Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today we join the world community in the first observance of ``World Refugee Day.'' On this day we express solidarity and support for the world's refugees and recognize the contributions refugees make to their newly adopted countries. Against this backdrop, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Connie Morella, Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, and Nancy Pelosi in introducing the ``Women Immigrants' Safe Harbor Act (WISH).'' The WISH Act provides help to women and children who are focused to seek refuge not from an oppressive political regime, but from members of their own families. Victims of domestic violence, like victims of political oppression, are often forced to flee with little other than their children and the clothes on their backs. Battered immigrant women, who are often far from their families and have limited English skills, are particularly alone and vulnerable. Public benefits have long been a key avenue of escape from family violence. Victims of abuse are generally economically and socially isolated. Many of them believe they cannot leave their abusers because doing so will expose them and their children to economic hardship--in fact, a recent study found that more than two-thirds of battered immigrant women still trapped in abusive relationships said lack of money was the biggest obstacle to leaving. Programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families help them care for their children until they can get back on their feet. These programs also expand the capacity of our nation's domestic violence shelters and safe houses by providing partial support to their residents. The economic hardship is compounded because many abuse victims are initially unable to work because they must remain in hiding from their abusers. Congress specifically recognized this barrier in the 1996 welfare reform law, which provided states with a ``family violence option'' to exempt victims of domestic violence from work requirements. Somewhere between one-third and half of domestic abuse victims are harassed by their abusers while at work. For that reason, some of them have no choice but to avoid the workplace until the abuser is brought justice. The WISH Act would restore access to critical public programs for a vulnerable group of battered women, many of whom have U.S. citizen children. It would also remove the threat of deportation for those who sought help to protect themselves and their children. Passing the WISH Act would provide these women with a safe harbor from the violence that plagues their families and the kind of fresh start the United States has always offered to refugees of all kinds. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating ``World Refugee Day'' and in supporting an escape route for battered women.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Mark Foley, in reintroducing The Medicare Wellness Act, which would modernize Medicare by adding common-sense health promotion and early detection services to Medicare's basic benefit package and removing financial disincentives to use current preventative care services. I'm pleased that we were able to enact a few of the provisions in last year's Medicare Wellness Act as part of the Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act, and I hope this will be the year that Congress finishes the job by creating a permanent, fact-based process for adding preventative care services to Medicare as science proves that they are effective. It doesn't make any sense that, for example, Medicare will pay to treat someone who has a heart attack but won't pay to prevent the heart attack by screening for high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol. The Medicare Wellness Act would rationalize the program by adding basic preventative services to Medicare's benefit package. It would also create an incentive for beneficiaries to use the services by eliminating cost-sharing and deductibles for preventative care services, just as most private insurance plans have done. The bill would add cholesterol screening, high blood pressure testing, hearing and vision testing, and expanded osteoporosis screening to Medicare's list of covered services. It would also add coverage of health promotion services like medical nutrition therapy for people with heart disease and smoking cessation help. It would allow us to test a depression screening benefit to see if by detecting and treating clinical depression at early stages we could head off debilitating physical illnesses and reduce the elderly suicide rate, which is higher than that of any other age group. The Wellness Act would eliminate the cost-sharing on existing prevention services to encourage more people to use them. Most importantly, it would add a ``fast-track'' process by which Congress could regularly add those prevention services that were scientifically proven to be effective to Medicare. Every day, scientists discover new early detection, disease prevention, and health promotion tools, and those tools aren't just for young people--research shows that lifestyle changes can increase life expectancy and quality of living for people of all ages. Unfortunately, the Medicare program, which was created in 1965, has not kept up with these exciting advances in health promotion. Medicare provides state- of-the-art care to sick people, but does little to