Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Hoyer Substitute, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill. I oppose all late term abortions with exceptions only when the mother's own life is at risk or to prevent serious adverse consequences to her health. Federal courts have ruled unconstitutional at least 19 different State laws with similar or identical language to the underlying bill because they do not contain adequate health exceptions. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that ``a State may promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion'' and that ``the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences.'' Despite this clear Court opinion, the bill's sponsors refuse to allow an exception to protect against adequate health consequences to a woman's health. We should be working together to approve legislation that bans late- term abortions in a manner which protects the mother's health and which is consistent to the decisions of the Federal courts and the Supreme Court. The Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, which I cosponsor, does just this.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, they say a half a loaf is better than none. This is a half a loaf. It will help one million workers who have been left out or threatened to be left out in the cold. But there are actually more than one million people who have been out of work or will be out of work for longer than the 9 months who are going to be just given the cold shoulder by what the Republicans are doing here today. They refuse to give us the chance to provide some benefits for those who have been looking for work but have been out of work for more than 9 months. It is ironic, those out of work the longest get the cold shoulder from the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, it was just a few days ago that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point.'' So there was no action on unemployment comp. I guess Mr. Rove called up and said, politically, you had better cover your base. So here we are today. But covering a political base is not going to help close to two million people who have either exhausted their benefits or will soon do that altogether. I was looking at the data, and it is really sad. They talk, the gentlemen from the Committee on Rules, about the States that have triggered in to extended benefits beyond the 39. That is only six States. The majority of workers in the majority of States are also left out in the cold. By the way, it is not only their needs, it is the need of the country. When we provide unemployment comp benefits, we provide money into the economy to grow the GDP, because people who are unemployed tend to spend the money they receive through benefits. So what are they afraid of? Why do they not let us bring before the floor the second half of that loaf? What are they afraid of? Answer that question. Why not give us a chance to bring it up? Why a rule that turns the cold shoulder in the end to two million Americans? I would be glad to have an answer. Instead, the Republicans sit silently. They say there is no crisis and, at the last minute, act. I urge that we reject the rule.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues talk about jobs. They are doing a job on the American people tonight. That is what they are doing. That is what they are doing. My colleagues are borrowing from my children's generation for a tax cut that will not benefit them primarily. My colleagues are borrowing from my grandchildren's generation for a tax cut. Where is it going? Mainly to the very wealthy in this society. And they get away from this by averaging. Okay, for the person with a million bucks, $93,000; someone with $45,000, $50,000, 211 bucks this year. When we add those together, the average tax cut for those two people is 46,000 bucks. The trouble is one is getting $95,000 and one is getting $200. Alchemy does not work outside of Washington, D.C., and you alchemists are not going to prevail ultimately in the District of Columbia and this Congress. You have performed what some may say is a miracle. You have united the Democrats in this institution. And the reason you have done it is not because of political reasons on our part, because you are robbing future generations for a tax cut for the very wealthy, and we are going to stand together to say to the President, to you, no, no, no, no, and we are going to do it in 45 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. The hand the chairman has reached out is one of the hands that has strangled democracy in this institution. It is no longer a deliberative body. It is the rule of one, the Republican majority. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says zero taxation for low-income people. Why? Because in most cases they have no dividends or capital gains to tax. Under his original proposal, and it remains essentially the same, a millionaire gets 90,000 bucks more in tax cuts. The average taxpayer gets a couple hundred bucks. Mr. Thomas, whom are you warring on? Middle-income and low-income families in this country. The President came here today to declare victory. Time will declare this a defeat for the Nation because the Republican party has turned red, red ink, red ink. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says he is opposed to structural deficits, but they have built in more and more debt into this structure. The only way it is not a structural debt is the hole is so deep the way they built it they cannot build anything on it. Now you say you favor creative destruction? Two and a half million jobs lost. That is very creative under this President and under the leadership of the House majority here. This is a fiscally irresponsible bill for the Nation. It is unfair to individual taxpayers. It will not stimulate economic growth, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and others have said. They are mortgaging the future of my children, of my grandchildren. We should pass this and then go on to defeat this conference report.