Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 342, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act,'' and urge the House to join me in voting for it. There is a real and growing public health threat posed by the West Nile virus in my state of Michigan, as well as many other states throughout the country. Last year, Oakland County, Michigan, had 187 cases of West Nile Virus and 20 deaths. Macomb County reported 103 cases and six deaths. Many communities in my district have acted locally, but clearly the problem must be attacked broadly, across community lines. All levels of government must be involved in responding to this clear and present health risk. Congress must do more to support State and local public health efforts to combat the spread of West Nile. The bill before the House today represents the least we should do to combat this mosquito-borne disease. It establishes two temporary grant programs to help state and local governments assess mosquito problems, and coordinate and operate mosquito control programs. The bill authorizes $100 million in FY 2003, and such sums as necessary through FY 2007. It is critical that Congress follow up this legislation with the appropriations needed to fund these vital programs. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because it is critical that the Record be clear about what happened earlier today on the floor of the House, and that we learn the right lessons. The bill relating to Armed Forces Tax Fairness was supposed to be before us. The bill originally related exactly to that, tax fairness for those who are in the armed services. But it was decided before we met in committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, apparently by the leadership of that committee, that Members would be allowed to offer provisions totally unrelated to that important bill. A number of those in the majority decided to take that opportunity. No Democrat participated in presenting any special interest or particular interest legislation. So what we saw was a flood of special interest or particular interest proposals totally unrelated to the critical issue of armed services tax fairness. Provisions relating to makers of bows and arrows, those who make fishing tackle boxes, a provision relating to the taxation of people, foreigners who bet on American horse races. What happened? The majority leader earlier said on the floor that the result in the Committee on Ways and Means was a bipartisan one, as I heard his words. That is simply incorrect. We voted, Democrats, against a number of these particular provisions. We had roll calls. Republicans voted aye; Democrats by and large almost unanimously voted no. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, presented a substitute that would have stripped the bill of all of these particular interest provisions and, as I remember it, have adopted the Senate provision. That was voted down. So let the Record be clear as to what happened in the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill came out on a voice vote because Democrats did not want to vote against a bill relating truly to tax fairness for those in our armed services. However, we had made clear where we stood on those specific provisions. What is the lesson? At best, this bill, as it came out of the Committee on Ways and Means, reflected misguided priorities and the arrogance of power. Misguided priorities because they inserted several hundred millions in provisions totally unrelated to armed services tax fairness. Bows and arrows, money there when we are shortchanging education for our kids, fish tackle boxes when there is not enough money going for homeland security. And then horse races to help those who bet on horse races when there is not enough money for people who are short on prescription drugs. An arrogance of power that led some in the majority to decide to put on a bill relating to tax fairness for those who were abroad as well as at home, provisions that helped those who were here at home. So I come here because it is critical the Record be clear, it be critical we learn from this experience. I hope next week early on a bill will be presented here preferably the Senate bill that treats even more fairly than the House bill, without these provisions, those in the armed services.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. I rise in support of this bill. It is substantially the same as we considered and passed last October. We passed it by a voice vote on suspension, and it reflects the basically noncontroversial nature of the legislation, and I believe we will have the same result today. As mentioned, there are ground rules for bringing up this legislation agreed to by both parties. They are noncontroversial, and they carry a minimal cost. But because the cost is minimal does not mean these are unimportant items. They are basically technical and miscellaneous and, therefore, the name of the bill. But at times technical and miscellaneous changes can have a real impact on U.S. businesses, on workers, on farmers, and consumers. This bill is of that nature. It suspends or reduces import duties on numerous items for which there are no American competitors, and it does correct instances where Customs has overcharged for import duties. The provisions that relate to import duties often concern items, as mentioned, that are inputs for domestic manufacturers and for their workers; and so therefore they benefit from these provisions. So as to most of them, these are items that should help us as we compete in this globalizing economy. Also included, and I am glad they are, provisions that relate to San Antonio Airport and some technical corrections that will strengthen both CBI and the AGOA programs. There also is in here a provision about which a number of us have a very strong concern regarding the reverse Customs program at the northern border. Some of us have been working hard to bring about a reverse Customs structure. It was included in the recently passed appropriations bill. The Committee on Ways and Means reviewed this and wants to replace what was passed with the language that is in this bill, and I have been assured that this change does not in any way affect the substance of what was included in the appropriation package, and it will not impede in any way the important implementation of the reverse Customs program. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the significance of that experiment. So, therefore, I support the provision in the bill. We are moving forward today; and as I understand it, there are other important technical corrections that will still have to be made in the future. Let me say just a word about one provision that is not included, and that is the provision that was requested by the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). She is going to say a few words about this after I finish. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished leader, also has a strong view about that. Let me say a word also about a provision that I think will come up at a later date regarding permanent normal trade relations as to Moldova and Armenia. Recognizing that both countries have acceded to the WTO, we will be working on this in the future. The Turkey Qualified Industrial Zone provision is not in this bill. Let me say just a word about this. We have discussed it before. It is likely at some later date that we will see some legislation regarding QIZs as it relates to Turkey, and I think we should proceed with it; but I want to again reiterate to the administration the importance of a broadened provision relating to the QIZ and Turkey. The QIZ provides benefits that in some ways are deeper and broader than those in the GSP program; and it effectively replaces the GSP program. However, unlike GSP, the QIZ statute does not include any conditionality, whether it relates to the protection of U.S. investors or respect for core labor standards or protection of intellectual property rights; and, again, I would hope that the administration would commit itself to working on including these criteria. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is going to speak about Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Montenegro. He has worked very hard on this. I applaud his efforts, and I am glad that we have worked this out. So we should proceed today with this bill. It has been tailored according to the basic rules regarding miscellaneous tariff bills, and I would hope that we can pass it as we did last time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking leader.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who is going to follow up on the colloquy between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another distinguished Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have spelled out the reasons for the passage of this bill. I urge that we vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to, though this is the debate on the rule, emphasize the difference here. It is too bad no effort was made in subcommittee or full committee this time around to try to forge a bridge over these differences. What are the differences? It is not the value of work. It is not the linkage of welfare to work. No. The difference is whether the emphasis in the Republican bill will be as, to people who are remaining on welfare, they work, or getting people off of welfare into work. And the difference is whether people working should remain in poverty or whether it should be an emphasis on people working out of poverty. And this is a major difference; and it is seen, for example, in the way the Republicans give credit to the States against the required participation rate because of caseload reduction instead of people moving into employment. It also is shown in terms of the reduction in flexibility for the States to use vocational ed and other techniques, other approaches, so that people move out of poverty into true independence. And here is the reason the challenge matters so much. We do not have the exact data, but a huge proportion of people who have moved off of welfare into work remain in poverty. The average for people who have moved off of welfare into work is $2,500 a quarter or $10,000 a year. It is also shown in the lack of child care money in the Republican bill, also in the lack of adequate health care. So these are important differences. So this is not a battle of 1995 and 1996. We worked, a number of us, very hard to craft a welfare bill that paid adequate attention to health care and to day care, though it had other problems remaining in it. No. This is a question of where we go from here and whether we are going to tailor a system that gives the States the flexibility, the inducement, and the mothers the opportunity to move from welfare to work, out of poverty into true independence. That is the difference. So I am proud to be supporting the Cardin bill, and I hope that all the Democrats will vote for it; and I regret that the Republicans made no effort at all to see if we could put this together in this year.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the American dream is not to live in poverty; the American dream is working, and working out of poverty. There is a basic fact: huge numbers of women who have moved from welfare to work remain in poverty. And this bill restricts the flexibility of the States to tailor plans to help people move up the ladder, whether by education or by other means. The pivot of the rationale of the Republicans, that 58 percent of welfare recipients are not working, those figures are indeed more than questionable. The National Governors Association disagrees with it. And I urge everybody to go back to their States and look at the figures, the data behind those who are on welfare, how many have kids with disabilities, how many have other problems, so we see what the reality is. Quickly, child care. I do not know how you on the majority side stand up and say you are for adequate child care when it is only $2 billion; CBO says it is billions inadequate. If we take into account inflation, it is $5 billion to $6 billion inadequate. How do you say that? Mr. Chairman, $1 billion is so inadequate that only it is mandatory and $1 billion is discretionary, if appropriated. It is a smoke screen. And then this figure of $16,000 TANF per family. That is not only fuzzy math, that is phony math, because it includes all the child care for all working families, allocated or ascribed to people who are on TANF. And also another thing it does, it takes all of the programs of TANF that are not cash assistance and forgets about that as part of the TANF program. The Cardin, et al bill is a bill to help people move to work out of poverty. That is where America wants to go and where this House should be going. Support the Cardin bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the real issue before us is where we go from here. We can analyze where we were in 1995 and 1996. Many of us worked hard to bring about a welfare reform that linked welfare-to-work and provided child care and also provided health care. After those ingredients were placed into the bill, and it was