keep them well. As a result, last year Medicare spent over $35 billion providing acute care to people with heart disease, $6 billion treating people who had strokes, over $5 billion treating lung disease, and $2 billion treating severe depression. While these expenditures can't be eliminated, we believe there is significant scientific evidence that health promotion and early detection could substantially reduce them. Representative Foley and I are pleased to be joined in this effort by our colleagues Bob Graham, Olympia Snowe, and Jim Jeffords in the other body. We hope Congress will move quickly to pass this bipartisan, bicameral bill which has been endorsed by over 20 groups ranging from the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association to the National Council on Aging. When you think about it, it's not surprising that The Medicare Wellness Act has such broad support. Better health care for seniors. Cost savings for Medicare. Who would oppose that?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a bill that almost none of us have seen, a $2 trillion plus bill. And where is it? I am not shocked, but I am deeply saddened. The House majority here is hell-bent on this bill even if it means replunging us into the fiscal hell of the deficits of the 1980s. What you have done is to use the gimmick of all gimmicks. You lop off the 10th year. Who is ever going to believe this is real? Who is ever going to believe this is a $1.35 trillion bill when you ignore the 10th? We do not have the bill, let alone the real analysis, let alone any critique by the so-called Joint Tax Committee. Common sense says that if one adds the tenth year, they are going to add $200 billion. This is a $1.6 trillion bill, plus the increased interest; $2 trillion plus. Some of my Republican colleagues have the gall to get up here and talk about a House consensus. The gall. And somebody thanks the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for joining with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) when I do not think he was in any of the discussions. This is a masquerade. They have added a little bit of sugar amidst a potful of fiscal irresponsibility, fiscal irresponsibility, and they can't hide that by taking one year off. Why do they not take a second year off and make it smaller yet? They are hurdling this country potentially over a cliff. They are fiscally irresponsible, and it does not matter if they bring this up at 1:00 in the morning, which was their original intent, or 7:00 in the morning. The daylight will show they are fiscally irresponsible, playing with fire, gambling the future of this country, education, prescription drugs. Three hundred bucks a month in pills will cost seniors more than the 300 bucks people might get, as important as that is to some families. When one looks at this altogether, my Republican colleagues are fiscally irresponsible. They are repeating the sins of the 1980s times two. I urge we defeat this rule.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, these bills are not sound tax policy, they are not sound economic policy, and they are not sound social policy. The conference committee is going to try to put together two bills. In this case, two minuses cannot make a plus. These bills are built on the sands of uncertain estimates. The preceding speaker talks as if the money is in the bank. It is not there. It is not there. These bills will not help in the present. If so, very little. And what they are going to do is to risk our future. Much of the relief will be backloaded, my colleagues can be assured of that. Most of it will be in the second 5 years. And then, when we project beyond those second 5 years, it will explode in the later years. Where is the money going to be for the education bill that we just passed? Not raiding Medicare? The plans I have seen for prescription drugs take money out of Medicare, and there is no plan here on the majority side to find it anywhere else. The chairman of the committee says, well, a conference committee can be 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 days, 4 days. I would bet this is going to be a few hours in a back room without full bipartisan participation: Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate. Essentially, this bill will not help hardworking Americans. So much of the money goes to the wealthiest. We do not know the percentage yet, but when we see the final product, my colleagues can be sure that it will not overwhelmingly go to hard-working middle-and low-income families. I urge we support the instruction.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1 as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. This bipartisan legislation strengthens education in this country. As good as the bill before us is, it won't mean much if Congress does not provide the funding at the levels promised in H.R. 1. All of us need to understand what we're doing here. We are pledging a significant increase in federal resources to elementary and secondary education in this country. In exchange, local school districts will increase the emphasis on educational standards and academic results. Under this bill, school districts will be held accountable for doing so. There is an old saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I am concerned that this is precisely what a majority of this House has in mind when they promise increased federal funding