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unfair rule. I do so because it denies Members the opportunity to offer amendments to critical provisions in the Defense Authorization bill. National defense should be a subject that brings the Congress and the nation together, and not an occasion to create division. Especially given the clear and present danger of further terrorist attacks against the United States, it is imperative that we remain united as we confront these threats. I support most of the provisions in this bill. It is unfortunate that the Majority chose to insert a number of highly controversial provisions into the Defense Authorization. In particular, I oppose the provisions of the bill that seek to upend longstanding civil service protections for more than 700,000 civilian workers who are instrumental to supporting our men and women in uniform. Without a competent civilian workforce at the Defense Department to back up our troops, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for our armed forces to prevail on the battlefield. We are legislating in the dark here. Over the past century, we have established protections to prevent the civil service form becoming a political patronage system. Before we throw these protections in the garbage can, we'd better know what we're doing. the Bush Administration delivered its 205-page legislative proposal to restructure the Pentagon's civilian and military personnel system on April 10, just days before the House adjourned for a two-week recess. These sweeping proposed changes are not well understood and they have the potential for long-term negative consequences. I want to read an excerpt from a General Accounting Office testimony on these proposed changes to the Pentagon's civilian personnel system. The GAO cautions that ``moving too quickly or prematurely [to a new personnel system] at DOD or elsewhere, can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This could also serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move to a more performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a whole. Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps to better link employee pay and other personnel decisions to performance across the federal government, how it is done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done, can make all the difference in whether or not we are successful.'' GAO goes on to say that ``based on GAO's past work, most existing federal performance appraisal systems, including a vast majority of DOD's systems, are not currently designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay system.'' The civil service rules have generally served our country well. Can we improve the Defense Department's civilian personnel rules? Sure. Is this the way to do it? Absolutely not. Such sweeping changes--changes affecting more than 700,000 Defense Department workers--deserve more thoughtful consideration by this Congress. If these changes are approved, we will find ourselves in the unique position of having one set of personnel rules for civilian defense employees, another set of personnel rules for employees at the Department of Homeland Security, and a third set of rules for every other federal worker. It's bad enough that the Republican Majority insisted on including these controversial civil service changes in this bill. What's worse is that the Majority will not even allow us to debate them or offer amendments. The House should be permitted to debate the Employee Bill of Rights amendment proposed by Representatives Cooper, Davis and Van Hollen. This amendment would protect the right to receive a veterans preference and the right to be free from discrimination based on political opinion or party affiliation. It would ensure that Department of Defense employees have the same collective bargaining rights and due process rights that other federal employees enjoy. These rights are fundamental. they should not be waived or curtailed at the whim of the Defense Secretary, and this House should not be stampeded into providing him the authority to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule so we can have a fair debate and a vote on the Employee Bill of Rights amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably absent on congressional business when recorded votes were taken on four matters. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall 201, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 245, ``nay''; on rollcall 202, the rule for the Defense Authorization bill, ``nay''; on rollcall 203, the Child Medication Safety Act, ``yea''; and on rollcall 204, final passage of H.R. 1911, ``yea.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed forest bill as well as the patently unfair procedure in which this legislation is being considered today by the House of Representatives. Neither the bill nor the procedure we are following brings credit to this body. Last night in the House Rules Committee, Democrats brought forward eleven amendments and asked the Committee to allow the House to debate them today. Many of these amendments were thoughtful and constructive. All of them deserved to be debated by the full House, yet the Republican-controlled Rules Committee denied all but one of the amendments. The result is that we will have a severely curtailed debate on a very divisive piece of legislation with little opportunity for Members to improve the bill. This is a lost opportunity. Clearly there is a significant public divide in this country on forest policy issues, and the best way to bridge these differences is to have a full debate in which alternative proposals can be debated. Instead, the Rules Committee has adopted a