Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3529) to provide tax incentives for economic recovery and assistance to displaced workers, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the efforts of the Macomb County Interfaith Caregivers as they celebrate their 10th Anniversary on November 19, 2002. This celebration will bring together a variety of local support agencies, faith-based congregations, and residents to provide information on their programs and services available to the citizens of Macomb County and recently added areas in Oakland County. The Macomb County Interfaith Caregivers was started in 1990 by a group of religious leaders from southeast Michigan who saw a need for a program that could reach out to a rapidly growing population of older and disabled adults. These older residents of our communities were struggling to maintain their independence and preserve their health and safety in their own homes. By 1994 the program was an independent, community-owned charitable organization. The agency's mission is to provide essential support services like transportation, household assistance, meal preparation, home repairs and yard work. They also provide an important emotional support system through a respite program for full-time family caregivers, socialization visits, and ongoing communication with the participants. The work of the Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers has touched the lives of more than 850 residents in the last ten years and has been made possible through the work of hundreds of volunteers, eighty local businesses and seventy local congregations. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the passion and hard work of all of the individuals involved with the Macomb County Interfaith Caregivers. It has been my pleasure to work with them and to see first hand the value of their efforts. They have improved the lives of the elderly and strengthened the fabric of their community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first on unemployment comp, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), about 35,000 will be benefitted, at the most, 5 weeks. More than twice that will face Christmas having exhausted their benefits and get no help through extended benefits because of the failure of this Congress to act more than twice. So this is not really a modest program. It is really a flawed program and an inferior one because 800,000 will get several weeks. Over 1,800,000 who will exhausted their benefits will get zero, and it will be simply because of the accident of when they exhausted their benefits. If they exhausted them earlier or later, they come up with zero, and that is not the way this country should respond to the needs of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Let me just finish by saying something about this approach in terms of physicians. We needed to do something, but what you are doing is essentially more appearance than it is reality in terms of the cost. You do not come forth here with a proposal that addresses this directly, which will cost $20 to $60 billion over 10 years. You do not want CBO to score it. So you come forth and give carte blanche to the administration to do what they say they cannot do anyway, and because it would be done administratively it would not be scored, but it will come out of the budget and will add $20 to $80 billion in the deficit over 10 years, and it will not address the other needs of other providers. That really is one modest approach. It is a flawed and inferior approach. It forces us perhaps to vote yes, but realizing the terrible, terrible shortcomings of this approach.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 69th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 to 1933. The Famine was engineered as part of Stalin's genocidal policy toward the Ukrainian people, and resulted in the deaths of at least 7 million innocent men, women, and children. Though these deaths were covered up and denied for decades by the government of the former Soviet Union, the truth surrounding these tragic events have been documented by witnesses and survivors, as well as investigative works like Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow and the report of the Congressional Commission on the Ukraine Famine. I recently received a letter from Dr. Walter Lyzohub from Redford Township, MI. He wrote to tell me that he was a survivor of the Famine, but that the Famine took the lives of his sister, Wira, as well as his brother, Iwan. His sister and brother were age 10 and 9, respectively. Dr. Lyzohub also enclosed a family photograph taken in 1929, just 3 years before the onset of the Famine. For Dr. Lyzohub and other survivors of the Famine, these tragic events are not just a footnote in history. They are as real as the faces in this photograph of two children who died so needlessly. We honor the memory of Wira and Iwan Lyzohub, and all the victims of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 and 1933. It is important that we remember their lives and their deaths, and work to ensure that food is never again used as a weapon. Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the anniversary of this man-made tragedy, we join with Ukrainian-Americans and Ukrainians around the world in always remembering the victims of the Famine.