for education today, only to vote to lock in an oversized tax cut later this week. This is a risky gamble. The increased aid for education we're voting for today, as well as the $1.35 trillion tax cut we will vote on later, are both predicated on future budget surplus projections that are anything but certain. The Congressional Budget Office has cautioned us that these surplus estimates are not written in stone. If we lock in an oversized tax cut, and the budget surplus evaporates down the line, there will not be enough money left to meet the promises we are making today to fund education. Even if the surplus numbers turn out to be correct, the size of the tax cut would still threaten education funding since all of us know that the defense budget is still tentative pending completion of the Administration's strategic review. It's a near certainty that defense spending will rise by hundreds of billions of dollars beyond what is currently budgeted. The tax cut makes no allowance for this. We will have had our cake, but left our schools with crumbs and yet another unfunded federal mandate. This is the last thing we should do to our children. Again, I urge all my colleagues to support education today by voting for H.R. 1. Just as importantly, I urge you to support education later this week when you are casting your vote on the tax cut.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Monday and missed rollcall votes No. 126 and 127. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcall 126 and 127.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. William Rechlin upon his retirement from his position of City Manager of Berkley, Michigan. Mr. Rechlin has been a public servant in Michigan for the past four decades. Beginning as a police officer in Dearborn in 1958, he then served as lieutenant, sergeant and police chief of Westland. Mr. Rechlin came to Berkley after his Westland service, and assumed the position of Director of Public Safety. After ten years, he was named City Manager, a position he held for four and one-half years. William is highly respected throughout law enforcement and by his peers as a City Manager. Throughout his career, Bill has been an effective worker, diligent, caring, and a man ``in charge.'' Mayor John Mark Mooney said, ``Rechlin has filled the job so thoroughly the last four years, it will be difficult to choose a replacement.'' Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed my many opportunities to work with Bill Rechlin, a truly fine gentleman and a consummate professional. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing William Rechlin a happy and healthy retirement. He will be missed.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, in the late seventies when I was assistant administrator of AID in charge of population programs, I was in charge of the effort to enforce the Helms amendment, whether the agency liked it or not. We did that. We set up a rigorous procedure to make sure that no U.S. monies were used for abortion-related activities. Now, the argument is that money is fungible, and even if an organization uses a small amount of its own monies, or an affiliate uses its monies, we should make sure that that organization receives no American funding. That carries the fungibility argument to an extreme, period. It is not a rule of reason. I just suggest to those who are carrying this fungibility argument to an extreme, they should not be surprised if it is used against them or others when they try to apply a different principle in terms of domestic programs. This is a bad amendment. It is an extreme amendment. I urge its rejection.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work and achievements of David Hecker, as he is honored by The Workmen's Circle/ Arbeter Ring in Oak Park, Michigan on May 6, 2001. The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring is a national fraternal organization committed to the pursuit of social and economic justice while fostering Jewish identity through culture, education, friendship and mutual aid. I have had the honor and pleasure of knowing David for many years. It is not surprising that David's life's work has embodied these ideals. His union roots run deep, back to Poland where David's paternal grandfather was active in the Bund (a Jewish labor organization). David's parents, Arnold and Josephine, were both activists in the labor movement: Arnold in the United Auto Workers and Josephine in the Health Care Union in the Bronx, New York. David has pursued advanced degrees in labor relations and has worked his entire adult life on behalf of working people. He has been active with the American Federation of Government Employees, the Allied Industrial Workers, the Michigan AFL-CIO, the Metropolitan Detroit AFL- CIO, and the Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel. David embodies the values of social and economic justice in every aspect of his life. His passion for his work and beliefs shines through in his personality. David is a gifted organizer, motivator and strategic planner. He has used his talents in numerous roles to the benefit of many. David is truly devoted to creating A Besere Un A Shenere Velt (A Better and More Beautiful World). His commitment to community is evident through his work as a board member of the Jewish Community Council and the Michigan Association for Children with Emotional Disorders, as well as his political activity in the Democratic Party. We are truly fortunate that such a talented individual has committed his life to working for economic and social justice. We are especially fortunate that he and his wife, Alice Audie-Figueroa, have chosen to make the Metro Detroit community their home. So, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating David and wishing both David and Alice, along with their children, Joelle, Jose and Gustavo, the very best.