procedure in which Members will be effectively gagged. Sadly, this practice has become the norm whenever the House considers controversial bills. I also disagree with the substance of the legislation before the House today. This so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' is not an effective response to the wildfire problems we have experienced in recent years. The bill seeks to weaken longstanding environmental protections, including the landmark national Environmental Policy Act, under the guise of fighting wildfires. But the severe fires we have experienced are not the result of our nation's environmental laws; they have been due, in large measure, to a combination of severe drought, the overgrown conditions of many federal forests resulting from past fire-suppression policies, and the growing number of settlements adjacent to forested areas. I will vote for the substitute that will be offered by representatives Miller, DeFazio, Rahall and Conyers. In my view, the substitute more effectively deals with the wildfire threat by focusing federal resources on protecting the communities most at risk from forest fires. Specifically, the substitute would dedicate 85 percent of the available funding to fire abatement projects near vulnerable communities. There is no similar guarantee in the underlying bill which allows logging to take place in roadless areas and old-growth forests far from the communities at risk. If the substitute is not adopted, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing final passage of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join the minority leader, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and others. The Federal extended benefit program will expire in just a few days. Why do we bring this up every day? Every day? Because every day the number of people who have exhausted their State and Federal benefits grows. Americans are looking for work and unable to find it. And those who were in the millions as of a few months ago are facing more and more dire circumstances. And every day the number of people who are on State benefits, who are going to exhaust them, face the peril of looking for work without any help. So when we add this all together, we are talking about 2\1/2\, perhaps 3 million people in this country of ours looking for work, who cannot find it, and on the Republican side here in the House they say to them, get a job. They are looking for a job, but there are none to be found. The response of the Republicans in this House has been, to put it in its best frame of reference, inaction. It has really been worse than that. It has been indifference, and perhaps even worse than that. I simply ask that they go back home and meet the people out of work, looking for work, without benefits or facing that prospect, look them in the eye and tell them that you here are sitting idly by. As mentioned by the minority leader, the benefit of extending benefits is that it is a growth package. Giving people who are unemployed money to help their families is money that is going to be spent, and well spent. The studies are clear that that helps to move the economy upwards. So do vote ``no'' on moving the previous question. I would hope there would be a few brave souls on the Republican side who will not simply march the robotic line, all in sync, voting against the interests of America and its unemployed workers looking for work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has made it clear, I hope, to the country why we are asking that the previous question be voted down so we can bring up the unemployment comp issue. He has said let us get jobs for workers, not provide unemployment comp checks. Look, the people who are unemployed are looking for work. They want a job. There is no job when they seek it, and what the Republicans and the House are essentially saying to those workers who are looking for work and cannot find a job, tough luck. We can do much better. A recent survey indicated that the average unemployed worker has applied for 29 jobs without finding work, and the average unemployed worker over 45 has applied for 42 jobs without finding work. Almost 9 million people out of work. Over 1 million have exhausted their benefits, and by the end of this month, it will be 1.4 million. And now each month another couple hundred thousand are going to be exhausting their benefits, out in the cold because of the cold shoulder of this House majority. That is why we are asking that the previous question be voted down. Ten years ago we did much better. We did not hear this talk, get a job, to people who are looking for work and cannot find it. So we will proudly ask, give us a chance. My colleagues have been on the Republican side derelict in their duty, and we are willing to stand up and say to the people who are unemployed, yes, keep looking for work. Unemployment comp benefits will help grow the economy because they will spend the money they receive on benefits, but we are also saying while they are looking for work, we are not going to turn a cold shoulder to the unemployed of the United States of America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill is not a growth bill; it is fiscally irresponsible for this Nation and is unfair to individual taxpayers. Only 9 percent of the tax cuts will take effect this year. It would mean more and more and more deficits. This bill should carry on with the sign, ``Deficits don't Matter.'' A family with $1 million in income this year would save 95,000 bucks in taxes. A family with $40,000 to $75,000, only $218. A rising tide of tax breaks for the very, very, very wealthy will not raise all boats, only very big yachts. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is interesting that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) was asked the question. Maybe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) can answer it. Why not let us bring up the amendment on the issue they were discussing? And another issue that is not being brought up today that should have been is the unemployment situation in this country: 341,000 people lost their jobs in April, almost 9 million people out of work. This Congress, this House, this majority sits idly by. There is going to be the expiration of unemployment benefits, the extended benefits the end of this month. And there is over $20 billion in the trust fund that could be applied to help these people. Oh, it is said the answer is get a job. These unemployed people are looking for a job. A recent survey indicated that the average unemployed worker has applied for 29 jobs without finding work, and you sit idly by and do nothing. It also shows the average unemployed worker over 45 has applied for 42 jobs without finding work. Stop sitting and act on this issue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule and against the bill. The legislation before the House today fails to live up our promises to fully fund special education. It fails the parents of children with disabilities. Worst of all, it fails the kids who need our help the most. 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. If it becomes law, this bill would leave more than 600,000 children with disabilities behind. For more than 28 years, Congress has pledged time and time again to provide full funding for special education in this country, but not once has Congress provided the promised 40 percent Federal cost share of the states' cost of educating children and disabilities. Currently, the Federal Government pays just 18 percent. To illustrate my point, this year my home state of Michigan, will receive $308 million in IDEA Part B grants. Michigan should receive almost $704 million, if this Congress would only meet its obligation to fully fund this program, as it has promised. IDEA is really the poster child for unfunded federal mandates. The fiscal crisis confronting the states makes it increasingly difficult for them to pick up the unfunded federal share. Proponents of this legislation will claim that this bill fully funds IDEA by 1010. This House can authorize higher spending limits for IDEA until it is blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything to our nation's disabled school children unless we follow up and actually appropriate the money to meet these authorization levels. And that's where the problem has been. If the Majority is really serious about fully funding special education, as it claims, why not make the funding mandatory? It is ironic that at the same time the Majority is pushing to lock in a permanent $550 billion tax cut that chiefly benefits the very rich, it is unwilling to provide the same assurance of funding to disabled school kids. This speaks volumes about priorities around here. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and opposing this bill. We can do much better.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the City of Pleasant Ridge, its residents and its elected leadership, on the anniversary of the city's 75th year of incorporation. The City of Pleasant Ridge is a beautiful bedroom community located, just north of the City of Detroit, in south Oakland County. With tree- lined streets, warmly cared for yards, and historic brick homes, the City of Pleasant Ridge is truly a ``jewel'' in the metropolitan area. This settlement began in 1913 when Burt Taylor subdivided the Mayday farm. The settlement was incorporated as a village in 1921 and as a city in 1927. This city is now home to over 2,500 individuals and 1,000 families. The City of Pleasant Ridge has a sense of community that can be seen at the bustling community center where they hold a variety of community events and classes, through the numerous community organizations and wide-ranging activities like the garden tours, auctions, scholarship grants to graduating high school students, active participation in the Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise and so many other wonderful community-wide activities. The city has also had an impact beyond its borders in the Michigan community. Ashton Berst, an early City Administrator, was one of a dozen local government officials instrumental in forming the Michigan Municipal League. Pleasant Ridge is also the hometown of a former Member of Congress, and Governor of the State of Michigan, James Blanchard. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending every good wish to the City of Pleasant Ridge on their 75th anniversary. Indeed, they have much to be proud of. My heartiest congratulations to the residents, the community activists, and all of the members of the city administration. I look forward to many more years of working together, and being part of the fabric of this important community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a remarkable individual, Richard T. Thompson, Chancellor of Oakland Community College (OCC) upon his retirement from this outstanding five-campus institution. Beginning his OCC career in 1996, Mr. Thompson was a member of the English, Social Science and Counseling faculty at the Highland Lakes Campus. He also served as Academic Dean and Campus Provost at that campus until 1975. After 1975, Mr. Thompson held various positions, including Provost of the Orchard Ridge Campus, and College District Vice President for academic and student affairs in 1984. He was promoted to Vice Chancellor of academic affairs in 1988, and served as OCC's Interim Chancellor. In 1995 he was appointed Interim President of Auburn Hills Campus. On March 19, 1996, Richard T. Thompson assumed the Chancellorship of OCC, as its sixth chief executive officer. This appointment marked the first time in history of the college that an OCC academician was chosen to head its five-campus institution. Professional and community activities are also a significant part of Mr. Thompson's life. The Providence Hospital Community Board, the Educational Advisory Board, the Oakway Symphony and the Better Business Bureau are some examples of the wide range of interest and service he has provided. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Richard T. Thompson for his dedication and devotion to Oakland Community College, an outstanding institution of higher learning, and for the high quality of education and the inspiration he has provided for its students during his tenure. I wish Richard, and his wife, Nancy, good health and happiness in whatever paths they choose to take in retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, when I came here 20 years ago, I was told that this was the greatest deliberative body in this world; and here we are discussing this huge budget and what the majority does is to reserve the balance of its time. Where is their argument? Where is their response? My Republican colleagues sit there like people of stone. So let me sum up what the facts are as I see them. Here is what the Republicans are saying in their budget resolution. I have heard the gentleman from California say, get back to the growth of the late 1990s. They are doing it by adopting policies exactly the opposite of the 1990s. What my colleagues are saying is, if the hole is deep, dig it deeper. My colleagues try to show much in tax cuts, and now they are going to do it again. They have gone from a projected surplus, as we have said so many times, of $5.6 trillion to $2 trillion in deficits these next 10 years. What my Republican colleagues are saying is, when in debt, mortgage more and more. My colleagues say they are meeting a deadline. They are doing it, I think, clearly by dealing death to fiscal responsibility. But I want to say in a few words, this is worse than fiscal irresponsibility. I say to my colleagues, this is fiscal madness.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that I would be able to vote for the energy bill before the House today. Now more than ever, this country urgently needs a balanced, forward-looking policy to meet America's energy requirements in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, the energy legislation before the House falls far short of even the minimum requirements of a balanced, comprehensive energy program. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing passage of this bill today. The overarching flaw in this bill is its lack of balance. This legislation contains relatively few energy conservation provisions and instead places most of its emphasis on production of traditional energy sources. In so doing, the bill weakens important environmental protections and offers subsidies and incentives to industry, even in cases where none are required. I am also extremely disappointed that one provision of this bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. This provision would do serious environmental harm to one of the last pristine wilderness areas in America. It might be argued that doing so could be justified if drilling in the Refuge would substantially lessen U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil. But we know that this is not the case. According to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil in the Refuge is 3.2 billion barrels, an amount roughly equal to the amount of oil the U.S. consumes in six months. We can't drill our way to energy self sufficiency. We need to look at alternatives to oil and make better use of advanced technology to lessen U.S. dependence on it. The $18.6 billion tax package contained in this legislation is similarly unbalanced. These incentives would overwhelmingly go to energy production and transmission at the expense of conservation, energy efficiency and developing alternative energy. In particular, the incentives provided for alternative fuel vehicles in the bill are inadequate. I believe consumer-based tax credits are needed to accelerate the introduction of hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles. Sales of hybrids and all other dedicated alternative fuel vehicles in 2002 represented just two-tenths of one-percent of total vehicle sales. For example, Ford produces 375,000 Taurus cars each year. Honda sells 360,000 Accords. By comparison, the most popular hybrid automobile--the Toyota Prius--sold just 18,000 vehicles in 2002. Clearly, we need a meaningful tax incentive to prime the pump on hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles. The federal government has a vital role to play in encouraging manufacturers to build, and consumers to purchase, these advanced technology vehicles. If we go forward with an energy bill that lacks a meaningful incentive for alternative fuel vehicles, including an enhanced credit for hybrids, I believe we would be making a serious mistake. At the end of the day, the energy bill before the House is unbalanced, incoherent, and environmentally risky. It deserves to be defeated.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, April 24, 2003, marks the 88th anniversary of one of the world's most tragic events--the genocide of the Armenian people by the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire. On that day in 1915, over 200 Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were executed. This was the beginning of the Ottoman Empire's attempt to eradicate Armenians from their Anatolian homelands in what is now East Turkey through massacre and massive forced marches through the deserts of modern-day Syria. This resulted in the deaths of more than two-thirds of the Armenian population-- totaling one and a half million people. To this day, there are those who dismiss the systematic persecution of the Armenian population. Some claim that a smaller number of Armenians were killed as a result of partisan fighting during World War I. Others lessen the importance of this event by refusing to recognize it as genocide. Still others seek to forget this tragedy altogether. But these tragic events must be acknowledged and remembered to ensure that this does not happen. Stephen Holden of the New York Times once wrote of the Armenian Genocide that ``anguished remembrance is far preferable to willful amnesia.'' There are still many living survivors in my district who participate each year in commemoration ceremonies, in the hope that the world will not forget their anguish. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a large and vital Armenian community in my district. It is for these people, as well as Armenians around the world, that I rise today to commemorate the Armenian Genocide with the great hope there will not be willful amnesia regarding this tragedy, but that people will remember and not tolerate anything of this kind again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the time, after I am done, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and also that he be allowed to allocate that time as he desires.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 1584, the Clean Diamond Trade Act, implements our obligations, the U.S. obligations under the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, an international system designed to ensure that rough diamonds entering the U.S. are legally mined and traded. Once in place, this system will be instrumental in ensuring that conflict diamonds, gems that have fueled decades-long wars and atrocities in Africa, are not imported into the United States. This legislation represents the culmination of a 3-year effort led in substantial part by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and former Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who is here today, and I salute his efforts, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Each of these Members has helped to keep the spotlight focused on the terrible toll trade in conflict diamonds has had on the people of sub- Saharan Africa. They have worked diligently and responsibly to address the concerns of the administration and of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). They have also worked to address concerns about the impact of rough diamond regulations on legitimate diamond trade in countries such as Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Tanzania. Let me just say briefly a word about the circumstances under which this bill is being considered. There is an urgent time factor. As a result, this legislation was not considered in the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on International Relations; but this was not basically an effort to bypass the committee process which, in my view, is essential to the development of sound legislation. Rather, we agreed, on a bipartisan basis, because of time constraints, to proceed in this manner, in part in large measure because of the implications of continued nonaction by the U.S. Specifically, as I understand it, the entire international certification system was not going to go into effect because we here had not implemented our obligations. So I am glad we were able to work across the aisle, across committees and with the NGO community, the diamond industry and the diamond mining country representatives to put this bill together. I believe it is a beneficial work product, one which I urge my colleagues to pass; and also I think it is an example of how to proceed on a bipartisan basis. It makes sense here, and it makes sense on other important issues. Specific provisions I am pleased to see included are inclusion of recordkeeping requirements for importers and exporters of rough diamonds, mandatory executive branch oversight of any entity that issues Kimberley process certificates and provisions to coordinate activities of the various agencies and departments that will implement this bill and U.S. Kimberley process obligations. With these additions, this bill sends an important signal to the international community that we here are engaged; that we here take this issue seriously; and that we here expect other nations to take the necessary steps to help eradicate this plight.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, since September 11, we have begun to prepare for a number of events that once seemed unthinkable. One of them is an epidemic of smallpox, a deadly disease that we thought we had erased from the earth. The best way for us to protect ourselves against that is to vaccinate our first responders--the nurses, policemen, and firefighters that we would depend on to recognize a smallpox outbreak and quickly act to protect all of us against a disease that spreads rapidly and kills a third of its victims. But in the three and a half months since President Bush announced plans to vaccinate 500,000 first responders, fewer than 25,000 have volunteered. In Michigan, where we had a goal of vaccinating 5,000 people, fewer than five hundred people have been vaccinated. The smallpox vaccine has the worst record of negative side effects, including death, of any vaccine in our history. Experts estimate that one in a million people vaccinated will die, and many more will become ill, some seriously. Sadly, three people who volunteered to be vaccinated have already died. These are sobering statistics, but it is not the personal danger that is keeping first responders from volunteering. Every day, our police, firefighters, and health care workers risk injury and death to help others. But giving them the smallpox vaccine without proper education, pre-screening, and surveillance doesn't just endanger them--it endangers all of us. When smallpox vaccination was still widespread, nearly 20 percent of infections from the vaccine came from secondary contact. And asking first responders to be vaccinated without a safety net if they become ill, are disabled, or die