Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the Speaker has apparently said that it is Armageddon for the Republicans if Shays-Meehan passes. I think the real problem is that it would be Armageddon for them if they defeated it. So what we are seeing here are tactics to obscure the issue. Shays-Meehan does not nibble around the edges of soft money. It gets at the vice, and that is the unrestricted use of soft money for so- called issue ads. All it allows in a very circumscribed way, very circumscribed, is money for registration and get-out-the-vote. We will go into that later. Mr. Chairman, $40 million. It is absurd to talk that way. What Shays-Meehan tries to do is to preserve the democratic processes of registration and getting out the vote. What does the Armey amendment do? What it essentially says is no one can use even their own funds to help register people or get them out to vote, whether it is the NAACP or the NRA or anybody else. Nobody can use any of their own treasury monies. It is antidemocratic. What it is is a smokescreen, and we can see through it. The opposition cannot decide whether it wants to open the spigot altogether or shut it down altogether. You are moving from pillar to post when the solid position in the middle of this issue is Shays-Meehan. Vote down the Armey amendment and let us pass true reform. The day has come for Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold, and nothing is going to stop that effort.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the argument that this part of Shays-Meehan is unconstitutional. The LUC provision has been in the law for 30 years. The problem is that it is not working. TV advertising is a major method of communication. It is said by the proponents of this amendment that TV is only 25 percent, but in contested elections it is probably 60 or 70 percent of the cost. And here is what has been happening with the present law, and I read and I quote from someone who is a time buyer. ``It's become common practice for station ad salesmen to pressure you out of buying LUC into buying non-preemptible by telling you it's the only way they can be sure the ads will be run when you want.'' And so here is the problem. These TV costs have been skyrocketing. There is a question of corporate responsibility here. The last month of the election of 2000, the TV stations on the average gave 1 minute of time, free media, for candidate discourse. So I think there is a real challenge to the broadcast industry. The Senate addressed it by a 70-to-30 vote. By a 70-to-30 vote. This amendment would reverse it and essentially leave us back where we were. That is not a responsible approach to the needs of democracy or a responsible approach by the broadcast media of this country. I urge for that reason that we defeat the Green amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The $50 million figure comes out of thin air, made of whole cloth; and the gentleman who just spoke wants to have unlimited soft money while this is money under State law, carefully, carefully confined to grassroots activity. No one should vote for the Emerson amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), one of the chief cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a very distinguished Member.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. To the gentleman from Arizona, if he wants to defame the Members of the Senate, Mr. McCain, Mr. Feingold, and all others who voted in favor of this, it was by voice vote, go ahead and do so. Go ahead and do so. The gentleman is making a mistake. This is to preserve grassroots activity and nothing else. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is there, please?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from California that I think his Senators will take up his invitation. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has worked so hard on this bill and who very much opposes this poison pill amendment.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The basic issue before us is not free speech, but the cost to democracy of opening the floodgates to big money. Soft money, unregulated, undisclosed, was originally intended to help parties register and get out the vote. Instead, it is turning political parties into exchangers of money for so-called issue ads. It is swamping the voice of the citizen. It is corroding the legislative process. It has been said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Instead, big money is becoming its poison. Look, Shays-Meehan prohibits soft money except in a circumscribed instance. Only in this case, when it relates to registering and getting out the vote. Only in those cases, returning soft money to its original purpose. I say vote for Shays-Meehan. It is originally what was intended by soft money. It is real reform of the political process.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I very much oppose this resolution and H. Con. Res. 312 that would be brought up under it. Mr. Speaker, H. Cons. Res. 312 is nothing but a smoke screen. It is to try to hide the fact that the Social Security and Medicare surplus is going up in smoke, going up in smoke, because of the way this administration and this House have handled the economy and the budget. It is an effort to hide the fact that the lockbox of Social Security and Medicare is not only being unlocked, but it is being thrown into the scrap heap. On five occasions this House voted on lockboxes for Social Security and Medicare: On May 26, 1999; June 20, 2000; September 18, 2000; September 19, 2000; and February 13, 2000. But what has happened? The lockbox is essentially gone. President Bush just a year ago said this: ``To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone.'' But look at this chart, what has happened. A surplus of $5.6 trillion will be down this year to less than $1 trillion, and probably less than that; a loss of $5 trillion in 1 year, much of it Social Security and Medicare. The L.A. Times yesterday in the headlines said, ``Budget Sells Social Security Down Red Ink River,'' critics say. How true. How true that is. Let me just read the implications of that from the Director of the budget office, and I quote: ``Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the extremes of what will be required to address our retirement are these: We will have to increase borrowing by very large, likely unsustainable amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously unprecedented in our history; or eliminate most of the rest of the government as we know it. That is the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr. Chairman, and these next 10 years will only be the beginning.'' Here we face a resolution trying to hide these facts. The President's budget diverts all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Medicare surplus and $1.5 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and instead of paying down the debt, which is essential to meeting our Social Security needs and Medicare, what we are doing is increasing the debt. One other chart. Mr. Speaker, one result of this irresponsibility is not only to divert Social Security and Medicare funds, but to increase interest costs over this 10-year period by $1 trillion. What a waste. Baby boomers are going to turn 62 in 2008. This resolution is an effort to hide the fact that this administration has turned their back on the Social Security and Medicare needs of baby boomers. I oppose this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the chairman. This matter started on the wrong foot. If they expect a bipartisan product, start on a bipartisan basis in the House of Representatives. They did not do that. Instead, they put together a bill on a strictly partisan basis. They put together a bill that was heavily taxed, had a slender amount of attention to unemployment comp and health insurance, and then they say it is the Senate's fault. I beg to differ. The President endorsed the strategy that they adopted; and now they are bearing the fruits, the bitter fruits of a flawed strategy. If Members want a bipartisan bill, start on a bipartisan basis in the House of Representatives. They have not done that. So now they come back with a bill that they say is better than the terrible bill, they do not say terrible, but better than the bill that they passed here loaded with tax breaks for the few and gave crumbs to the many who were unemployed, and they parade this as something that is very strong. Health insurance under their bill, for most, they have to be drawing unemployment comp to get any help with health insurance. Two-thirds of the people in this country who are laid off do not get unemployment compensation. They talk about $37 billion. Many of those billions of dollars in unemployment comp are Reed Act monies. They have been told, do not count $9 billion, because at the most a few billion will be used in the first year. Most of that money cannot be used to change unemployment comp because the legislatures are out of session, so under their bill, so many millions of the unemployed in this country will get zero help from their bill. If Members want a bipartisan bill, start in the House of Representatives. Do not blame Tom Daschle or the Democrats. The fault lies with the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. I was listening with interest to my distinguished colleagues, and I think their colloquy was an example of true bipartisanship in this sense. As I heard them, I think what they were describing was initially proposed by a Senator from their party. I hope they will send their colloquy to that gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Opposing private retirement accounts is not nitpicking. It is a major issue. And among Democrats and some Republicans there is deep resistance to it. In terms of specific proposals, I would suggest, as was true in the early 1980s, if we are going to have a commission, let it be diverse, let it have a broad range of opinions. Do not have anybody, whether it is the President or the Congress, picking people who agree with them; in the President's case, people who believe in private retirement accounts, which is, I think, a legitimate privatization method in terms of what we call it. I do not think it is legitimate, but we can legitimately call it privatization. Mr. Speaker, I believe the issues really are clear. I think the discussion here has been even more to the point than I expected in terms of what this resolution is all about and what is behind it. And therefore, within those qualifications, I suggest Members come here and vote, if a vote is called for. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned bipartisanship, and I just want to say a word about that. I do not challenge or question the sincerity of the members of the commission. Indeed, very distinguished people. But true bipartisanship means, I think, if it is going to be at all effective, a reflection of the mainstream within each party. This commission, as Ari Fleischer said, had on it people who favored privatization. And that is what Mr. Fleischer said; these were his terms, private retirement accounts. All of them share the President's views that these accounts are the way to save Social Security. So what we put in, we get out. And when we put in a uniform point of view that does not encompass the mainstream of both parties, we are going to get out of it deep division. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. All right. We will see as time unfolds if there is a difference. I do not see it. Indeed, in reference to the railroad retirement bill I think is misplaced. There are not individual accounts. The retirement monies are allowed to be invested as a whole. They are allowed to be invested. That is not privatization, nor is it private accounts. So I think we need to understand what is going on here today with this resolution. We should vote for it. But we should not be misguided as to what is really going on here. I do not think there is any way in the end to duck the issue of strengthening Social Security. The President embraced privatization. He appointed members of a commission that embraced privatization. There was no effort to have any diversity on that key issue on the Commission. So essentially, the President and his party have ended up with a Commission report that supports privatization, and in the only plans that spell out how they would pay for it, they provide for benefit cuts; and I do not know any way out of that equation. I do not think there is any way for anybody to explain it away. I think we owe it to the public to have a forthright discussion as to how we should strengthen Social Security. And those who favor privatization or private accounts should simply say so, indicate how they would be structured, indicated how they would be paid for; if they want to suggest general funds when those general