Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider the vote by which engrossment and third reading was ordered.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished colleague of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. The Bush Administration and many in this Congress have said over and over that the education policies of this country should leave no child behind. The President pledged to leave no child behind, and then proposed more than a billion dollars of education cuts. If the legislation before the House today passes, the Majority will once again fail the kids who need our help the most. Head Start was created to help secure a good start, a good education, and good prospects for at-risk youth. Not only does it help children develop cognitive learning and social skills, but also provides comprehensive health, dental and nutrition services which are vital to educational success. This bill before the House would undo the foundation of a program that has been a glowing success for nearly 40 years. In addition, this bill seriously underfunds Head Start. With already limited resources, Head Start struggles to serve two our of every five eligible children. Without additional funding, we will leave nearly 1 million children behind. It is ironic that the Majority will push to pass billions in tax cuts that chiefly benefit the very rich, yet is unwilling to provide the necessary funding to school kids. This speaks volumes about the priorities of the Majority. In contrast, the Democratic substitute which I support would build on the success of Head Start. It does so by strengthening school readiness, improving program quality and accountability, and expanding access so more eligible children will be served. It does all this while maintaining local control and high program performance standards. I ask you to defeat the Republican-sponsored legislation. If you vote for this legislation, not only are you voting to undermine the foundation of Head Start, you're voting to undermine the future of the children who depend on it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I vote for H.R. 2427 with some reservations. I have put those reservations aside because this is not the final step in the process. I would have much preferred if the Republican leadership had not blocked a vote on the Emerson ``Save Our Seniors Act'' and all other amendments. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership decided to block a vote on Emerson and all amendments in the hopes of shutting this effort down and saving the pharmaceutical industry's policy of charging Americans the highest drug prices in the world. Our senior citizens are more likely to need prescription drugs and less likely to have insurance to cover them than any other group. As a result, many of them pay high prices or go without needed medication. That is wrong. In recent years, many seniors in my district have tried to solve this problem by traveling to Canada, where drugmakers charge lower prices for the same medications. Some of them have been able to purchase medications, especially for chronic illnesses, at a thirty to 50 percent discount. I strongly support allowing them to continue doing this without interference from the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Customs department. I believe that Canada's system of regulating prescription medications sold at its pharmacies is safe and reliable for my constituents. But bus trips to Canada should not be the answer to the serious problem facing our seniors. The real answer is a Medicare prescription drug benefit so that they can get the drugs they need here at home. I have cosponsored H.R. 1199, which would add a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to the Medicare seniors know and trust. If H.R. 1199 becomes law, the federal government will be able to negotiate lower prices for medications and help seniors afford to buy them. Last month, the House instead passed a bill which uses an inadequate, unreliable drug insurance program for seniors as a decoy to distract people from the bill's real purpose--privatizing Medicare and turning it into a voucher program. I voted against that bad bill. That bill is now in a House-Senate conference, which is charged with combining it with a very different Senate bill. If H.R. 2427 passes the House tonight, it will become part of the discussion for that conference committee and increase the pressure for that committee to address the issue of affordable drugs, rather than focusing on privatizing Medicare. I believe we must address the issue of real drug coverage for seniors and the issue of unreasonably high drug prices. The Republican leadership hoped to avoid that issue by only allowing a vote on the broadest possible approach. Tonight, I stand with my colleagues in refusing to play games, and I will vote for H.R. 2427 to keep this issue alive and force action.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I spoke last night, and I will be very, very brief. I disagree with the gentleman's analysis of what is appropriate here under the rules. I also want to mention, last night when we discussed the provision that says there shall be no funds made available for negotiating a CAFTA or an FTAA that does not require adoption and enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitive child labor, forced labor and discrimination and guarantee of the right to associate and bargain collectively, that the important matter was a job, and not what was in that job, what payment there was for the job or under what conditions the job was carried on. I think that is terribly wrong. If people are going to have a chance to climb up the ladder, they have to have a chance to be able to associate and to bargain collectively. We should not base a trade agreement on the suppression of the workers of Central America or of any other place in the Americas. So, I urge that the Chair rule this in order, and we are now prepared to hear the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very distinguished and vibrant leader of the minority.