Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, a basic function of government is to ensure the safety of the flying public. For many years now, there have been ominous signs that the security procedures developed by airports and airlines were broken. Four years ago, in testimony presented to the House Aviation Subcommittee, the General Accounting Office stated, ``The threat of terrorism against the United States has increased. Aviation is, and will remain, an attractive target for terrorists, so protecting civil aviation continues to be an urgent national issue. Since the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, security reviews by FAA, audits conducted by GAO and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, and the work of a presidential commission have shown that the system continues to be flawed. In fact, nearly every major aspect of the system--ranging from screening passengers, checked and carry-on baggage, mail, and cargo to controlling the access to secured areas within an airport environment--has weaknesses that could be exploited.'' In March of 2000, the General Accounting Office again raised red flags about passenger screening checkpoints, the effectiveness of screeners and the need to improve their performance: The GAO noted that ``turnover of screeners exceeds 100 percent a year at most large airports and at one airport has topped 400 percent, leaving few screeners with much experience at the checkpoints. We found that some of the screening companies at 14 of the nation's 19 largest airports paid screeners a starting salary of $6.00 an hour or less and, at 5 of these airports, the starting salary was the minimum wage--$5.15 an hour. It is common for the starting wages at airport fast-food restaurants to be higher than the wages screeners receive.'' The GAO further noted that the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to establish performance standards that all screening companies have to meet in order to earn and retain certification is years behind schedule. Even after the horrendous destruction caused on September 11 when four airlines were hijacked, the current aviation security system continues to fail us. On September 23, a man in Atlanta was able to successfully pass through a security checkpoint with a handgun in his pocket. On October 13, a man with a knife hidden in his shoe was able to pass through security at Dulles Airport without setting off the metal detector. On October 23, a man with a loaded gun in his briefcase was able to board a plane in New Orleans. We have tried for 30 years to make the current airline security system work. The American people need to have confidence that they can fly safely, and this will only occur when we pass legislation overhauling the baggage- and passenger-screening systems. We can no longer afford to contract this critical responsibility out to the lowest bidder. The Oberstar substitute correctly addresses the longstanding flaws in our country's aviation security system through the use of specially- trained federal employees to perform the screening of passengers and baggage at airports. The Oberstar substitute is identical to the bipartisan aviation safety bill approved by the Senate three weeks ago by a vote of 100 to 0. Like the Capitol Hill police that protect Members of Congress and the Secret Service that protects the President, the airport screeners charged with protecting the flying public should be qualified professionals, and the Oberstar substitute ensures that they will be. Our substitute also increases the use of federal marshals on domestic and international flights, reinforces cockpit doors, strengthens the security of the flight deck, and enhances the security of secured areas of airports. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that holds that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result. Green everything that has happened, the last thing we should do is to perpetuate an aviation security system that has failed as badly as our current system has. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Oberstar substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up the statement of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the chairman of the committee is not listening at the moment, but the gentleman read the statement of the administration and apparently says that makes it bipartisan. Bipartisanship is not rubber-stamping the position of the other party. There have been close to zero efforts, certainly within the committee, to reach any bipartisan position on this bill. I think the guidelines should be a short-term stimulus and long-term discipline, and in that respect this bill is woefully unbalanced. The $20 billion for financial services, we need to continue to reform the international tax system, but tell me what jobs that is going to create. In terms of the corporate AMT credits, I want to say one word. The administration says repeal them. They do not say give in one check all of the credits. If that is the position of the administration, they ought to say so; but tie it to how it is going to create jobs in our States. The acceleration of the tax cut, a family with $150,000 and four kids will get 15 times what the family of $70,000 in income will receive. Now, how is that going to help stimulate the economy? It is woefully imbalanced in terms of unemployment comp and health care. Corporations are important in this country. My colleagues give individuals the back of the hand. $5 billion, a few percentage points of what Members allocate here? Maybe $2 billion for those who are unemployed, and maybe some crumbs for those who do not have health insurance. I want to finish up on fiscal discipline. One Member said this was a package of fiscal discipline when my colleagues do not spend one red dime to pay for it. My colleagues have become the economic radicals. They pay for nothing. Nothing. The other side of the aisle is trying to sell a bill of goods to this country that we can go into debt again, cut into Social Security and Medicare monies, and someday they will be replaced. We have heard that song before. Mr. Speaker, this is a woefully unbalanced, fiscally reckless package that does not have even the