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Mary Ann Solberg of Troy, Michigan for her outstanding commitment to public service. On October 23, 2002, Leadership Troy will name her this year's Distinguished Citizen. Mary Ann Solberg has become the leader in community anti-drug coalitions, not only in Michigan, but throughout the country. She served as Executive Director of the Troy Community Coalition for twelve years and also created and served as Executive Director of the Coalition of Healthy Communities--a consortium of community anti-drug coalitions in Michigan. Earlier this year, she was sworn in as Deputy Director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. During Mary Ann's tenure as Executive Director, the Troy Coalition grew from a group of concerned community members meeting around a kitchen table into one of the most respected anti-drug coalitions in the country--earning the ``Best Coalition'' designation from the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America in 1997. Troy has become a model to other communities hoping to duplicate their success. Mary Ann traveled extensively as a lecturer and consultant helping communities from prevention coalitions and providing technical assistance to community's partnerships and coalitions. She also served as an advisor to the Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. President Clinton named her to serve on the Advisory Commission on Drug Free Communities, where she was elected by her peers as President of that Commission. Mary Ann Solberg is an example of what makes the Troy community so strong. She has a tireless commitment to changing attitudes about drug and alcohol use and fighting abuse, especially by our youth. She has a passion for grassroots activism and a warmth of character that draws people to her and her causes. I am privileged to call her a friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mary Ann Solberg as she deservingly receives this year's Distinguished Citizen Award from Leadership Troy for all she has done for prevention and to strengthen the fabric of our community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the City of Warren's Commission on Disabilities as they host the Disabilities Awareness Fair, held in conjunction with National Disabilities Awareness Month this October. This community-wide event will bring together a variety of service and support agencies in one location to provide information on services and programs available to the citizens of Warren. The Commission on Disabilities for the City of Warren was established by the Mayor and City Council in February 2002. The Commission's purpose is to advise the city on compliance with federal and state regulations, and legal developments affecting persons with disabilities. The Commission will also review and recommend to the Mayor and the City Council development practices that will improve access to city services and facilities to persons with disabilities. The impact of the work of the Commission has already been felt in Warren as they have addressed many accessibility concerns including curb cuts in sidewalks, handicapped parking and accessibility at the new Community Center. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the Warren Disabilities Commission. There work is promoting better communication and greater understanding of persons with disabilities among, the community and city employees, officers, boards and commissions. Their efforts will improve the quality of life for those with disabilities and, in the process, strengthen the fabric of our community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 21st Anniversary Celebration and 10th Annual Awards Banquet of the Chaldean Federation of America. On Friday, October 18, 2002 the Chaldean Federation will mark more than two decades of service to the Chaldean community in Metro-Detroit and one decade of recognizing outstanding citizens in their midst. Over these many years, I have been privileged to witness the establishment and blossoming of this exceptional organization. The Federation serves the growing Chaldean community of Metro-Detroit, which now numbers over 160,000. Their service to the community has been extensive, from employment and social services, to language and translation support, to computer training and immigration services. For new immigrants, the Federation has served to bridge the cultural gap between their native land and that of their adopted home. For first, second, and third generation Americans of Chaldean descent, the Federation has been a place of education and celebration, keeping alive the traditions of the Chaldean homeland. In addition to serving the Chaldean community, the Federation has been an invaluable resource to our community as a whole. By providing cross-cultural education and sensitivity training to schools and other groups they have helped to promote tolerance and understanding in an increasingly complex world. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to salute the Chaldean Federation of America, its key activists and countless volunteers, many of whom I have known personally for years. We have been enriched by the Chaldean culture and are deeply appreciative of the role that the Chaldean Federation of America continues to play in our community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is right, there are similarities in the two resolutions. The issue, though, is whether we are going to emphasize going together or going it alone. The difference is whether we are going to emphasize collective action, trying the U.N. first, or whether we are going to give to this President now the right to act unilaterally, without going back to this Congress. We will strengthen the voice of the American people and we will speak with one voice more under the Spratt resolution because there is a division in this House under the resolution that has been brought forth on the majority side. If we want to speak with one voice, let us say try collective action. If it works, we will have acted together, as we did in Bosnia through NATO. If it does not, Mr. President, come back here on an expedited basis and we will act. That is the best chance for one voice. A very vital vote here today will be on the Spratt resolution. I think it is the wise way to go and is consonant with where the American people are.