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join the debate because it is an important debate. Pension reform and expansion are clearly necessary. There are some very strong provisions in this bill, and I think we all appreciate the work of the chief sponsors of this. I do, though, want to very much rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and address the underlying reasons for it and to respond to some of the criticisms. We all agree the savings rate needs to be increased, and I hope we all agree that we want more and more people into this effort. Two- thirds of the cost of this bill are the IRA expansion. Two-thirds. I asked the Joint Tax Committee to put together an analysis of the impact of this, and they did not have it before; but they have now provided it. Essentially what they show is that two-thirds, two-thirds, of the benefit would go to families making $75,000 or more. So, essentially, we have a bill two-thirds of it IRAs and two-thirds of the benefit going to families with incomes of $75,000 and more. Almost half would go to families with incomes of $100,000 or more. And those are not all rich people. Many of these families, $75,000 or $100,000, they are hard working. In most cases both husband and wife are working, and they are earning their income. They are not just clipping coupons. But, look, that is the fact; that most of the benefit of most of the cost of this would go to families making $75,000 and more. And, essentially, I think this undercuts the notion that this is a bill aimed at mainly low- and middle-income families. Surely not low-income families and surely not most middle-income families. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is suggesting is that we expand this bill so that we try to bring everybody into the system, and that is a very good idea. And to suggest that a tax credit is a bad idea because of the error rate, we have argued this endlessly within Ways and Means. The EITC error rate has been going down. It is not clear it is much higher than a lot of other error rates. And there is the argument that tax credits are suspect. The majority leader here has proposed a refundable health insurance tax credit. If it is good enough for health insurance, I would think it is good enough for a pension program. So I would hope we would take this seriously and that we would pass it. At the least, if the majority here is not going to vote for it, is going to march in lockstep against it, I hope there will be adequate numbers of people voting for this so we send a message to the Senate that they should try to do better. We can do better than this. The strong provisions in this bill can be enhanced by spreading the net of pension reform and pension participation to millions of other workers and millions of other families in the United States of America. That is good public policy. So I would hope we would pass this amendment as part of this bill which will certainly pass the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 15th anniversary of one of the most terrible nuclear disasters in world history: the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion. On April 26, 1986, Reactor Number Four at the Soviet-designed Chernobyl nuclear facility exploded, releasing more than 100 tons of lethally radioactive material into the environment. At the time, the only response available to Ukraine was to create an Exclusion Zone covering over 1000 square miles immediately surrounding the nuclear plant, and to quarantine an area downwind of the plant covering over 20,000 square miles. We may never know how many lost lives can be directly attributed to Chernobyl, but the death toll can be measured in the thousands. Hundreds of thousands more were subjected to radiation poisoning. Today, 15 years later, the consequences of this tragedy continue to be felt. Cancer rates among the survivors have skyrocketed. Contaminants in the groundwater sicken those in the quarantined area and threaten even greater numbers of people as the water travels downstream to urban areas. The loss of Chernobyl's generating power has caused the loss of jobs and has spurred a crippling energy shortage. By some estimates, the total direct cost to Ukraine has exceeded $100 billion over the past 15 years. On December 15, 2000, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was shut down for good, ending a tragic chapter in Ukraine's history and beginning a new one. Clearly, the heavy burden for the people of Ukraine does not end with the shutdown, and the international community must do more to help remediate the damage. The U.S. has joined international experts in proposing ways to accelerate decontamination of the area and make the land economically viable, at the same time addressing Ukraine's energy needs. Congress needs to work with the new Administration to build upon the progress that was made with the previous Administration. Mr. Speaker, I call on every member of the House to join me in