funds by their own plans have been diminished, indeed I think destroyed, they can do so. But if we are going to move ahead in strengthening Social Security, we are going to have to really tell the American people what we really mean and like it is. So I support this resolution with the qualifications that I have mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. LEVIN. No. Let us talk about this resolution. The gentleman used the time to talk about something that is not relevant to this resolution, and I thought that I would just put it in some perspective. Let me talk about this resolution, if I might. The resolution before the House has very little to do with strengthening Social Security, which is indeed necessary, and it has very much to do with providing political distance to some Member of the majority party. Does anyone seriously believe that it is a coincidence, a coincidence, that this resolution is being brought to the House floor on the very same day that the President's hand-picked Social Security Commission unanimously adopted its recommendations? The recommendations of the Commission should come as a surprise to no one. From the day the President appointed a one-sided commission, I do not, for a moment, challenge the views in terms of the integrity of their point of view, but it was very one-sided and the outcome was predetermined. Indeed, the President's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said it very clearly very early on in quotes, ``The Commission will, of course, be comprised of people who share the President's view that private retirement accounts are the way to save Social Security.'' This is the spokesperson of the President of the United States. It is now apparent from the Commission's recommendations that privatization would result in cuts in Social Security benefits. That is clear from the two plans of the Commission that spell out how to pay for privatization. Any doubt on this score has vanished over the course of the last year with the depletion, I think, the reckless depletion of the non-Social Security surplus. But this resolution wants to have it both ways. It refers appropriately to the vital nature of Social Security, its guaranteed lifetime benefits, its COLAs, its important anti-poverty role and its special protections for women, low earners and minorities. It also says it rejects benefits cuts but it does not reject, it does not reject the misguided policy that would necessitate benefit reductions, the Bush administrations quest to privatize Social Security. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution because it reaches the right conclusion. To vote no would only confuse the picture. But no one should believe that voting yes will make the President's privatization quest go away. That horse already left the barn. The public deserves a thorough discussion of the Commission's privatization plans. The impact of these plans can not be obscured by any smoke screen. As true in this instance, they are too transparent to work. I want to just say a couple of other words in response to what my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) had to say. He said that this resolution is not a repudiation of privatization. Maybe I will let those words stand. I wish it had repudiated but it is silent.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill came before the Committee on Ways and Means. It did so in a way that did not allow us to add the reforms that are necessary for TAA. Those reforms are many. Many of them have been recommended by GAO. Many of them are contained in the bill that is now in the Senate Finance Committee; actually, it is out of the Senate Finance Committee. Many of them are in a bill that has been introduced in this House. They relate to everything from the training provisions to wage insurance, to health insurance, to trade assistance for communities. None of these are covered by this bill, so what we have before us is a reauthorization of TAA, with essentially two additions. One of them would allow the income maintenance to be for the same period as the training provision. I am in favor of that, Mr. Speaker. Everybody should understand, however, that we are talking about a very small number of people who would be affected. As I understand it, less than 1 percent of those who are dislocated, or about 1 percent, would benefit from this provision. The second relates to the $2 billion add-on. This was not discussed in the Committee on Ways and Means, and its implications remain unclear. I want to talk a bit about it substantively and raise a few questions. But for everybody listening, I would say the following: We are going to be taking up a fast track TPA bill. One reason I think this bill is being brought up this morning this way is in case someone would like to use this as a reason to vote for a TPA fast track bill, I urge that there is no justification for using that as a reason. TAA should have been expanded, and beyond what is being provided this morning. This morning is a quickie effort to move. It is inadequate. It has been called a small step, and that is, at best, what it is. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our chairman, has said that no appropriation is needed. While the language may not be clear, I accept that. Then we have the question of $2 billion. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said it is $1 billion every year; it is not $2 billion each year. As a result, there is a good question as to how many people this will really cover. When we look at the number of people who were dislocated before September 11 and add those who were dislocated after September 11, there is no way $1 billion is adequate funding for this program. That is another reason that is a small step at best. Then there is the issue of the training benefit. As I understand, the TAA program caps the training benefit at $100 million. If that is true, what is going to happen with the way this is handled is that we will not have nearly adequate funds for the training component because that apparently is still capped. Maybe there can be clarification of that. But as I understand it, the cap of $100 million remains, so essentially we are going to have a disequilibrium between the income provision and the training provision, and we are going to have many, many more people who might be eligible than was true before September 11. There is no provision for health insurance in this program. Now, I