Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as someone who, with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and others has worked on this important program, I am glad to hear the assurances that this program will continue. We have to be careful about the integrity of the contracting process. I hope all of us agree on that. As we implement our care with the integrity of the process, we also have to be sure that this important program is not shut down. It has had some successes and it has had some lack of successes, but overall, it is critical that the media effort, the outreach on drugs, that this effort continue. So we will take the assurances of the sponsor of the amendment and it will go over to the Senate and then into conference, and I assume that those assurances will be implemented in the final language. It is the next fiscal year, but if there has to be recontracting, there could be a hiatus if we are not careful and we have to make sure there is no hiatus in this effort to make sure that the message about the danger of drugs is carried throughout this country effectively.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Trade is rarely a matter of a single dimension. I always resist the arguments that pretend or assume that trade is all one way or all the other. There are usually considerations on all sides of the trade equation. I do not think trade by itself is a guarantee of political freedom. There has to be pressure on governments. It depends on the situation. But there also has to be engagement in most circumstances as well as pressure. That is what this discussion today is all about. We have spent, many of us, a lot of time with former Ambassador Pete Peterson. He has assured us that Vietnam is not the same place today as it was 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. It is moving some steps forward, and it is also at times moving backwards. Our job is to help it keep moving in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, the vote today if it succeeds relates not only to subsidies. It would revoke the bilateral trade agreement that was passed here by a very substantial margin just last year. I think those who voted in favor of that bilateral trade agreement have no reason today to change their vote. Those who have voted against this resolution in the past have no reason to change their vote. We will see in the future what happens, for example, with the textile agreement, and I have already made clear the position of many of us. But today we should remain on the course of both engagement and pressure. I urge opposition to this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution. The waiver that is the subject of the resolution issued today is a continuation in the process of engaging with Vietnam and pressuring it. The waiver this year will continue the availability of export-related financing from OPIC, Ex-Im Bank, and the Department of Agriculture, financing that is important to American businesses, their workers and farmers seeking to export and to do business in Vietnam. In addition, expanding upon prior years' Jackson-Vanik waivers, this waiver will continue normal trade relation status for Vietnam. Vietnam sparks deep emotions, and very understandably. Our relationship with Vietnam is a complicated one. The war left deep and enduring impacts on both nations and surely on ours. Although for many years we pursued a policy of isolation of Vietnam, we have been following in recent years a path of engagement and pressuring. As mentioned, in 1994 we lifted the trade embargo. In 1995 we opened a U.S. embassy. In 1998 the President first waived the Jackson-Vanik prohibitions. Last year, as mentioned, Congress approved the U.S. Vietnam bilateral trade agreement. That agreement has been successful in some important respects, increasing trade both imports and exports. Notably the government of Vietnam has continued to cooperate in helping to locate U.S. servicemen and women missing in Vietnam. Just last year, nine Vietnamese citizens died helping in the search for U.S. POWs and MIAs. Our continuing engagement with Vietnam has been critical in helping to secure Vietnam's assistance with these efforts. And as also mentioned, there has been further improvement in terms of emigration. Unfortunately, the Government of Vietnam has not made similar movements to improve its human rights record. The most recent State Department human rights report indicates Vietnam's already poor human rights record has gone downward. Additionally, Vietnam still has to make major progress in respecting and enforcing core internationally recognized labor rights. The Memorandum of Understanding that was signed during the Clinton administration has been implemented to some extent, but there is still a long way to go. Vietnam continues to deny its workers, as mentioned, the fundamental right to associate freely. And the recent State Department report indicates that child labor and prison labor continue to be wide spread in Vietnam. Last year, when we approved the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam, I stated that we would watch closely eventual negotiations of the textile and apparel agreement, and that any such agreement must include labor provisions similar to the positive incentives included in the Cambodia agreement. Negotiations on this agreement have begun, but there still is no firm commitment by the administration, our administration, to include positive incentive labor provisions, and though this issue is not yet ripe, while we vote today, I want to convey to the administration and to the government of Vietnam that if the core labor standards issue is ignored in the textile and apparel agreement, it will have serious repercussions for future Jackson-Vanik and NTR waivers. Last week, I expressed this to the distinguished ambassador from Vietnam. So