequate laws that exist are poorly enforced. Indeed, there is a pervasive antiworker-rights culture that prevents workers from getting a livable piece of the economic pie and climbing the economic ladder to the middle class. So use of an ``enforce your own law standard'' where opposite conditions exist is a contradiction that would lead to contradictory results. Central America does not need to suppress its workers to compete. To say that it does, whether with neighbors or with China, is untrue, and such an argument only gives ammunition to those who say that expanded trade, indeed globalization, inevitably leads to helping the rich and continuing to exploit the poor. CAFTA is the real test and provides a real opportunity to shape expanded trade so that it leads to a leveling up, not a leveling down, with FTAA following next. So there is not a race to the bottom. So people in developing nations, as is basically true now in Chile and Singapore, can move up the ladder. So it is clear to workers in our Nation that when they compete, it is not with workers in other nations suppressed of their basic rights to associate and bargain together to get a decent piece of the economic action. There are two ways to respond to this situation. One is to acknowledge the many positives in these agreements, voting a green light while making very clear a red light against misapplication of Chile and Singapore to CAFTA, FTAA, and other future agreements where the conditions are very different. Different conditions, different agreements. Or, to vote ``no.'' My judgment is that the message is more clear, the distinctions between different situations remain starker and less blurred, and efforts to make these distinctions more likely to succeed with a ``yes'' vote in the manner described above. Either way, there must be a similar message: Do not negotiate an agreement with Central American nations on the assumption that conditions are like those in Chile or Singapore when they are not. We oppose such efforts. They would not lead to the breakthroughs that Central American or FTA nations need in access to U.S. markets. They would result, in my judgment, in the eventual defeat of CAFTA. And they would throw away an opportunity, a major opportunity for those Central American nations and others, and for ours, and an opportunity to move U.S. trade policy forward, with the broad base of support necessary for a healthy future for expanded trade. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).