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the more one hears of this debate in Congress and among the American people, the more puzzling it is that the approach in the Spratt resolution was not adopted. The Spratt Resolution states clearly the need to act to totally disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. It authorized the Use of U.S. Armed Forces within the framework of international collective action as embodied in U.N. Security Council resolutions seeking to disarm Iraq and providing for force by member states to ensure compliance. If that collective international effort fails, the Spratt resolution spelled out an expedited procedure for the President to seek the authorization to proceed unilaterally in a war against Iraq. So, why not the Spratt resolution? It would have far more effectively achieved the goal of the President that we speak today with one voice. The approach in the Spratt resolution would have maximized the chances of success in disarming Saddam Hussein and minimized the potential adverse consequences for the U.S. in going it alone, in terms of reactions throughout the world, stability in the region, cooperation in the war against terrorism and in broad participation in the aftermath of a war in Iraq. It would keep the pressure on the U.N. to act, avoiding the inconsistency in the Administration's approach of saying to the U.N. ``act,'' ``be relevant,'' ``hold Iraq to account'' but potentially taking it off the hook in advance because the U.S. will go it alone. While emphasizing collective action, the Spratt alternative explicitly did not bind the U.S. to whatever is done by the U.N., but leaves the U.S. what it must have, final say over its policies and actions. We are not ceding to the U.N. We are leading the world as the remaining superpower. So why not Spratt? Because its emphasis is on achieving collective action rather than proceeding unilaterally. The resistance of the Administration to that approach is consistent with the general strategy laid out in its new doctrine stated a few weeks ago, our use of pre-emptive first strikes in situations short of imminent danger with only cursory effort to proceed collectively. It is that very backdrop for the Administration's approach on Iraq that should make us all pause. Or, because Spratt does state clearly the objective is total disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction. While sometimes implying otherwise, the President's speech earlier this week make clear that the Administration sine qua non is regime change, whatever the success in disarming Saddam Hussein. That also must give us pause. We should not blur these important differences. These are the reasons that I voted for the Spratt resolution and opposed the Administration's resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the most important questions before the House today and tomorrow and the next day are posed by the resolution introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and many others of us. The question is not whether action must be taken to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction; that action must be taken. The question is not whether the U.S., as the sole superpower, should exert leadership to bring this action about; it must. The basic question is where the emphasis should be in the use of our superpower standing. What messages do we want to send the rest of the world? In meeting the challenge posed by Saddam Hussein, is the emphasis on using our leadership to form a broad partnership with other nations or to go it alone? And should any decision as to how and when to use unilateral force be essentially in the hands of the executive alone or should the elected representatives of the public in this U.S. Congress be an active participant? Should we be authorizing the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces to go it alone in a war against Iraq now, before the U.N. Security Council has acted further, or not? Before Iraq has responded completely to those demands or not? Before a new inspection regimen occurs or not? Before we might use force as a member state in compliance with U.N. resolutions? I believe there is a role for Congress and the American people in evaluating the success or failure of those efforts in reaching any decision to authorize unilateral military action in a war against Iraq. From the very beginning, the thrust of the administration's approach has been to discount collective international efforts and towards unilateral action by the U.S. Urged by a broad array of critics, the President went before the U.N. He delivered a strong speech urging that the U.N. live up to its responsibilities. The President was appropriately applauded for that speech. It is critical that we keep the emphasis on achieving collective international action. That does not mean, and I emphasize this, that we are ceding a final decision to the U.N. Quite the opposite. We are leading the way for the U.N. to act. The Spratt resolution, as does Senator Levin's resolution in the Senate, makes clear the U.S. will make final decisions about our policies. But the emphasis needs to be on forging collective action through the U.N., with a strong resolution requiring unfettered inspections as to all weapons of mass destruction and their elimination. The outcome of this international effort remains today uncertain. The odds of effective collective action will be more uncertain to the extent the U.S. position is not total disarmament but a change in regimes. And the President's speech last night veered toward regime changes as a prerequisite. Further, the chances of collective action are dim to the extent the President's approach to Iraq is framed against the broad doctrine enunciated by the administration several weeks ago. As written, it is a doctrine of preemptive action in cases short of imminent danger with only cursory references to the strength of collective action and our responsibilities under international law. The President says that the U.N. action will be enhanced if the U.S. speaks