here we have another resolution. The vast majority of us voted against it last year. There is no reason to change our position this year. To do so would hurt our relations with Vietnam. It would hurt our efforts to fully account for U.S. POWs and MIAs, an important issue indeed, and I think it would undercut important reform efforts in Vietnam. I think on balance the best procedure, the best approach is to continue what we started some years ago, continuing to vote to engage and pressure Vietnam, and therefore, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will support the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill when it comes to a vote this afternoon because of the funds provided for the war on terrorism, homeland security, and assistance to the city and state of New York. That said, there are provisions in this bill that have nothing to do with these important objectives. One provision will undo a past trade commitment that the U.S. made in good faith to the countries of the Caribbean Basin region. That commitment relates to the rules of origin for apparel products under the CBI program. This bill includes changes to those rules of origin that make the program much more restrictive. We all know why these provisions are being included--it is to make good on a deal made by House Republican leadership with a few Republican Members from textile states in order to secure those Members' votes for a fundamentally flawed fast track bill. The CBI bill was crafted carefully on a bipartisan basis and it was an opportunistic, serious mistake to undo the provisions in that bill. The irony is that it is most likely that the promises in this bill will prove to be a pyrrhic victory. Provisions in the House bills on fast track and Andean Trade Preferences would significantly expand imports of textiles and apparel products from various countries--to a much larger degree than the trade at issue in this dyeing and finishing provision. The House Republican leadership therefore has been giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In a way, this dyeing and finishing amendment encapsulates the trade policy of the current Administration. It is going back and forth, with no direction. It is a reflection of the basic flaw of the House Republican leadership to approach trade policy as a purely political issue and thumb its nose at bipartisanship from the very outset. A trade policy on such a narrow partisan basis is not viable as it is built on shifting sands of political expediency, instead of a strong, broad foundation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there is just one basic issue relating to this rule: Why is the Republican majority hiding a report on individuals who flee America and give up their citizenship, in a sense, in name, in order to avoid paying American taxes? Why are our Republican colleagues hiding it? They should use some of their time to answer that question. In 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) tried to address this, and in order to avoid it, the Republican majority said there will be a study with a report back by 2000. As far as I know, this is the year 2002. Why are all other provisions that have some legislating in them, why are they all protected except this one? I yield any remaining time to the gentleman from Florida to respond.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts yielding me the time. I just want to say a few words about the Red Wings as someone who has been a fan for quite a few years. The Red Wings are for Michigan more than a hockey team, and I think that is the secret. A lot of us do care they are a successful hockey team. Some of us go back to the days when we played and there were not any indoor rinks. Some of us who are Red Wings fans used to fool around with hockey on ponds, and sometimes because the winter was not long enough, falling in while we were playing hockey. But as I said, the Red Wings really are much more than a hockey team and that has been especially true under the ownership of Mike and Marion Illitch. They understand what sports mean to Detroit and the whole metropolitan area in the State. They also understand, though, that sports can mean something more than just who wins and who loses. And the Red Wings, I think, have such wonderful following because, especially under the Ilitches, and the coaches there, led by Scotty Bowman, there has been continuity. We have come to know the players. I must say, on some teams, the players change so much every year, it is hard to identify with them. But that has not been true of the Red Wings. The team that won the championship and the Stanley Cup really melded together and became a family, taking in new members, and I think that gave us a sense of community and a sense, if I may say so, even of family. When Vladi Konstantinov was seriously injured, everybody rallied around him. And it is always a moving few moments when he rejoins the team for various events. So I just wanted to come to the floor and to say, in tribute to the Red Wings, many thanks to all of the players, led by Steve Yzerman, the captain; to all of the coaches, led by Scotty Bowman; and to the entire Ilitch family, for making a sports team something more than a sports team. This wonderful group won the Stanley Cup, but they really also won the hearts of a lot of us in Michigan. And if I daresay, as I close, to all my colleagues who have not been in the Detroit metropolitan area recently, there are more Red Wing flags flying from cars than you will see such flags anywhere else in America. If we who are candidates for office had just one-fiftieth of the flags that fly from the cars supporting the Red Wings, we could never lose an election. The Red Wings maybe can lose a Stanley Cup contest in future years, but they won it again this year and all of us from Michigan are very, very proud of