want to say just a word about the issue of coverage, because one of the reforms that we should have been undertaking in this legislation, which is not even touched upon except perhaps indirectly, is who is covered. Will service workers be covered? Presently they are not, and it is not clear that they would be under this provision, because the TAA bill generally does not cover service workers. The Secretary of Labor has said that secondary workers or, I should say, those who were laid off in a secondary way as a result of September 11, will become eligible under this program, I guess under rules and regulations that are promulgated by the Secretary. That leaves this program with much lack of clarity. There is no direction in this legislation as to how the Secretary of Labor should conduct herself and how she should implement the definition as she now sees it. So this is a proposal that has come up at the last minute. These changes do not get at many of the basic issues of reform. In terms of the relation of the training provision to the income provision, that has serious questions as to adequacy. Clearly it will not be adequate in terms of money, and it is not clear who would be covered. I will leave it for further debate to clarify these issues. I hope that would happen, and then leave it for every Member to make a judgment. It may be that this is a tiny step forward. It should not be used as a rationale for a vote on any other bill. Let us have a little bit of discussion now as to what is involved in this very small step when we should have been undertaking, as the Senate Finance Committee did a few days ago, some major reform of TAA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Let me just read what the standard is so that instead of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), as he sometimes does question motives, let us talk about what is in the law. It says for whom in, ``The national impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11 contributed importantly to their job loss.'' If anybody thinks that is a very clear standard, I ask them to think twice. It is better than nothing, but do not parade it for what it is not. I want to close by pointing out that in order for persons to be eligible for this, they must be eligible for unemployment insurance first. Less than 40 percent, and maybe it is only about a third of the workers in this country qualify for unemployment compensation in their State, and also, less than a fifth of low income workers qualify, including many in the services industry. So what this has is not only a small amount of money for what is truly needed, not only does it have no other reforms, nothing for health care, but it is not going to cover a huge number of people who were affected by the September 11 tragedy, who clearly were affected. I just want everybody to understand what this bill really is and make no pretense that it is a reason to vote for any other bill.

Mr. LEVIN. It is not clear, and indeed, there will have to be regulations issued by the Department of Labor in terms of those who are affected secondarily.

Mr. LEVIN. It is not easy to read this bill, but I think so.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about trade and not about terrorism. It is not about American leadership. America must lead in trade in the right direction. Trade must expand, and it has to be shaped as that happens, and that is what we have been doing these last years. We have voted on these bills. Do not pretend they do not exist. The Thomas bill would turn back the clock in key areas including those relating to labor. I am an internationalist. This is not about isolationism. It is about how we shape our role as internationalists. It is not about protectionism. We are beyond that. Trade is so important that the role of Congress has to change. We cannot be rubber stamps or silent partners or consultants. We must be participants. The Thomas bill falls so far short in that way. Vote, vote for the motion to recommit; and if that fails, vote against Thomas; and then if Thomas goes down and the recommittal motion goes down, we will come back and do it the right way.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the notion that the U.S. has been standing still in trade is nonsense. Africa, CBI, Jordan, China, NTR, Cambodia, in the last few years, indeed, globalization is here to stay. The main issue today is not free trade versus protectionism. That is an old label for a new bottle of issues. This is primarily a debate among supporters of expanding trade, whether to shape trade policy to maximize its benefits and minimize its losses. Supporters of the Thomas bill believe no. Essentially more trade is always better whatever the term, so they are comfortable with providing vague negotiating objectives, running away from issues like labor and the environment and leaving Congress in essentially the role of a consultant. This is not time for a one-dimensional approach. It is a new world, new nations, expanding issues. For example, on core labor standards, the Rangel approach is clear and effective, a principal negotiating objective, increasingly enforcing ILO core labor standards. Thomas, each nation is essentially left on its own no matter how inadequate its laws. And the manager's amendment that was suddenly introduced last night only makes it worse, leaving a weak provision essentially powerless in its enforcement. On investment, the Rangel bill is clear and unambiguous. No greater rights for foreign investors. The Thomas bill dances around this issue. Then on the role of Congress, those of us who see the need to shape trade want to ensure an active and ongoing role for Congress. This is a necessary corollary of the fact that trade is more important than ever. The Thomas bill only enhances the role of Congress as a consultant, tracking the Archer-Crane language of 3 years ago. The manager's amendment tried to beef this up by saying any Member can put forth a resolution to withdraw Fast Track; but it only reaches the floor if it goes through the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules. In this and so many other ways, the Thomas bill sometimes talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. We can and must do better: expand and shape trade. Fast Track authority is a major delegation of authority. We should do it the right way. Thomas does not do so. Rangel does. Vote ``yes'' on Rangel and vote ``no'' on Thomas.