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond very briefly. In those respects, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is very wrong. This does not change existing law. Our USTR representative is not prohibited by the present Trade Promotion Act, is not prohibited from carrying out the provisions that are spelled out here that there shall be no greater rights for foreign investors than Americans in the U.S. There is nothing in TPA that prohibits his doing just that; and there is nothing in the present TPA, which I opposed, but there is nothing, and we had an alternative, that prohibits the USTR from requiring adoption and enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitative child labor, forced labor and discrimination, and the guarantee of the right to associate and bargain collectively. We are saying in this amendment that that is exactly what the USTR should be doing, and I ask the Chair to rule in our favor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure about the time since the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I are both reserving a minute at the end and the minority leader is going to take that minute tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, do I have 4 minutes left?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered for a clear set of reasons. Expanded trade is critical. It is critical that the terms of this expanded trade be effectively shaped. The pace of trade negotiations is indeed increasing. This heightened pace needs to take a global economy and all of its people, and I emphasize all of its people, in the right direction upwards. This amendment is not a case of tying the hands of our negotiators. It is a matter of Members of Congress showing their hands, showing what should be the course of these negotiations. So this amendment underlines, on behalf of this House, some priorities: protection against piracy of copyrights, open markets for agricultural goods, open markets for high-tech and other manufactured exports, no greater rights for foreign investors and Americans, and guarantee of the right of workers to associate and bargain collectively. Since CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, is the next trade negotiation that is farthest along, let me discuss it in terms of this amendment. In this negotiation of CAFTA, there is a particular relevance of the provision in this amendment relating to the rights of workers to associate and to bargain collectively. CAFTA represents a major opportunity, and I emphasize that, to integrate further the economies of our Nation and the nations of Central America. Such integration includes sensitive areas such as apparel and textiles and agriculture. This further economic integration of Caribbean nations, including the United States, beyond that in the CBI arrangements, cannot be achieved unless there are some basic standards negotiated into the new CAFTA trade agreement. This expanded trade and further integration of our markets cannot be achieved based on the suppression of the workers in Central America in the sectors I mentioned or any other. There is clearly such suppression of workers today in the three Central American countries I visited 3 months ago: El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. That is verified clearly by both the State Department and ILO reports. Laws in those countries that are woefully weak, that clearly violate ILO standards, woeful enforcement of these clearly inadequate laws, putting forth in the negotiations of CAFTA as the U.S. is doing as a standard, enforcing your own laws can only lead to the opposite of strong laws and strong enforcement. If this does not change, one, workers in these Central American nations will not be able to climb up the ladder, cannot become part of an expanded middle class so important to them, so important to their countries, and important to the U.S. in terms of ability of people in those countries to buy our goods and services; two, there will be a race to the bottom among the nations as to which Central American nation can have the worst conditions, the most suppressed workers; three, workers and an increasing number of consumers in our Nation will oppose any trade agreement. Mr. Chairman, we have a chance, and I emphasize this, an opportunity, to build integrated economic structures that can compete with all nations, build on standards that uplift the people of the United States and Central America, and eventually all other nations. This amendment says the Congress wants USTR to seize this opportunity. I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privilege of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: House Resolution-- Whereas during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1776, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute; Whereas during the reading of that amendment the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee directed majority staff of the committee to ask the United States Capitol Police to remove minority-party members of the committee from a room of the committee during the meeting, causing the United States Capitol Police thereupon to confront the minority-party members of the committee; Whereas pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the reading of that amendment the chairman deliberately and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely objection by a member of the committee; Now therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the manner in which Representative Thomas summoned the United States Capitol Police to evict minority-party members of the Committee on Ways and Means from the committee library, as well as the manner in which he conducted the markup of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported to the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, indeed, the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) chief of staff stood nearby where we were meeting with a member of the Capitol Police and said this to the police and at least one member of the staff, that the chairman has asked me to get the police to remove Democrats from this room. This is the United States of America. This is not a police state. This is supposed to be the people's House, and you call members of the police to evict us from having a discussion. We were discussing that bill that we had only seen a few minutes before, because it was delivered at midnight, delivered at midnight and maybe the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the rest of you did not like our insisting that the bill be read; but the rules say that we have the right to have a bill read word for word, and you have no right to trample, once again, on the rights of the minority