patina, even a fig leaf of bipartisanship. Members are getting us off on the wrong foot. Let us vote this down and start over again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this proposal. On May 1, 1941, the first World War II bond was sold to President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau. Over the course of the war, more than $185 billion in war bonds were purchased by more than 85 million Americans. In one of his famous fireside chats, President Roosevelt told the American people, ``All our fighting men overseas today have their appointed stations on the far-flung battlefronts of the world. We at home have ours, too. We are proud of our fighting men, most decidedly. But, during the anxious times ahead, let us not forget that they need us, too.'' President Roosevelt went on to say, ``Whatever else any of us may be doing, the purchase of war bonds is something all of us can do and should do to help win the war.'' If we are to win the long war against global terrorism, it is clear that the fight must be waged, not only by the Federal Government, but by the united American people. The war bond is both a symbol and an expression of this unity. Mr. Speaker, I was home in my district over the weekend talking with my constituents and meeting with local leaders, including law enforcement and emergency response personnel, mayors, city managers and county and State officials. I was struck by how much everyone I spoke to wanted to do whatever they could to help us with the fight against terrorism and to protect lives and safety on the home front. It is clear that we need much better planning, information sharing, and coordination between all levels of government: Federal, State, and local. There must be greater coordination among communities. As he works to strengthen homeland defense, our former colleague, Governor Ridge, has a vast reservoir of talent and experience on the local level to draw on. The challenge is to find a way to tap this resource. This bill is one way to tap the resources of individuals, of countless citizens of this country, to help fight, keeping within American traditions, the fight against terrorism. I urge support of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a memorial service was held to honor and remember an exceptional distinguished citizen of our State of Michigan. Jim Brickley life's work spanned all three branches of government. Early in his career, he served as a legislator on the Detroit Common Council. He served in the Executive Branch, in state government twice as Lieutenant Governor and much earlier in the FBI after he graduated law school in 1954. His legal career encompassed work in early years as an assistant prosecutor, later as a U.S. attorney and at the end of his public career as a Justice and Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. The public careers of few individuals ever achieve such a broad scope. What is even more remarkable is the talent and integrity which Jim Brickley brought to each segment of his life's work. He also brought a decency and humanity into public life that reflected his numerous, diverse relationships in his private life cutting across all racial, religious and ethnic lines. Michigan will miss Jim Brickley. He was an exceptional public servant. We send our deepest condolences to his wife Joyce Braithwaite and the entire family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Vivian Lois Bell who served the people of her community in many ways. From 1967 through 1980, in her position first as deputy clerk and then clerk of Royal Oak Township, Ms. Bell served the people of Royal Oak Township with caring, devotion, and excellence in the many areas under her supervision. Following her retirement as clerk, Ms. Bell devoted several years providing care for her oldest grandchild before she re-entered the workforce as a secretary for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. She retired in 1996 and spent her remaining years caring for her grown family of grandchildren. Ms. Bell will long be remembered for her smile, her encouragement, and her wisdom in all her endeavors. She was dear friend to many and she will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in offering our condolences to the family and friends of Vivian Lois Bell who passed away September 8, 2001.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, disintegration of the airline network of America is simply not a viable alternative for our nation. Therefore, I will vote for this bill. Defeating it would be a worse alternative than passing it. But passing it must not obscure the serious shortcomings of this bill. It fails to address the serious holes in key parts of the safety net to help hold up those who suffer as a result of the tragedy of September 11. There are severe gaps in our unemployment compensation system and in our retraining structure that must be addressed or else many, if no most, of the dislocated will be out in the cold economically. Many of these same persons will be left without health coverage. We have been assured by the Speaker in a colloquy with the minority leader that the appropriate committees will turn their attention promptly to important outstanding issues, which must include those mentioned earlier. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over unemployment compensation and some retraining programs, I intend to join in active efforts consistent with the assurances in the colloquy. This Congress must also take far more vigorous steps to dramatically strengthen airline security, and I mean dramatically. This bill does not begin to do so. If the public does not retain confidence that they can fly safely, most will not fly and when nothing in this bill will safeguard the financial integrity of the airline industry. The vote tonight must lead to further steps, and soon.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, since September 11, we are solemnly reminded each day what it means to be a firefighter. 