endangers their families and those who depend on them for support. The Republican leadership says we don't have time to have a discussion with nurses, policemen, firefighters, and other first responders about what kind of program they need to feel safe because preparing for bioterrorism is an emergency. But if we don't have that discussion, we will have done nothing to address the emergency. Receiving the smallpox vaccine is voluntary for first responders. First responders don't think the current program is safe, so they are declining the vaccine. That's why our current program isn't working and why after months of saying a vaccine injury compensation system wasn't necessary, House Republicans are willing to bring up a bill. But if the bill we pass doesn't make first responders feel safe, they still won't volunteer to be vaccinated, and we'll be right back where we started, except we'll have wasted a lot of time on a program we already know will be ineffective. Wouldn't it make more sense to get it right the first time? By voting against this bill, which the International Union of Firefighters, the American Nurses Association, and the International Union of Police Associations say does not address the concerns that have prevented them from being vaccinated, I hope to give the House an opportunity to sit down with first responders and craft a workable solution. It is precisely because this is an emergency that we don't have time to pass unworkable legislation, wait for it to fail, and start again. I regret that we did not have the opportunity to vote on a real solution tonight. I hope we can move immediately to pass a real solution, without wasting any more time on political gamesmanship.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Oak Park Business and Education Alliance (OPBEA) at their Annual Community Awards Luncheon on Friday, March 28th at Glen Oaks Country Club in Farmington Hills. The Oak Park Business and Education Alliance is a non-profit organization of educators, businesses and government entities. This organization marshalls important segments of the community to focus on increasing educational opportunities for Oak Park students. Since its inception in 1993, they have become an invaluable asset to the community. On Friday, this fine organization will honor a community activist, Mike Tobin, and a community institution, Oakland Community College. Mike Tobin, President of Mike Building Company of Farmington, learned his trade from his father who from the beginning concentrated on building homes that would open the residential market to more families. That practice continues today because Mr. Tobin's his first love is the single family affordable home. He shares the enjoyment of first-time buyers when they realize they have become ``homeowners.'' Aside from his love of building, and his commitment to the future of the building industry and the workforce of tomorrow, Mr. Tobin is a recognized leader in the community and a devoted supporter of many charities and institutions, including the OPBEA. Oakland Community College (OCC) established in 1964, began with 2 campuses and was proud of its initial enrollment of 3860 students. Today, they have grown to more than 27,000 students covering 5 campuses in Oakland County. OCC is an invaluable resource for the community, the region and the State as they provide a wide range of affordable services and educational opportunities to students of all ages. OCC is an active participant in the OPBEA Board as a connecting link between education and employment. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mike Tobin, Oakland Community College and the Oak Park Business and Education Alliance and wish them success in their future endeavors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the siren song again, but let us look at the facts. First of all, as to veterans, this is undeniable, and I want to read it: The reconciliation instructions in the Republican plan require $14.6 billion in unspecified reductions in veterans' benefits. This $14.6 billion cut represents a cut of 3.8 percent in mandatory spending below the levels in current law, and we are doing this on this day. Secondly, as to the income figures, for families with incomes below $75,000, they are not going to receive this big boon as stated in terms of the dividend tax cut. They will receive an average tax benefit of $42. And for the families that are in the middle 20 percent, the average is not in the thousands under the tax cut of the Republicans, but only $246. So what has happened here? A party that once said they had the mantle of fiscal responsibility, they are sacrificing that on the altar of irresponsible tax cuts; deficits not as far as the eye can see, but further than the eye can see. In the long run, all will be hurt except the very wealthy as interest rates go up, and, therefore, it impacts on our houses and our cars and everything we buy; in the short run, kids and their education, veterans, as I mentioned, people who need health care, and all of us who need homeland security. This is an irresponsible budget and digs a deeper and deeper hole of deficits. We have some sound alternatives. Let us vote for them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. This is an important bill. Many of us regret that it could not have been brought to this floor earlier without provisions that were totally unrelated to its basic purpose. It is important because so many of our Reserve and Guard members today are overseas, along with others, and what this bill says very significantly is that all members of our Armed Forces should be treated with equity and treated with the utmost sensitivity and respect. The bill is important because we bring it up today at a significant moment. What it says, I think, for all of us, is this: Whatever the disagreements, and there have been and remain such as to the policies and approach of this administration, we here stand fully behind those men and women who are fighting in our armed services. So I hope that today we will join in support of this bill. It now has a single important purpose, and that is to say to our troops, here and abroad, we stand with you.