them. And I thank the House for bringing up this resolution of congratulations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, the ``International Tax Simplification, Fairness, and Competitiveness Act of 2002.'' I have worked for many years with my dear colleague, Amo Houghton, to help bring sensible and low-cost simplifications and reforms to the U.S. international tax rules. I look forward to working with him this year and in future years on these important issues. The bill contains a menu of proposals unified by a common theme: The way we tax the income of U.S. companies doing business abroad should reflect the economic realities of doing business abroad and should facilitate the efficient allocation of resources. Guided by that principle, the bill provides a list of possible amendments to the U.S. international tax regime that will simplify the reporting burden, update the rules to reflect the new realities of globalization, enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and their workers, and promote exports. While I do not anticipate that all of these provisions would be enacted at once, and certainly the fiscal impact of any provision must be considered as it progresses through the legislative process including by considering appropriate offsets, I look forward to working to get provisions of the bill enacted into law. In the context of trade policy I have spoken for some time about the need to address head-on the changing nature of trade which has followed from the phenomenon of economic globalization. That need exists in the international tax sphere, as well. The nature of business and commerce has changed dramatically in the past fifty years and continues to change rapidly. Today, companies regularly take advantage of the gains in efficiency that may come from locating strategically in multiple points around the globe. Not only can strategic location around the globe make U.S. companies more competitive, it also can increase demand for U.S. exports, since U.S. companies operating overseas are very likely to purchase U.S. goods and services. In the trade context, I have worked to establish basic rules of international competition, including a floor of core labor standards, to ensure that there is a level playing field for U.S. companies and workers. Just as we need relentless innovation in our trade policy, we must ensure that our tax policy is keeping up with the realities of domestic and international business. Additionally, as international business transactions have increased dramatically, it is increasingly necessary to be sure that the rules meet two challenges: they must be updated to prevent new types of abusive transactions with little or no purpose other than the avoidance of U.S. taxes, and at the same time they should not have the effect of deterring or severely burdening transactions undertaken for legitimate and, from the point of view of American competitiveness, desirable, economic reasons. Toward that end, and as someone who has spent a lot of time working to simplify and improve the U.S. international tax regime, I want to put forth a proposition--although there is a need to discuss the competitive implications of the U.S. international tax rules and there is a need for simplification, the issue of corporate inversions does not provide an appropriate vehicle for that discussion. Corporate inversions are not truly about the complexities of the U.S. international tax rules; they are driven by tax avoidance, plain and simple. Whether a corporation is headquartered in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Japan, or the United States, it has a tax-based incentive to do an inversion into a tax haven. Coming from any OECD country with a responsible tax authority, an inversion into a tax haven will allow a company to avoid the relevant passive income rules, embodied in subpart F of the U.S. Tax Code, but in existence in one form or another throughout the OECD. Also, once a corporation from any OECD country has undertaken an inversion, the corporation can reap further tax benefits through earnings stripping transactions that avoid domestic taxes on domestic- source income. So, the corporate inversion phenomenon is not about territorial systems versus the U.S. modified worldwide system of taxation. An inversion results in a tax regime more favorable than either of these systems. Any attempt to turn the inversion phenomenon into an indictment of the U.S. system is therefore misguided. Inversions are about tax havens versus developed taxing jurisdictions like those in OECD countries. The only ``business reason'' driving an inversion-- reflected in disclosure filings accompanying each inversion reassuring shareholders that the transaction will not impact business operations-- is tax avoidance. I will therefore resist any effort to draw a false link between the inversion phenomenon and the need for reform of the U.S. international tax rules. I believe that consideration of legislation to close off inversions is important and should be considered on its own merits, similarly, legislation to reform and simplify the U.S. international tax rules to improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies is important and should be considered on its own merits. Attempts to link the two issues together will only add unnecessary difficulty and will jeopardize the types of needed changes included in the bill introduced today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will vote to raise the debt ceiling when there is a plan to reverse fiscal irresponsibility. There is no plan. The fiscal irresponsibility began right here in this U.S. House of Representatives under your majority, and now you try to shift the blame to the Senate, trying to obscure the fact that the irresponsibility commenced right here. We told you that the sheer size of the tax cut made all of your