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. So 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. Captain Kerry Wolgast began his firefighting career in Sterling heights in 1979. Since then, he has obtained numerous certifications ranging from Hazardous Materials First Responder to Terrorism Awareness. He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1994, and then to Captain in January of this year. He retired on September 17, 2001. Fire Inspector Andy Wallace began his career in Sterling Heights in 1980. Inspector Wallace has also obtained numerous certifications ranging from Criminal Justice Training to Fire and Arson investigation. He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1995 and Fire Inspector in 1997. He will retire on January 16, 2002. We are grateful for the service Captain Wolgast and Inspector Wallace have provided the community and citizens of Sterling Heights over their long careers. Both have served the public well and have received letters of thanks and commendation from the community in response. I send to them and to their families my best wishes for a healthy, happy and productive retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those who attacked our country on September 11, or those who aided or harbored them. The death and destruction that rained down from the skies on Tuesday has horrified and outraged the entire nation. We can never replace the innocent lives that were lost, but we honor their grievous loss when we act to prevent such a heinous crime from happening again. The enemy that did this must be identified and punished. Their network of support must be uprooted. In the difficult effort ahead, we must be resolute, determined and united in purpose. The resolution before the House tonight reinforces and supports the powers granted to the President in the Constitution as Commander in Chief and those granted him under the War Powers Act. More than that, it underscores the determination of Congress to stand with the President, the men and women of our nation's armed forces, and all Americans in the great task before us. As a freedom loving people, we did not seek this fight. But as nation that loves freedom, we shall not shun it. Let us stand together and pass this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand here not in the front in part because we come here with such heavy hearts and also with humility. Our hearts are growing heavier by the minute, by the minute. The tragic human face is coming into clearer and clearer focus. The images of family, of relatives on TV, are almost too hard for those of us to look at, though we are not directly involved, having no family member who lost his or her life. We also have a sense of humility. We know that whatever we do here is just a small step. It is difficult, as a result, to take them because we realize how inadequate any action of ours can be. This Committee on Ways and Means that sometimes is said to have such power, we realize today in this circumstance has very little; but we are doing whatever we can. There was an act of war, that was clear; and we need to approach this in that regard in every respect. So I am glad the chairman of the committee and my colleagues on the committee and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who has been in New York and is here in spirit and soon will be here in body, we all want to join together to enact this legislation, to simply make sure that if we can diminish the pain just a bit, that we will do so; that those who are victims in this act of war, that they will be treated fully as such. So I rise in support of this legislation. I urge that we pass it unanimously; and then we go on to take whatever further steps, I hope somewhat larger ones, to respond to this human national tragedy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was like a massive earthquake, except that it was not of active nature but of evil men. Like in a massive earthquake, the first pictures were mainly of huge, horrible, physical damage. The worst was yet to come, as we are now beginning to glimpse the full extent of the unspeakable loss of human life and the pain and suffering of the families who have lost their loved ones. The days ahead will be filled with unbearable grief. The entire Nation will be in deep mourning. Because this disaster was man-made, it also poses a special challenge to our Nation and to our spirit. It fills us with anger. It also poses a special responsibility. We must not let this disaster break our spirit or our resolve. We must take definitive steps against the persons who caused this horrendous tragedy and against any Nation that shelters agents of terror. Unlike acts of nature, our goal must be a singular one: that we not let it ever happen again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a very distinguished colleague who has had a very long and deep interest in this issue.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, clearly our relationships with Vietnam represents a major challenge. There is the troubled past, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) has once again reminded all of us here in the Nation of that past. The present reality is, as the chairman has indicated, we are dealing in relationships with an economy and a society still controlled by a single political entity. So the question in facing this major challenge is how do we respond. I think we are struggling once again for a formula that combines engagement and pressure. The bill that we just passed reflects the need for pressure from this country on the country of Vietnam. What has happened in terms of engagement is, more or less, this: we are dealing with a large nation of over 80 million people. As some progress was made in 1994 regarding POW/MIA's, the embargo was lifted. In 1995 diplomatic relationships were established. At that time, there was the beginning of negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement. These negotiations went on for several years. They were finalized within a few years, by 1997. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) indicated, this agreement has some very major ingredients, and I think basically positive ingredients in terms of our national interest: market access for industrial and agricultural goods; protection of intellectual property rights; market access for services on a broad basis, assuming they are enforced in a country with a weak rule of law; investment provisions; and also, very importantly, some transparency provisions to try to strengthen the rule of law within Vietnam. So here we are today considering normal trade relations as a result of this trade agreement. We have waived Jackson-Vanik several times now, and that allowed an agreement to provide certain economic support for our businesses. Madam Speaker, I support this agreement, realizing and pointing out its shortcomings. One of those relates to the failure to address labor market issues. Several years ago, a number of us urged our Ambassador in our administration to address these issues. As we review the chronology that was sent to us by the former Ambassador, Pete Peterson, it is clear that the embassy and the administration attempted to move the ball in terms of labor market issues. And I will not relate the entire history of it, but it included involvement of OPIC, of the AFL- CIO, of teams from the AFL-CIO under OPIC auspices, to discuss worker- rights issues within Vietnam. We urged that the administration and the Ambassador go further, and I think in part because of that there was a Memorandum of Understanding that was reached with the Vietnam Government that provided for technical assistance, including by the ILO regarding labor market issues. However, those are provisions for technical assistance. And the question remains as Vietnam goes further, what efforts will be made not only to free up their capital markets but also to free up their labor markets. In July of this year, a letter was sent by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and Senator Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, and myself to the Ambassador saying the following: ``Since the BTA was signed last year, we have been working to ensure that as we move forward in strengthening the U.S.-Vietnam economic relationship, we also move forward to advance the issue of labor standards in Vietnam. Vietnam has taken some steps in that regard, including by signing a Memorandum of Understanding on labor issues with the United States last November. However, more should be done. ``To that end, we urge the administration to include a positive incentives labor provision in the eventual U.S.-Vietnam bilateral textile and apparel agreement. This approach would provide incentives for Vietnam to take additional, concrete measures to strengthen adherence to core labor rights and would reward Vietnam with tangible, commercial benefits as it continues to strengthen labor standards. ``We encourage the administration to make clear its intent to pursue a labor provision in the textile and apparel agreement as the BTA resolution moves through the Congress. We know that a number of Members of Congress share our belief that addressing these concerns will strengthen the bipartisan support necessary for prompt congressional approval of the BTA, and will represent positive action on trade legislation.'' The response we received some weeks ago from Mr. Zoellick on behalf of the administration was disappointing, essentially noncommittal, so I want to say just a few things rather quickly about the labor provision. Number one, there is no use of calling it a social issue. It is an economic issue. It is part of the trade equation. I refer to a letter that was sent by Senator Lott and a number of other Senators and House Members to Mr. Zoellick on February 9, 2001. It is just one example of how labor market issues are relevant to the trade and competitive equation. I quote from this letter. ``We are concerned about imports from Vietnam of an Asian-type catfish displacing U.S. farm-raised catfish in the U.S. and world market. ``Most of the fish from Vietnam are grown in floating cages under the fishermen's homes under the Mekong River Delta. Vietnam can produce these fish at a much lower cost because of cheap labor and very loose environmental regulations for ponds, therapeutics and feed.'' The letter continues, ``It is our hope that as the USTR, you will keep our concerns foremost in mind when you meet with top Vietnamese trade officials. It is essential that we take every action possible to preserve the U.S. catfish industry.'' Another example is the agreement that was negotiated with Cambodia regarding the textile and apparel industry. I refer to an article of July 12, 2001, in the New York Times, and I urge that everybody read this article if they have any doubt about the importance of labor market issues in our relationships in our competition. This article talks about this negotiation, about the efforts by Cambodia to adopt a labor code with the help of the AFL-CIO and the ILO. I quote, ``The incentive to improve working conditions and permit unions has come from Washington where in 1998 trade negotiators were preparing to put quotas on fast-growing Cambodian garment imports. Amid pressure from American unions and public opinion, the Clinton administration pushed Cambodia to accept unprecedented conditions. If Washington decided in an annual review that its industry was in substantial compliance with Cambodian labor law and international standards, it would raise Cambodia's quota by 14 percent.'' This article describes how it is an uneven picture, but I think it is basically clear that with the help of this provision in the textile agreement there has been improvement in the ability of workers in Cambodia to associate, to represent themselves, and to get a piece of the action. So this is what I want to make clear. As we did in Cambodia, as was done in the Jordan agreement, as was done in the CBI agreement, it is important that labor market issues be part and parcel of trade negotiations. There is going to be an annual review of Vietnam and its progress; and I want everybody to know that for myself and many, many other members, we will be watching this administration. We will be watching Vietnam to see, if and when there is an apparel and textile agreement, there is due consideration of labor market issues as there was with the Cambodia agreement and in other trade agreements. I consider it to be not a social issue alone. It is clearly an economic issue and indispensable issue. How we handle this can be basis for disagreement but not whether it is relevant. So I urge support within that statement, within these circumstances for this agreement, while I also indicate that we have to be vigilant. As we are in human rights through the agreement or the resolution we just passed, we have to be vigilant that as our relationship with Vietnam unfolds, it broadens in a way that makes sense in terms of Vietnam, in terms of its ability to progress; but that we, as these relationships unfold, take into account the full economic competitive picture. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I had a chance at the beginning to lay out a perspective of mine and, I think, many, many of my colleagues on the Democratic side. I think this has been a useful discussion, and I hope many have heard it, though not here. I simply want to reemphasize that this is not an easy relationship. It is a complex relationship because of the past, but also because of the present and likely the near future. There should be no rose-colored lenses. We are dealing with a society, a structure, that is very different from ours. Very different. A political structure that is very different and an economic structure that is very different. As a result, there is no automatic factor here. There is no magic wand. One thing will not lead automatically to another. I do not think a free capital market will lead automatically to a free labor market or to human rights. I think, as a result, we need a well-rounded comprehensive approach. I think included must be engagement, including on intellectual property. This agreement covers intellectual property. It has restrictions in terms of how the Vietnamese handle it. But beyond that, I think comprehensiveness must increasingly include, with this authoritarian society, their movement towards a free market in labor as well as in capital. That is why I think we need to both engage and pressure Vietnam. That is why I think, as we negotiate further agreements with Vietnam, we must consider the factors, including the labor market factors and perhaps even the environmental factors that at this point are not as critical. So, in a word I think we need to move forward but in a comprehensive way. And on balance, I believe that this bill represents a movement forward, as long as we keep in mind the reality of a very different society with a very different structure that requires a different formula as we did with Cambodia, as we have wrestled with, with other countries, we would apply, if we were negotiating or approving an agreement with another industrialized democratic society. So with this, I close, hoping that we will pass this within the framework that I have suggested and I believe so many of my colleagues agree with. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, this program is rooted in real local experience. About 5 years ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I were preparing notes. We told each other how successful our efforts were in our local communities. In. My case, one community in particular, where there had been a coalition which had brought together a very diverse group of people from law enforcement, from schools, elected officials, from the religious community, businessmen, parents and students, we asked ourselves in this battle against substance abuse if these were examples of success in Cincinnati and in my case in Troy, Michigan, how could we spread this success throughout the country. So it was the local experience that was the germination of this idea and which led with the help of so many others to the 1997 law. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for working with us in taking this program farther down the road because now, instead of a few coalitions, there are over 300, well over 300, which have been supported with seed money, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) indicated. This is not an effort to give people or coalitions or groups money and then they use that money; they have to use their own resources, their own talents, their own imagination. This is seed money. So now, while 10 years ago there was one coalition in the district I represent, now there are seven, plus two umbrella organizations. We have learned from this experience, and the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Ohio have enumerated that. We have expanded the authorization levels and we have encouraged self-sufficiency by making sure if there is a further grant, there is additional match. We have also made sure that there is a mentoring program here so that successful entities can parent those that are in their infancy. Madam Speaker, as mentioned, we have added a new idea, a training and technical assistance institute. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or say a word about that because it is so important that this effort spread in those communities, often so much in need where there is not perhaps the immediate access to resources, receive the support that is necessary. So the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is an important amendment. Let me just close by saying, we all know there is no magic wand to this effort against drug abuse. We all know there is no single answer. We all know that we have to strive to find the answers. We owe it to our children, to our grandchildren, to our friends, to people of all ages at all places, in all circumstances. This is an effort to say to the country, this Congress is serious. We extend a hand. We extend some resources. Ultimately the job is up to the community. So far so good; and we hope with the help of this program there will be more good efforts in this country to tackle this continuing serious problem, drug abuse.