remembering the victims of this tragedy. Let us resolve to do our part to help Ukraine build a brighter future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lofgren substitute. Unlike the underlying bill before the House today, the substitute truly addresses the serious issue of violence against women and would impose stricter penalties for causing harm to a fetus or forcibly terminating a pregnancy than exist today. Surely if we can find common ground on nothing else, we should all be able to agree that crimes against women that cause the loss of a pregnancy are tragic and deplorable acts. These crimes ought to be punished severely. The fundamental problem with the underlying bill is that it ignores where and when these crimes most often occur. H.R. 503 establishes criminal punishments for those who harm a fetus while committing any one of 68 specified federal crimes. The difficulty with this approach is that few of these crimes are actually tried in federal court, and many of the listed offenses are unlikely to result in harm to pregnant women. For example, how many pregnant women are impacted each year as a result of transactions involving nuclear materials? How many pregnancies are lost each year due to assaults or kidnappings of Members of Congress, the President's cabinet or members of the Supreme Court? The answer is: not many. At the same time, the bill is completely silent on the much more prevalent problem of domestic violence. It is estimated that domestic violence victimizes one million women a year. How can we discuss punishment of violence against pregnant women and ignore the crimes where this violence most often occurs? The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates legal protection that truly helps women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination of a pregnancy. It provides for a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to a women's pregnancy and up to a life sentence for violent conduct against a woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. It makes it a federal crime. The substitute focuses on the harm to the pregnant woman, providing a deterrent against violence. I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2001, the City of Troy, Michigan will pay tribute at a dinner in honor of their former Mayor, Jeanne Stine. She recently left that post she had held since 1992. During Mayor Stine's tenure, the City of Troy witnessed remarkable growth and prosperity, whether measured by the total market value of its property, the growth in employment, or most vitally, the quality of life for Troy's citizens. The ground was recently broken for construction of a community center, including a new gymnasium, conference center, computer room, exercise facilities, and a senior citizen dining room. The annual Troy Daze festival prospered under her tutelage. There, I have spent many happy hours with Mayor Stine at the festival, watching her as she pridefully spoke to the annual ceremonies swearing in new citizens and touring the many booths of a wide variety of Troy's public service groups. Beginning with her first service to Troy's citizens when elected to the City Council in 1976, Jeanne Stine has worked tirelessly for her community. She serves as the Immediate Past President of the Michigan Association of Mayors and Vice President of the Michigan Municipal League. She also serves on the Board of Directors of a number of organizations, including the Boys and Girls Club of Troy, Arab American Chaldean Council and the Troy Community Coalition. Mayor Stine received her BS and RA from Wayne State University. She worked as an educator and school counselor in the neighboring community of Clawson for 33 years. Troy is a far more enjoyable, hospitable and cohesive community today because of Jeanne Stine. No matter was too small for her attention, and I was privileged to participate with her in some of her incessant efforts to better life for Troy's citizens, whether improving the post office, modernization of its highways, or the encouragement of the uniquely successful Troy Community Coalition and its anti-drug program. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking my friend, Jeanne Stine, for her years of public service and in wishing her good health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Thursday, April 26, the funeral services will be held in Detroit for Richard H. Austin, who served six terms as Secretary of State of Michigan. As the longest serving Secretary of State in Michigan's history, Dick Austin set the highest standard of service to the public. Whether it was highway safety or citizen participation in the electoral process, he was always ahead of his time. It was my privilege to be a teammate with Dick Austin as I ran for Governor and he began his first quest for statewide office, breaking down barriers confronting candidates for elective office in Michigan. He became the longest-serving black elected State official in the history of Michigan, as he was Michigan's first black CPA and the first black candidate for mayor. I had the joy many times of campaigning with him, hearing him in his quiet way spelling out his aspirations, and watching the magic worked by his warm smile and his friendly handshake. That smile is now gone, but the memories of it will always linger. His friendliness is now a legacy not to be forgotten. Dick Austin never let down the public trust, and the citizens of Michigan responded time after time. He was an intrinsic part of the web of public service in Michigan for many decades. He made Michigan a better place, and he will be missed by many of us as a warm friend and by all of us as an invaluable public servant. Mr. Speaker, we here today join together to mourn the passing of Richard H. Austin.