with one voice. True. The approach adopted in the Spratt resolution would have provided a much clearer opportunity for one voice to be spoken and to remain so. The focus of the Spratt resolution is on Iraq. It is total disarmament, not a variety of goals stated in the administration's resolution. Its emphasis is the effort to achieve collective action. Collective international action rather than unilateral will likely maximize the chances of success in disarming Saddam Hussein and will minimize the potential adverse consequences for the U.S., adverse in terms of reactions throughout the world, stability in the region, cooperation in the war against terror, and in broad participation in the aftermath of any war on Iraq. The Spratt resolution gives the President authority to proceed militarily, to enforce a strong U.N. resolution that provides for enforcement by member states; and it makes clear that the U.S. stands ready to consider unilateral action through this Congress if the U.N. fails to act effectively. That surely sends a clear message to the U.N. and Saddam Hussein. The approach in the Spratt alternative lays out a more effective course than the majority resolution. It keeps the emphasis in the right place both in terms of the U.S. using its superpower status to try to achieve collective international action, allowing for the use of military force in that context and, importantly, in preserving an adequate role for the elected representatives of the public in this U.S. Congress in reaching a decision to go to war against Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. As the chairman has indicated, it has received some considerable attention. There are many provisions in here that clearly would meet under any circumstances the criterion of ``technical'' or the criterion of ``miscellaneous'' or the criterion of having small impact in terms of dollars. So I will not go into length about the various provisions of this nature, except to mention the reverse Customs program at the northern border. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), Senator Levin, myself, and others in the Michigan delegation have worked very hard on this, and it is clearly noncontroversial. I do not think that means it is nonsubstantial, because it potentially could have a major impact. In terms of technical corrections, I understand the Senate is considering some potential truly technical corrections to the health care credits in the TAA that was passed, and we will have to see what happens. Clearly, the miscellaneous provisions regarding import duties have the potential of helping to improve the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers and also to assist consumers. These provisions apply to duties where there are no competitors to American producers, so I think it clearly would meet the standard or the criterion of being technical and noncontroversial. The chairman mentioned some other items; one, the Turkey QIZ. I want to spend just a couple of minutes on this, because in a sense its impact would be, I think, de minimis, but it does raise some broader issues that we need to pay attention to, or which will be needed to be addressed in the future. One was, I think, referred to or inferred about by the chairman. That relates to Turkey's relationship or its inappropriate relationship with Armenia. We had long discussions about that. I believe we have addressed it as effectively as we can under these circumstances. As we know, there is presently an economic blockade of Armenia by Turkey. That has had some major impacts on Armenia, and we were very concerned about this. The administration has now made clear its efforts to take steps to end the blockade of Armenia by Turkey, to strengthen the Armenian economy, and to otherwise improve the relationship between our two countries.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman. I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, both of us are making it clear that we expect the administration to follow through on the commitments and on the indications that are in this letter. It is a very serious matter, indeed. Also, I wanted to mention, regarding the QIZ program, another aspect. That is, the lack of conditions within it. The QIZ is unlikely to have a major economic impact. It does also, though, involve relations between Israel and Turkey. Those are important ones. So we are not talking, and I hope everyone understands this, about a likely major instrumentality in terms of trade in the near future. Because of our important strategic relationship with Turkey, on balance it made sense to let this proceed and allow the implementation of a QIZ program. However, I am very hopeful if that occurs and as it occurs that our government will pay attention to the issue of criteria. In the GSP statute, we have criteria. Here we do not, for example, as to protection of U.S. investors, as to protection of intellectual property, as to core labor standards, as to environmental issues. If the QIZ were going to become a significant factor in our relationship economically, it would be important for our government to work on this and to make sure that criteria, and appropriate ones, were incorporated in any further understanding with the Turkish government. The same applies potentially to steel. It is unlikely that the QIZ, this qualified industrial zone provision, would apply to steel, but I think there is a concern that it might, and our government needs to be sensitive to it. So, on balance, I think it is wise for this to proceed with the caveats that I have outlined. Secondly, let me just make a brief reference to Yugoslavia that the chairman has discussed. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) had an amendment, and there now has been, I think, fruitful further discussion with the administration; and it has been withdrawn from this bill because of the assurances that have come from the administration to the proponents. I think these are important assurances. We need to make sure as Yugoslavia proceeds economically, as Yugoslavia obtains again normal trade relations, that it follows through on what has become so essential in our relationship, and that is the pursuit of the war crimes tribunal proceedings. So with that I will conclude my remarks. I hope that we will pass this with the understandings that I have outlined. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up the theme of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), actually both themes. One of the issues is fiscal irresponsibility, and what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and others are suggesting is we have a deep hole, so dig it deeper. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has pointed out, what you are digging out are Social Security monies. These are monies that people pay in taxes for Social Security; and that is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. But I want to comment on the second theme about unemployment compensation. It is disgraceful that the majority intends to leave here without raising one little finger to help people who are unemployed through no fault of their own in this country. We passed earlier a temporary emergency unemployment compensation program. It terminates on December 28, 2002; but you have not done a darn thing to try to extend it or improve it. So here are the numbers and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) mentioned Illinois, but what is true of Illinois is true throughout this country as unemployment stays high; 860,000 workers whose benefits ran out by the end of September and who remain unemployed. This is through no fault of their own or they would not be receiving this money. Add to that 610,000 who are going to, this is an estimate, exhaust their benefits, UC benefits in the final three months of this year. So we are now up to what, a million and a half people, most of them with families, and then we have another 820,000 unemployed workers who will have their TEUC benefits cut off at the end of December when the program ends. Then added to that, an estimated 800,000 who are going to exhaust their regular benefits for unemployment in January and February. The numbers are staggering. These are human beings, most of whom have worked all of their working lives and my colleagues come forth here, not having done anything to address their needs, and they want to pass a bill about 2011. What about 2002? What about October, November, December of 2002, not 2011? What about January, February, March of 2003? This shows the difference between these two parties.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001 stands as a stark reminder of the valor, commitment, and sacrifice exhibited every day by firefighters and law enforcement officers throughout our nation. Like so many others in public life they serve the community, but they do so at great risk of peril to their own health and lives. I am particularly pleased and proud to rise today in recognition of the careers of two distinguished firefighters from Sterling Heights, Michigan upon their retirement and as they embark upon a new phase of their lives. Training Chief Rick Williams began his firefighting career in 1978. Since then, he has obtained numerous certifications ranging from appointment of Chief of Training in 1996, to receiving the Fire Chief's Award in 2002 for presenting the Fire Department's annual report and conducting many public education programs. Fire Inspector John Vought was appointed a firefighter in 1978, and has received many certifications from receiving the Outstanding Firefighter of the Year Award presented by the Sterling Heights Elks Club in 1992 to the Meritorious Unit Citation for the rescue of three children from a house fire in 1989. We are indeed grateful for the service that these two individuals have provided the community and the citizens of Sterling Heights over their long careers. They have served the public well and have received many letters of thanks and commendation from the community in response. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking these men and wishing them a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the chairman of the committee spoke, and I want to respond and also to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), because I think this resolution is an effort to shift the blame. The bottom line is, okay, the Senate should act. But why are they having trouble acting? It takes 60 votes. A major reason is because the House started this debate on the wrong foot including the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). They started on a partisan approach. There was no effort to work with those of us who worked on welfare reform in 1995 and 1996, including the ranking member of the subcommittee. Zero effort. And that included the administration. It came forth with a proposal that in the judgment of the administrators, the vast majority of State administrators, was the wrong way to go. They said it was going to create flexibility. Also, there was the problem of poverty, that such a large percentage of the people who were moving off of welfare to work remained in poverty, and the studies show that the average income for people who have moved from welfare to work is something like 2,000 bucks a quarter. So we said let us build on welfare reform and its successes, let us acknowledge where it has had shortcomings and move on from there. But you said no, you are going to proceed like you did on prescription drugs on a partisan basis, and the administration was part and parcel of that strategy. So now you are reaping not the benefits but the downsides of that approach, and you say to the Senate act after you got this off on the wrong foot, and the administration continues to insist on its bill which cannot receive 60 votes