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has explained his reluctant support because of the provision in here that needs to be in here. As I understand it, that positive provision was taken from the other bill and placed in this bill, so we are in a situation where, as to the clearly legitimate provision, we either vote ``yes'' and pass this or vote ``no'' because of other provisions and, therefore, bring down what we should be doing. This is not the way to proceed in a deliberative body where there is also respect for the views of every Member of this institution and the ability of every Member here to be heard, to at least raise the issue of amendments. So I want to just say a few words about two of the provisions, one relating to individual inversions or those expatriates, people who leave the country to avoid taxes. There is a Senate approach and a House approach. The Senate approach is far superior. What it does essentially is it says to people who leave this country, individuals, we are going to tax you as you leave on all of your unrealized income. The House bill is much weaker. We should have had a chance to present these two alternatives on the floor of the House. Secondly, let me say a word about the sense of the Congress on the issue of corporate expatriation. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has had a bill here for months that addresses this issue. What this sense of the Congress provision does is essentially to, I think, paper it over and to paper it over incorrectly. Essentially what it says is, to those who engage in corporate expatriation, it is not your fault, it is the fault of the Tax Code. And I do not think we should be giving that kind of, if not approval, a pass to those corporations that escape American taxes by moving a headquarters overseas while often continuing to have a major presence in the U.S. We can do much better on both individual and corporate inversions expatriations. But what has happened here is we have eliminated our chance to even consider this intelligently and deliberately by putting these provisions in a bill in a way that we cannot vote ``no.'' So those of us who will vote ``yes,'' in many cases, vote with those limitations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Cardin and myself introduced a bill that would grant permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Russia and ``graduate'' Russia from the application of the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment. The legislation would provide a historic update in U.S.-Russia trade relations. It would strengthen U.S.-Russian relations and reinforce progress Russia has made in many areas. Additionally, the legislation would ensure that Congress continues to play an active role--with the Administration and with Russia--in confronting trade disputes and negotiating the terms of Russia's WTO accession. It is useful to recall at the outset 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' 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 benefitted 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 Russia, WTO accession terms are still being negotiated. I believe it is appropriate to depart from that precedent and grant Russia PNTR now, so long as Congress retains a strong and 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--Russian commitments to open its auto market, commitments in the services and other sectors, ongoing problems with pricing in the industrial energy sector, intellectual property protection, to name just a few. Moreover, several recent actions by Russia--including last year's poultry ban and potential new restrictions on beef and pork--have renewed concerns in Congress about Russia's commitment to opening its market to U.S. exports and service providers and to adopting market-oriented reforms. 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 Russia. 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 Russia on Russia'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 of a continuing role in the formation of the terms of Russia's WTO accession and thereby implement Congress' constitutional responsibility of oversight over trade matters. There are two sides to the PNTR coin--the trade issues and the ``Jackson-Vanik'' issues. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was an 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 thirty years. I think it is appropriate, then, that as we consider graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, that we place a strong emphasis on 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 ``graduation,'' particularly for Russia, which was and is in many ways the primary focus of the Jackson-Vanik 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. The presence of Members of the Helsinki Commission on the bill, who have a long history of dealing with human rights and religious freedoms, demonstrates that we have given these issues the careful treatment they deserve. Earlier this week, Senator Lugar, the distinguished Senator from Indiana and a key participant in consideration of our relations with other nations, introduced a Russia PNTR bill. This bill did not address the issue of assuring a continuing congressional role in the resolution of vital elements of an agreement on Russia's WTO accession. I believe that Congress has a substantial role to play in overseeing negotiations of Russia WTO accession agreement to ensure that it provides the strongest benefits for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses, and therefore we are introducing this legislation today.