plan a risky gamble. We warned you the projections of future budget surpluses were not written in stone. As it turned out, they were written in sand, in substantial part because of your policies. We have gone from surpluses as far as the eye could see to deficits as far as the eye can see. You are diverting Social Security and Medicare to pay for your tax cuts and other irresponsible programs. The majority has compounded its irresponsibility, as I have said, by tonight saying raise the debt ceiling without any plan to stem the red ink in this budget. It is another $450 billion that will come where? From Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. You have no plan. All you are trying to do is to shift the blame. This Congress is obliged to raise the debt ceiling, we are obliged to pay our debts, but we should not just write a blank check, which is what you want. We need a plan to stop this raid on Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, to vote ``no'' until you become fiscally responsible with the funds of our fellow and sister citizens.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an articulate and well-respected voice in local journalism, Mitch Kehetian, as he is honored by the Metro Detroit Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists with a Lifetime Achievement Award. Mr. Kehetian has served the public for almost fifty years as a reporter and editor of community newspapers. In his early twenties he went to work as a reporter for the Detroit Times. He brought his reporting skills to Macomb County, Michigan at the Mount Clemens Monitor-Leader. The Monitor-Leader became the Macomb Daily and Mr. Kehetian rose through the ranks to his current position as Editorial Page Editor. Mr. Kehetian's work can be summarized with three words: community, responsibility, and passion. He has editorialized about the widest range of issues, always using his straightforward, commonsense approach to make a clear and concise point. He has written about a variety of local issues, from weighing in on a controversial community issue, to honoring a young person or community activist. He has written about regional issues always paying special attention to the future of the City of Detroit, about issues impacting our entire State and vital national issues including domestic policy, politics and international affairs. He has opined passionately about human rights, highlighting the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein, the children of Afghanistan, the conflict in the Middle East, and the longstanding refusal by Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. In his work, especially the latter editorials, you can see an image of Mitch Kehetian himself On April 29, 2002, Mr. Kehetian wrote, ``Through the years, I've written reports about my journey to historical, Turkish-occupied Armenia in search of my Armenian roots. I found that the homeland of my ancestors lacks historical markers to tell the curious that for 3,000 years Armenians lived in what today is eastern Turkey. Through the years I've been repeatedly asked why people of Armenian heritage can't forget what happened in 1915-20, especially those of my generation who weren't even born then. I cannot forget. As a child growing up in southwest Detroit's ethnic neighborhood, I had only one grandparent, one aunt, three uncles and a handful of cousins. All the others were murdered in the Turkish genocide of the Armenian people. . . . This American of Armenian heritage cannot forget.'' Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the opportunity to work in the same communities as Mitch Kehetian and to observe his work. He has been a voice for elevating the role of Macomb County and its place in the State of Michigan. Today, I join the residents of Macomb County, and his colleagues in the journalism profession, in saluting his distinguished career, thanking him for his years of service, and encouraging him to keep those editorials coming.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), democracy means give the minority a substitute bill, period. That is what it means. Under the rules? Look, we go by the American rules, not the rules of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). It is a disgrace that they do not give us the chance for a substitute. They did it on the trade bill, a motion to recommit. Now they are doing it on this. Mr. Speaker, we will never yield to the gentleman's demeaning democracy. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) talks about ``this great House.'' I want to talk substance, that she is demeaning this great House. She is changing this from the people's House to something else. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a shell. It is worse than empty in the sense that it is filled with deceptions. Ten words: no set premiums, no assured benefits, and use private insurance. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, let us not get into the details. I can understand why. She likes to say that 44 percent of women will be covered without cost. What she does not say is that those women are especially vulnerable to paying more than $2,000 bucks; and after that, they fall into a deep hole of noncoverage. This bill is not part of Medicare like hospital and physician bills, and we say, why not? They just do not like Medicare. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) does not like us to talk about Medicare+Choice. I can understand. That has not worked. Under Medicare+Choice if there is not enough money then you have to come to Congress. Under your bill if there is not enough money, I would call this no prescription choice, except you can run to the Secretary to get some more money. This bill, as I said, is worse than an empty shell; and what makes it worse is you are playing the shell game with democracy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), 161 Democrats voted for the fast track bill. Do not stand up here and say the issue is whether one is for or against free trade. That is nonsense. Mr. Speaker, also nonsense is this argument about the Senate stripping House language using an Andean bill. That is pure hokum. What the Senate did was to take the Andean bill that passed here and put other trade bills in it, including their Andean bill. So Members do not need this bill. The subjects are on the table for the conference. They are trying to load the deck. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to do it by a rule that has 191 pages and adding DeMint, which might be the only subject that could not be brought in the conference. That is what they are doing here. Be honest, they are trying to load the deck as they enter conference, and they should not be handling serious trade matters in this way. For that reason, because we see through the smoke screen, Members should vote no on this bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let no one be fooled by what is going on here today. This is horrible process, but it is a smoke screen on substance. It is not to level the playing field; it is to rig it. Members who vote for this will be voting for provisions that never went through any committee: TAA, DeMint, a $50 million dispute fine fund. Any Member who votes for this is going to be voting against meaningful TAA and health care provisions. They are going to be voting for foreign investors to have greater rights than U.S. investors. They are going to vote to renege on our CBI commitments, and they are going to be voting to strip Dayton-Craig. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, 18 Republicans wrote a letter to the Speaker saying we support Dayton-Craig. Members who vote today for this bill are voting to take it out. Look, Members are voting with this bill to destroy Senate provisions. This House got off on the wrong foot 6 months ago on a very partisan basis. This is a further misstep. We cannot build viable trade policy on a partisan basis. We would be building it on sand. Today, the other side is pouring more sand under a viable trade policy. For reasons of process and for substance, I urge Members to vote against this rule. It is a bill with a rule wrapped around it. Members are voting to undercut what was in the Senate provision and voting to say to House Members, go and fight sound, viable trade policy. Vote no.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, all that passed here was an extension of TAA, and for the gentleman to get up here and say otherwise is simply wrong. We did not consider anything but the very, very continuation of the present structure for a short period of time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to be clear what disturbs so many of us. First of all, my colleagues are making all of this permanent. There is a kind of rush to rashness, and therefore, they are really doing something that is illusionary. They are digging this fiscal hole so deep that what they have made permanent will have to become temporary. The fiscal situation simply will not, in the end, allow this. Secondly, it is so one-sided. They are making permanent the provisions that relate not only to the higher income, the predominantly higher-income people, but when it is comes to the saver credit, they do not want to do that. They say it needs further study. So for those provisions that benefit lower- and middle-income families predominantly, they want something that is temporary, something that needs further study, but when it comes to a tax break that will benefit mostly the wealthy and the very wealthy, like the estate tax, or, in this case, predominantly to those who are better off, they say they want to make it permanent. So, therefore, there is a natural question raised: Whose side are my colleagues on? That is why the issue of Enron, that is why all of these issues come up, because when it comes to breaks for the very, very wealthy, they say they are either silent or permanent. When it comes to helping the typical family, they say, well, we better study it more. That is the essence of our objection, our vehement objection, to what they are doing and why we support the substitute and so many people are going to vote no on final passage.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 20 there will be a celebration of the 70th birthday of Rabbi Irwin Groner and the 40th anniversary of his service to Congregation Shaarey Zedek in Southfield, Michigan. Shaarey Zedek has a long and distinguished history in the Detroit metropolitan area. It has served as a spiritual home for tens of thousands of families, including my own beginning with my beloved grandparents and so many others after their arrival from Europe and continuing with our parents of blessed memory and their generation. Rabbi Groner came to the leadership of Shaarey Zedek after the tragic death of Rabbi Morris Adler. He continued, indeed deepened, the tradition of meeting the needs of individual spirituality and serving both the Jewish community and the broader community of metropolitan Detroit. During his 40 year tenure, Rabbi Groner has responded to the needs of all whether in times of joy or moments of bereavement, whether encouraging the young in search of knowledge, new families seeking guidance and support for their aspirations, or older persons. His sermons over the years have been marked by their insightfulness, wisdom, and wit, delivered with the brilliance of his unique oratory. As said by his colleagues, he is ``a brilliant orator and original thinker.'' Even more significant still has been Rabbi Irwin Groner's endeavors one on one. For thousands, he filled gaps when there was a deep vacuum and provided strength at times of weakness. He has reached out to the broader community on national issues, on state issues, serving as the Chairman of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, and on metropolitan Detroit issues, having been active in programs of interfaith dialogue and honored at the annual Dove dinner, along with Detroit Cardinal Adam Maida. It is an honor to be able to present in the Congressional Record, on behalf of so many of my constituents and so many others, a heartfelt tribute to Rabbi Irwin Groner. Forty plus seventy has the sound of biblical numbers; Rabbi Groner has surely lived up to, indeed exceeded, his biblical calling.