in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the dedication of the City of Royal Oak's community center in the name of Jack and Patti Salter. This is a most fitting tribute to a couple so vital to the fabric of the Royal Oak community. The new community stands on the site, and will continue to house, the Boys & Girls Club of South Oakland County. To many of us, the name of this Club and Jack Salter are synonymous as he was the executive director of this organization for over thirty years from August 1958 until February 1991. During Jack Salter's tenure as executive director, the Club received 21 National Honor Awards for Program Excellence and 13 honorable mentions from Boys & Girls Clubs of America. That is more than any single Boys & Girls Club in the country. In addition, seven Club members were selected as Michigan Youth of the Year, and four Club members were Midwest Youth of the Year and traveled to our nation's Capitol to meet the President. Jack and Patti Salter are examples of what makes the Royal Oak community so strong. They share a tireless commitment to our youth, a passion for grassroots activism and a warmth of character that draws people to them and their causes. I have been privileged to call them friends. The mission statement for the Boys & Girls Club is: To Inspire and enable all young people to help them realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens. Jack and Patti have surely inspired and they have made a difference in the lives of so many of our young people. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jack and Patti Salter for all they have done to benefit the youth in South Oakland County, and to congratulate them on this day as the new community center in Royal Oak, Michigan is dedicated as the Jack and Patti Salter Community Center.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 384, I was home in Michigan on Wednesday participating during the day and evening in ceremonies commemorating September 11, 2001. As a result, I was not able to vote on H. Con. Resolution 464. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, during my service as a Member of the House of Representatives, it has been my honor and privilege to rise and pay tribute to organizations and people who really make a difference in the Michigan community. Today I rise to recognize Marie Holinsworth, Legislative Chair for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2358 Ladies Auxiliary in Roseville, Michigan. As Legislative Chair, Mrs. Holinsworth has been a tireless advocate for the VFW's ``Priority Goals.'' No veterans' subject is insignificant to Mrs. Holinsworth. With her quiet strength and customary eloquence, Mrs. Holinsworth's letters to my office express a comprehensive understanding of the issues and clearly set forth the agenda the Ladies Auxiliary is pursuing. At the recent Michigan VFW State Convention, Mrs. Holinsworth was recognized for her legislative duties by being the recipient of two top awards. The first was the ``Most Outstanding Promotion of the Legislative Program'' for her efforts in writing letters, working at polls and meeting with candidates and legislators. This distinction was enhanced by the announcement that she also won the award for the ``Best Promotion of Priority and Security Goals,'' placing first among over two-hundred and fifty Auxiliaries in the state of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Mrs. Holinsworth for the wonderful work that she has done for the Ladies Auxiliary, and heartily congratulate her on winning the awards which she so richly deserves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri has very much shaped the issue. I favored those provisions, but within a circle of fiscal responsibility, and the gentleman is being fiscally irresponsible. The figures the gentleman read are figures that show how much the surplus is outside of Social Security taxes. Read that to the public for year 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. When we exclude Social Security, we are in deficit every year with a projected surplus of $4.2 billion only in year 11, and those figures are always off. My colleagues are playing loosely with Social Security monies. So whatever the merits of a bill might be, do not just throw Social Security to the winds like my colleagues are doing it. Why are they doing it now in terms of 2011? My colleagues think it is good politics. It is lousy policy and poor politics.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought maybe this break for August would have given the Republican majority here some pause, but no, I guess they are going to plunge further into this reckless fiscal irresponsibility. They never answer our statement about what they are doing to the budget deficit. New facts do not seem to matter. They just go on as if it does not matter what happened in August, or was it September, when the CBO said, oh, the deficit is going to reach $157 billion, and if Social Security taxes were not counted, we would be $315 billion into red ink. So what is our colleagues' response to all of this sea of red ink? Pour more red ink. Make the sea even more bloody worse, I guess. But that does not make any sense. They are making something permanent in the eleventh year, they are doing that now, with this fiscal situation facing America. Mr. Speaker, we know it is not going to pass the Senate. It will not happen. So why are our colleagues attempting this? It is a political ploy that I guess our colleagues think Americans will not see through. But it is clear to me that the American public knows red ink when they see it, and when they see the Republicans dipping into Social Security taxes, they know they are doing it, and they know that this is another indication of their playing reckless with the Social Security system of America. So it is terrible policy to do this in view of the red ink, and I think it is really bad politics. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. Whatever the merits are of the bill, we do not need to add to the red ink today in the future when we are already drowning in this sea of red ink. It is hurting this economy. Vote no.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, twenty-six hours ago, when the House began this historic debate to create a new Homeland Security Department, it was my hope and expectation that I would be able to support this legislation on final passage. In light of the terrorist strikes of September 11, and the continued threat, I strongly believe we need to reorganize the federal government to better address the dangers facing our nation. The bill as reported to the House by the Select Committee on Homeland Security fell short in a number of key areas. During the long amendment process of the last two days, I regret that the House voted down amendments that would have improved this bill. As a result, I cannot support this legislation at this time. I am particularly disappointed that the amendment offered by Representative Oberstar was rejected. This is not the time to extend the deadline for airports to install the explosive detection equipment that is critically needed to check airline passenger luggage for bombs. Last fall, this House voted overwhelmingly to have this equipment in place by the end of this year. There is no good reason to extend that deadline for another twelve months as this bill does. I hope that this and other flaws in the House bill be addressed in conference with the Senate. This is the largest reorganization of the Federal Government ever attempted. It concerns the security of our nation and the safety of every American. With so much at stake, we should get it right. I believe we can and must do better. I will continue my efforts to strengthen and improve this bill as we go to conference with the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am amazed that it would be suggested here that we only rise and decide to extend our remarks and not talk about the substance. We are talking about a 300- page bill, is it? We are talking about a bill that is going to set the stage for trade negotiations for the next half decade, and we are doing it at a quarter to 1:00? It is suggested also that we not speak on the substance? I am speaking now because I want us to get off on the right foot. This is not a debate over expansion of trade. I favor it. It is not a debate over globalization. It is here to stay. The issue is whether we are going to wrestle with the new issues inevitably rising in this new era of trade, or we are going to look the other way. Issues like core labor standards, this bill pretends to address them. It does not. It says it follows the Jordan standard. It does not. It pretends to address the issues of investment. It does not. Like the bill that came through here, it is a facade. It says it addresses, it was just said, the role of Congress. It does not. It is a facade. If anything, it makes it worse. In this new era of trade, it leaves us as simply a body to be consulted, and not a partner. Look, inevitably there are new issues. If ever there were a requirement for bipartisanship in trade, it was in this new era. So it called for a bipartisan effort. A partisan approach to trade is built on sand, and the majority here started on the wrong foot. They started with a partisan approach. They are going to end up on this floor with essentially a partisan vote. Shame on this approach. You make Trade Promotion Authority one without value. Time will show that what you are doing here is going through the motions, instead of erecting a strong foundation for trade policy in the 21st century. Turn down this rule and turn down the bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the basic partisanship which has marked this legislation from the beginning in this House even blinds the majority as to what has happened these last years. No trade agreements? Jordan, CBI, Africa, the China PNTR? They were all developed on a bipartisan basis. It is the only way to shape trade policy that is viable. They started on a partisan foot; and they think because they have a few Democratic hands that that makes it a bipartisan product. It does not. 161 Democrats voted for a fast track bill in this House. They did not reach out for 1 minute to try to meld the two bills into one. As a result, they come here tonight with a partisan product more than a bipartisan product, and trade policy built on partisanship is built on sand and will sink. True, there is some TAA here; but a half-baked TAA is no substitute for good trade policy, and half-baked it is. If workers are laid off because a company moves to, say, Ecuador, they are covered; to China or Japan or some other place, they are not covered. That is half-baked, at best. Thirdly, I want to say a word about oversight. There is more facade in this discussion than in any other respect, perhaps. Trade today is not about tariffs; trade today is not about nontariff barriers. It is about health and safety, it is about antitrust, it is about environment, it is about core labor standards; and no one is talking about introducing American standards as the requirement, just so people do not use child labor, and they emasculated the child labor provisions, emasculated. That is what we are talking about. That is what trade is in the 21st century. They built up this facade that Congress is going to be involved. It is consultation at the whim of the administration. They say there is a sense of Congress, that that can be expressed. It undoes the only protection we now have that something can come through the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on Finance. We need, in this Congress, to be a partner, not a second-class citizen. If we remain that way, the citizens of the United States are going to be undermined by the executive of this country. Vote ``no'' on this bill.