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with my colleagues Michael Castle and Henry Waxman in introducing the Transitional Medical Assistance Improvement Act. I am also pleased to partner with Senators Lincoln Chafee and John Breaux, who have introduced identical legislation in the other body. This bill is a critical next step toward making welfare reform work for families and for states. Improving access to health insurance for people leaving welfare is also a necessary component of any plan to reduce the number of uninsured people in the U.S. When we passed the 1996 welfare reform bill, we agreed on a bipartisan basis that people who left welfare for work should not lose health insurance coverage. Unless Congress acts, the program which keeps that promise, the Transitional Medical Assistance program (TMA), will expire at the end of 2002. The TMA Improvement Act would permanently authorize this critical program and fix some of the problems that have kept it from living up to its potential. We made the commitment to providing health insurance for people who leave welfare for work both because it was the fair thing to do and because health insurance is a critical work support. According to the Welfare-to-Work Partnership, which represents over 20,000 businesses that have hired former recipients, access to health insurance is one of the five most important things that keeps employees on the job. However, it can be difficult for some employers--especially smaller ones--to offer medical benefits to employees and their dependents. For example, while 74 percent of all The Partnership's members offer health benefits to their new workers, only 56 percent of the smallest employers--those with 50 employees or fewer--are able to do so. And health insurance sometimes isn't offered to part-time employees, or doesn't become effective for up to a year. Even when an employer does offer health care benefits, employees may not participate if they can't afford the premiums. TMA fills the gap for former welfare recipients who aren't offered insurance or can't afford the coverage they're offered. Unfortunately, certain technical problems with the program have made it difficult for states to administer and even more difficult for eligible workers to access. Here are a few of the major problems the TMA Improvement Act would solve. Our bill would give states the option of offering up to a year of continuous TMA coverage, without burdensome reporting requirements and excessive paperwork. Current law requires beneficiaries to re-apply for coverage every three months and have states redetermine their eligibility for benefits. The redetermination forms are often long, complicated, and difficult to fill out, requiring time and energy that a working parent in a new job may not have. The process also creates a significant burden for primary care providers by forcing them to re- verify insurance coverage each time they see a TMA patient, which makes them reluctant to serve this population. Our bill would allow states to offer a second year of TMA coverage to workers who were still poor and uninsured. The Urban Institute estimates that 50% of people leaving welfare are uninsured a year after leaving the rolls On average, those workers earn $7 an hour and cannot afford to purchase private insurance. A few states are already trying to offer these workers a second year of Medicaid coverage, but current law makes doing so administratively complex. Our bill would allow states to provide transitional health coverage to people who find work quickly. Ironically, current law restricts TMA coverage to those who have been receiving assistance for at least 3 months. This means that some of the most motivated people leaving welfare, those that find work the most quickly, are deprived of health coverage. I applaud my home state of Michigan for using state funds to cover this group, but I believe the federal government should be doing its part. Our bill would make it easier for employers, community groups, schools, and health clinics to help us enroll working parents in health insurance programs. A recent survey of employers of welfare recipients found that 79% would be willing to help a new employee access information on these programs if they knew he or she were eligible. Many were even willing to help the employee enroll. Our bill would ensure that nonwelfare office sites were able to accept applications for TMA, greatly expanding access for working parents who are unable to go to welfare offices during business hours. Tens of thousands of former welfare recipients have gone to work since 1996, exactly as we asked. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the TMA Improvement Act, which will ensure that Congress keeps its promise of transitional health insurance for these hard- working parents and their children.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, when one adds to the oversized tax cut the slowing economy and the billions of dollars of unbudgeted spending for defense, education, and other priorities, this $33 billion grab bag of energy tax provisions, with no offsets to pay for them, four times more than the administration requested, is fiscally irresponsible. The Bureau of National Affairs reports today, this from an internal GOP memo, ``We are possibly already into the Medicare trust fund this year and every year through FY 05. We are very close to touching the Social Security surplus in FY 03.'' The Republicans believe that they can pull a Houdini trick, taking trust fund monies out of the lockbox without anybody seeing or catching them at the raid. I also want to urge the House to reject the Boehlert amendment on CAFE later today. The cure would be worse than the disease. That amendment is based on a very selective reading of an NAS report which particularly warns against forcing through a CAFE increase too quickly, saying, ``Technology changes require very long lead times to be introduced into the manufacturer's product line. Any policy that is implemented too aggressively has the potential to adversely affect manufacturers, their suppliers, their employees, their consumers.'' This amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is fundamentally flawed. It does not give the industry enough time to comply. The only way to meet the CAFE requirements of the Boehlert amendment would be for the manufacturers to close down entire vehicle lines. The Boehlert amendment would force the dislocation of American workers and job loss. Vote ``no'' on the Boehlert amendment. Because of what I have said, and others, regarding the tax provisions. Vote ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 4.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, a long 30 seconds, to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our distinguished whip.