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to follow the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). We have a lot in common. I think what gripes him and what gripes me is not simply being in the minority, but your fiscal irresponsibility. For the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to rise and call himself a fiscal conservative, when under this majority we have seen the surplus essentially evaporate, other than Social Security, and the Social Security surplus threatened, to call that fiscal conservatism? You essentially are the fiscal radicals. I favor marriage tax relief and have voted for it, so I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), do not get up here and say otherwise. And so have most Democrats. The issue is whether we can combine that relief with fiscal responsibility. We say we can do both, and essentially what you do is to throw away the future. You go through the roof and, then you say ``if Congress,'' ``if Congress,'' ``if.'' We have seen your record of fiscal irresponsibility. You do not want to vote on the debt ceiling separately. You are doing everything you can to avoid it, and at the same time you are passing bills that make the debt worse, worse, worse. So this is not a question of marriage tax relief. Indeed, the bill that originally passed here, half of the money had nothing to do with marriage tax relief, while our bill focused in on this, as it did with the estate tax. What your bill does is in the second 10 years essentially costs $330 billion, plus debt service, which raises it to $460 billion. It used to be said around here that millions matter. What Democrats are saying is that billions and tens of billions matter. You are simply being reckless with the future of our children and our grandchildren, and we are emphatic in saying let us take another look before that happens. That is fiscal integrity, that is fiscal responsibility; and I am proud to rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). The fact there has been some histrionics on the other side, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), I think shows the value of your amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the placement of an historical marker at a most significant site in Warren, Michigan. Especially now, as we reflect on our appreciation for our country's military strength and ability, it is fitting to mark the place in our community that has played a pivotal role in our military success in World War II and since. The Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant, dubbed the heart of the ``Arsenal of Democracy,'' was an archetypical project that brought together government and business united in a joint cause to modernize the U.S. Army. ``Enough and On Time,'' was the motto for the tank plant since the first M3 tank rolled off the line on April 24, 1941. The Tank Plant lived up to that motto during World War II with its production of 22,234 tanks, closely matching that of Great Britain and Germany. During the first years of existence, the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant became the center for coordinating the Army's wheeled vehicle supplies with the establishment of the Tank-Automotive Center. The Tank-Automotive Center's function was to ensure that the Army's needs for wheeled and tracked vehicles and spare parts was met as quickly and as cheaply as possible. When first formed, the Center had a complement of forty officers and about six hundred civilians. By war's end that number had ballooned to five hundred officers and over four thousand civilians. Since the end of World War II, and through the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars the Tank Plant evolved to meet the growing technological and functional needs of an ever-modernizing United States Army. In 1967, the Tank Plant became the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM). TACOM's reach now spreads over five states and eighty-one countries. The TACOM family manages and supports over 3,000 systems and 281,000 vehicles all over the world. In 1992, the Department of Defense established the National Automotive Center, headquartered on the Tank Plant site. It serves as a conduit between the Army, industry, academia and federal agencies to share and develop technologies that have both commercial and military applications. TACOM will continue to play this vital role for our nation's military, even as the site of the former tank plant assembly facility continues the transition to private use. The re-use of this property brings economic re-vitalization to the City of Warren and southeast Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the remarkable history of the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant, and saluting the workers and leadership, both past and present, who continue the most important mission of keeping our Army well prepared for any challenge.