a struggle, many of us voted for the welfare reform bill, despite serious inadequacies, especially as to legal immigrants and as to food stamps. Where do we go from here? It is said a paycheck is dignity. Yes, a paycheck that provides people with a living wage and that moves them out of poverty is the true ticket of dignity. The problem with the bill that has been brought before us, and there are many procedural issues that have been raised, such as the failure to go through the committee process in this session; but the problem is that the emphasis in the Republican bill is not moving people off of welfare into productive work, but two problems: emphasizing those who are on welfare working, rather than moving people from welfare to work and people moving from welfare to work, though they remain in poverty. Those are the two flaws. We can do much better. Our challenge now is whether people can move from welfare to work out of poverty and into true independence, and that is what the Cardin substitute does. That is what the Thomas bill or whatever it is called fails to do, and there has been no effort at all at any point before this session or during this session to try to bridge these differences. The reason it is so important is because large numbers, we are not sure exactly the number, but this is clear: huge numbers of people who move from welfare to work remain in poverty. The majority earn $2,500 a quarter, $10,000 a year. So the Republican bill fails in terms of accomplishing that goal of moving people out of poverty. So they tailor the bill so that the incentive to the States is not to get people into productive work, but to reduce caseloads no matter how it is done. There are other problems with it. The flexibility of the States to help move people out of welfare into work and out of poverty has been reduced and their ability to use training education. There is inadequate day care money, and I want to emphasize this very briefly. There is an increase in the Republican bill, but it is discretionary money; and CBO has said it is $7.5 billion less than necessary to meet the new requirements in this bill. We can do much, much better with State flexibility, with the right emphasis on not only welfare to work, but welfare to work that moves people out of poverty. These differences are important distinctions. They are important differences that will lead to different results for mothers, for their children, and for our Nation; and this House is now forfeiting the chance if it passes the Republican bill to accomplish these results. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Lithuanian independence and the 13th anniversary of freedom from Soviet occupation. In Southfield, Michigan, the Lithuanian-American Community of Michigan will be gathering on Sunday, February 16, 2003 at Divine Providence Lithuanian Catholic Church to celebrate this historic event. In February 1918, Lithuania declared its independence from Czarist Russia. During this period, Lithuanians were free to follow their cultural traditions and express their national identity. The Molotov- Ribbentrop pact of 1939 caused Lithuania to spend the next five decades under Soviet domination, forced to deny their heritage, their language and their traditions. Despite the military might and repressive acts of the Soviets, the Lithuanians never lost touch with their roots and never lost their will. Lithuania's re-established independence in 1990 served as a testament to the courage, endurance and strength of the Lithuanian people. I was fortunate enough to be in Lithuania as its people celebrated the regaining of its independence. In the 13 short years since the re-establishment of its independence, Lithuania has made extraordinary advances in restoring democracy, ensuring human rights, securing the rule of law, developing a free market economy, and cultivating friendly relations with neighboring countries. Such achievements should be an inspiration to people everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I unite with Lithuanian-Americans and Lithuanians around the world in celebrating their independence day.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before the House, which expresses the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the astronauts who were lost on the space shuttle Columbia. The crew of Columbia died doing something important. None of us will forget their courage, dedication and sacrifice and we stand with their families during this difficult time. In the wake of Saturday's tragedy, we're left with a lot of questions. How did this accident happen? What systems aboard the shuttle failed? Were there warning signs that Columbia would be in peril when it returned from orbit? Can the remaining space shuttles be made safe? These questions, and many others, must be candidly answered before the space program can recover from this accident and move forward. The damage to our nation goes well beyond the loss of Columbia and seven extraordinary individuals, and it will not be repaired solely by technological fixes, such as stronger heat-resistant tiles or better insulation on the external fuel tank. I have a young friend named Patrick who was simply devastated when he heard the first news reports that Columbia had been lost with no survivors. Patrick is an eight- year-old student in 3rd grade. Like the rest of us, he has many questions. He wanted to know why the astronauts had to die and why there was no way for them to escape from the shuttle when the problem became apparent. For young children, the space shuttle is much more than a way to launch people and material into orbit. The shuttle embodies a space program they admire and want to be a part of. Many children, like Patrick, are old enough to know about the 1986 Challenger accident, but had come to believe the problems had been fixed and that the shuttles were safe. When we lost Columbia and its crew on Saturday, we may have also lost a dream shared by many young people of one day growing up to be an astronaut. We need to find a way to repair this damage as well. All of us know that space flight is inherently risky. This is not a fact we should be comfortable in accepting. We need to spend the time, effort and resources to find ways to make space flight less risky. This is the most important task before us as we look to the future of the space program. I commend the Leadership on both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this resolution and urge its passage by the House of Representatives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has been said here that unfortunately the 107th adjourned without passage of a bill like this. I was here with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that day of sine die adjournment. We tried to bring up this issue. We were thwarted by the Republican majority. We asked that we bring up the Senate bill. Unanimous consent is all that was needed. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says the President has spoken passionately. On that day the President was silent. Now there has been political pressure. Now some of the faces of the unemployed have appeared in the newspapers and on television. And so now you are ready to act. The Senate has acted. But, look, I think we can do better and there is time for us to do even better. One of my colleagues on the Republican side said there should be no interruptions to those who are hurting, if I got the words down correctly. What about the million who have exhausted their extended benefits and who are hurting? To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), 56,000 from your State. The gentleman from Iowa talked about the unemployed in his State. How about the 8,500-plus who have exhausted their benefits and who are looking for work who are hurting. Why do we not act? Well, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talks about the budget process. You are waiving it today up to a point. There is an unwillingness to waive it to let us bring up coverage of those who have exhausted their benefits. There is $25 billion in the trust fund for this purpose. And our proposal would include enough people so that everybody would be covered within the $25 billion. Look, I remember so vividly on that day when we adjourned sine die, we held a press conference, and distributed by the Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means ``Debunking Liberal Myths on the Unemployment Picture.'' That was distributed as we came out of the press conference. ``Debunking liberal Myths on the Unemployment Picture.'' Look, I suggest to people who think unemployment is a liberal myth, talk to the unemployed when you go home tomorrow. Talk to their families. Find out the trials and the tribulations. I think if you will do that, you will agree today we could have done even better. We could have done better.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak further to clarify this issue that the gentlewoman from Washington has spoken about. There are a million people who exhausted their 13 weeks of extended benefits. There are 31,500 of them in your State. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 44,000 are in your State. In 1991, we provided 26 weeks of extended benefits. We did not need to change the trigger to do that. We Democrats here today wanted to provide to those people an additional 13 weeks if they were still out of work. You keep talking about those who are out of work, who are hurting, who are looking for work. How about the million who have been out of work beyond the 39 weeks who are looking for work? Why do we not act today as we did 10 years ago? Why not? What is the obstacle? Is it because the Senate would have to act? All right. They would have to act. They are going to be in session. The Republicans control both Houses and the White House. This is a vivid example of those who have control not being willing to exercise it. I understand covering one's tracks politically. We should have acted in December, and you failed to do it. But for the unemployed, it is not a question of covering tracks politically. It is covering the expenses day to day for food, for housing, and for health care if possible. There is no excuse for the refusal of the Republicans to let us bring extended benefits for the million of exhaustees up today. Zero excuse.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I heard what the Speaker had to say, but I think I can indicate that the minority would be very pleased to bring this up and, therefore, I think what the Speaker's ruling is indicating is that the majority does not wish to proceed. I believe I can speak clearly, and maybe I should leave it to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to say that the minority desires that this matter be brought up at this time, and I would, therefore, yield as part of my inquiry to Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a reference to January 11. That is the date of the continuing resolution. But is it not clear that if we do not act today, that December 28 will be the cutoff date for 800,000- plus unemployed workers in terms of their extended benefits?

Mr. LEVIN. And is it not also true that after that, every week there will be over 90,000 more people who will be denied benefits?

Mr. LEVIN. So I would like to ask, if I might, to the distinguished majority leader through the gentleman from Wisconsin, is it not correct that the Senate bill is at the desk and that if one of us were allowed to offer a unanimous consent motion, that it be taken from the desk and you do not object, that it could be passed by the House today?

Mr. LEVIN. If the gentleman will continue to yield so that this is clarified, is it not correct, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I say this respectfully to the gentleman from Texas, December 28 is a cutoff date, and people thereafter lose their benefits. Therefore, to say that we will come back here several weeks later is not an answer to the 800,000-plus people who will lose their benefits, is that not correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin has been here a long time, including when we were in the majority. What does it mean that a bill has not been cleared for passage? It is at the desk, is it not? And if a unanimous consent is requested and not objected to, the bill becomes law like the homeland security bill if you do not object?

Mr. LEVIN. So, in a word, I think it is correct to talk about, when we come back, is an empty promise for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, unemployed through no fault of their own. We have had a prayer for Thanksgiving, and this is the answer from the majority here to hundreds of thousands of Americans, and then Christmas comes December 25. Three days later, hundreds of thousands of people lose their benefits. And again I just want the gentleman to state from his experience here, longer than mine, the bill is at the desk. All it takes is the nonobjection of the majority and the bill that passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis in the Senate will become law, is that not correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.