of the United States House of Representatives. That is what is at stake here, and you can try to change the subject. You can try to gloss over it. You can try to make excuses. You can try to say the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said such and such to so and so. No, the issue, this is not a partisan squabble. This is not a matter of personality. This is a matter of our basic rights as representatives of the people of the United States; and darn it all, we are going to stand here and stand here to defend not only our rights but the rights of the people of the United States of America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, H.R. 2330, because I believe that it is essential to demonstrate that the United States refuses to help perpetuate the brutality of Burma's military junta against the Burmese people. The junta, which ironically calls itself the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has recently stepped up its anti-democracy activities by violently cracking down on pro-democracy activists, and re- imprisoning the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Ms. Suu Kyi, a Nobel peace laureate, has already spent much of the last 15 years with her movements and speaking restricted under house arrest. I understand that a month ago, after spending only one year free from 20 months of recent house arrest, Ms. Suu Kyi was again detained and is now being held in a Burmese prison notorious for its poor conditions and the mistreatment, and even torture, of political prisoners. The United States must take every opportunity to be a leader in pressuring the SPDC to free Aung San Suu Kyi and her fellow opposition leaders. The import sanctions created by the Act will hit the military junta where it can be hurt worst--by taking strong action against the SPDC- controlled economy and depriving the military of a source of revenue. The slave-like labor conditions in Burma are one indication of the extent of the junta's cruelty against the Burmese people. In 2000, after reviewing the working conditions in Burma, an International Labor Organization (ILO) team of experts found that the junta continued to restrict worker rights and to use forced labor on a widespread basis. After receiving the report, the ILO took the unprecedented step of invoking Article 33 of the ILO Charter and formally urged its 174 member states to review their relations with Burma. This is as close as the ILO can come to urging sanctions upon a country. It is likely that more than a million people in Burma are subjected to forced labor on construction sites for roads, railways, military installations and tourism. The military is particularly notorious for imposing forced labor on villagers living near military operations. Even more outrageous is that this forced labor is often accompanied by brutality, such as torture, arbitrary and extrajudicial execution, rape, and population displacements. Non-compliance by one individual has been known to bring the junta's wrath upon a whole village. For example, the transport of food and other market goods to and from a village could be blocked, or a whole village could be faced with the threat of relocation. Forced labor has the additional effect of forcing villagers to neglect their own fields, making hunger an ever-present concern. Sometimes, even during harvesting times, they are forced to travel far from their village to work. If and when they return, they often do not have the ability to sustain the needs of their own homes and communities. The current regime's policies of ethnic cleansing, rape as an official tool of repression, the growing and producing of heroin, the forced labor conditions--they all must end. We have tried other methods to encourage the military regime to change its course, to no avail. Only if the United States and others in the international community come together to impose sanctions and deprive the junta of its economic power can the Burmese people hope to have any relief from the long list of atrocities being committed upon them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was here for the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). We do not have to destroy Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit. Add prescription drugs to Medicare. We do not need to change Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit. Keep Medicare. It is not outdated. Bring it up to date, if we want to put it that way, by putting in a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. But you do not do that. You are using prescription drug benefits to change and destroy the Medicare system. The actuary says, under the Republican plan, by 2010, the likely increase in costs for the present Medicare will be 25 percent. You are not only eroding the possibility of use, you are, in the end, destroying Medicare as we know it. And we Democrats will be glad to go to the electorate in 2004 with the Republican notion that Medicare is outdated, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the notion that Medicare is failing, ask the seniors of this country whether it is outdated or whether it is failing. They are going to say, we need prescription drugs; give it to us. Our Republican colleagues do not do that, though they use it as an excuse for changing or destroying Medicare. What they do is have a prescription drug program that is an insurance program without any assurance whatsoever. There is no assured premium, there is no assured deductible, there is no assured set of drugs, and there is really no assured plan. There is no assured plan. The insurance carriers are supposed to come into this, and if they do not, what is there? There is an empty container of pills, I guess. That is what we are left with. So essentially what our Republican colleagues are doing is using the alleged bankruptcy of Medicare as a smoke screen to destroy it. They are talking about 2036 to wreck Medicare 25 years earlier. That is what you want us to do in the conference committee. Go ahead, try it. If you try it, I hope you fail. If you succeed, we Democrats are all going to vote no. It was not very overwhelming, I think it was one vote, was it not, that took you 45 extra minutes to pass your bill? Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to go to the country with the Republican plan against ours, destroying Medicare versus our determination to save it and make it even better.