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this really is not about farmers and small businesses. The Pomeroy substitute addresses 99 percent who would be excluded from estate taxes. This is not about class warfare unless it is warfare on behalf of 1 percent of the very wealthy against 99 percent. It is not about a quirk in the bill last year. If we eliminate the sunset, essentially we are further sunsetting fiscal responsibility, a trillion dollars the second 10 years for a few thousand families. We are not just mortgaging the future, we are throwing it away. We are throwing away the chance to address Social Security needs, Medicare needs. In a few words, this is not about death taxes; it is about deficits, more deficits, and more, more deficits. There has been a reference here to supply-side economics. This is supply-side economics run amuck. Those who vote ``yes'' today will live to regret it, if not tomorrow, some years from now. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the final vote, and ``yes'' on the substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, indeed there is a basic trade policy issue involved in this debate, and that is whether we want to shape trade policy, whether we want to shape the terms of competition, or we do not. Do we believe that trade as it expands is always better, regardless of its nature and its terms? I do not think it is. I think we have to shape trade policy. Ex-Im is part of that picture. In competing with other nations who help their companies in terms of their exports, those other nations do so, and the question is, are we going to effectively compete with those nations? We are not going to help keep jobs in the United States by destroying the Ex-Im Bank. That is just not the way to do it. There is talk about downsizing, for example, at Boeing. Ask the machinists who work at Boeing whether they want us to end the Ex-Im Bank. Their answer is no. Ex-Im Bank helps Boeing. It helps them produce goods in the United States that are exported to other places. There have been problems with Ex-Im in terms of small business. There has been an effort to address those. We can probably still do better. There has been a problem in terms of companies that violate U.S. trade laws. There is an effort to address this in this bill. We can probably still do better. But the answer in terms of an effective shaped American trade policy, which I believe in, is not to eliminate the Ex-Im Bank. We can do better, surely, in terms of shaping our trade policy, and I have been active in the efforts to do that. But it is misguided to say, those of us who believe you shape American trade policy, that you eliminate the Ex-Im Bank. I rise in support of the conference report.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, my colleague and good friend. In a real sense there cannot be restitution, but this is a small way that a small part can be restored where people, survivors or their heirs lost assets, they were either expropriated or stolen or in other ways lost. There is argument over making permanent some provisions of the tax bill that was passed earlier in this session. I trust there is no dispute about making permanent this provision. It is a small step that we can take to bring a small measure of justice when full justice cannot begin to be restored. So I would very much rise in support of this proposal and urge its unanimous support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and a distinguished member of the Michigan law enforcement community. Chief of Police, Michael Walsh, is retiring from the City of Clawson after over thirty years of service. Chief Walsh took pride in keeping the city of Clawson safe and protected from his early days as a patrol office through his service as a Sergeant, Detective Lieutenant and finally as head of the department. During his tenure as Chief of Police, Walsh also served on the Board of Directors of the Oakland County Chiefs of Police, the Traffic Improvement Association and the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. From the very beginning of his police service, Chief Walsh worked to not only fight crime, but to prevent it. He developed and implemented a school liaison program in order to deter youth from heading down the wrong path. He is also actively involved in the Clawson Community Anti- Drug Coalition. Chief Walsh's dedication to crime prevention reached far beyond the city of Clawson. In 1993 and 1994, I relied on his advice, and the advice of Chiefs of Police throughout Oakland and Macomb County, to shape federal anti-crime legislation. With their input we were able to create a community-oriented policing program that would most effectively address the needs of suburban communities. I am honored today to join with the residents of Clawson, the local elected leadership and law enforcement officials throughout Michigan in thanking Chief Walsh for his service and wishing him well in his next endeavor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, in 2000, Congress passed the CBI bill. In the most sensitive area of apparel and textiles, the bill endeavored to build on the strengths and complementarities of Caribbean countries. CBI nations were provided enhanced access to the U.S. market with some important requirements as to use of American fabric, and within these requirements the ability to dye and finish this material in their nation. Included was enhanced implementation of core labor standards. In order to obtain a few votes to pass their fast-track bill, the administration cut a deal that turns its back on CBI. The attempt in this bill to carry out that deal is antithetical to the administration's rhetoric about the importance of expanded trade and about the needs of evolving economies. It is another troubling result of the decision of the administration and House Republicans to pass fast track on a partisan basis, refusing to address concerns of Democrats who have worked hard to craft constructive trade legislation these last years. The administration has missed an historic opportunity to build a viable, strong, bipartisan foundation for trade policy and the consequence is the attempt to ratify in this bill an act of expediency. It has zero to do with the war against terrorism.