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join voices with my colleagues today to recognize the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Between 1894 and 1923, approximately two million Armenians were massacred, persecuted,and exiled by the Turk government of the Ottoman Empire. Despite all the facts, eyewitness accounts, recognition by countries throughout the world, and the findings of their own post-war courts, the government of Turkey still refuses to acknowledge the genocide ever occurred. We cannot allow such blatant disregard and denial to go on. Earlier this year, France's National Assembly passed legislation labeling the Armenian Genocide as genocide. We in the United States should do no less. I well remember a speech made by Elie Wiesel at the White House in which he described the perils of indifference to suffering: ``In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger or hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony . . . because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response . . . Indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the agressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own. Let us all take a moment to reflect on the anniversary of the genocide of the Armenian people. We have a duty to those who have died and to those who survived to help preserve this memory forever. We must raise our thoughts and our voices on behalf of those who have suffered and died, and pray that such suffering is never again visited on any people anywhere on the Earth.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) referred to ``at any cost,'' and the truth of the matter is the Republicans here in the House have determined to pass tax legislation at any cost, even if it costs fiscal discipline; even if it costs the future of Medicare and potentially Social Security; and even if it costs the chance for meaningful prescription drug programs. In a word, the House Republicans are on automatic pilot, and no warning signal apparently will deter them. The fact that the repeal does not fit into a 10-year projection, so what do they do? They just push a good portion of it out to the year eleven. And we are talking then about a proposal that could cost over $600 billion? It does not matter apparently that the Democrats proposed an alternative that provides more relief sooner and relieves essentially the estate tax for all farm families and individual businesses. The talk of bipartisanship really has such a hollow ring under those circumstances. For those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means, when it comes to tax legislation, the amount of bipartisanship, zilch. The only redeeming factor here is that the Senate will not follow suit. This bill does not fit. We should do better. The Senate hopefully will slow down this plane before it crashes, and we will have another look at it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman has talked quite a bit about details and very little about how this all would fit together. The main reason is this: The $1.6 trillion Bush administration tax package was a risky proposition in the first place, that including debt service was going to use up 75 percent, 75 percent of the non-Social Security and Medicare surplus. Now, with the dip in the stock market, that proposal becomes even more risky. So the decision seemed clever at first to break it up into pieces, but the public can add. When we add it all together, it is a very, very risky proposition. It is not fiscally responsible. Now we have a second piece in front of us today, the marriage penalty provision, plus. It is much larger than Mr. Bush proposed before he became President. Half of the so-called marriage penalty provision goes to people who do not have a marriage penalty provision in their income tax returns. Why are we doing this? I do not know. Maybe we have kind of a Pied Piper syndrome here. I am not sure who always is calling the tune, but I think if it succeeds, it would lead those following it over the cliff. The trouble is it would lead this Nation's economy over the cliff. There has been some talk about bipartisanship. Whatever the vote is on this or any other piece, when we put them all together, there is not bipartisan support. The bipartisan support is almost zero. Indeed, it is a partisan effort. There has been some reference to stimulus. We are going to have a stimulus provision on the motion to recommit. What is the impact of this majority proposal here this year? It is an asterisk, which means close to zero. Talk about a stimulus, there is not any real stimulus. If there is any tax proposal that can stimulate the Nation's economy, this is not it, nor is it the entire package. So in a word, I suggest this: Add it all together, I say to the citizens of this country, and when we do, we will come to the conclusion that this proposal is one that puts the Nation's economy at risk. We fought hard for a decade for fiscal discipline. It led to lower interest rates. Let us not put that in jeopardy. Vote yes on the substitute and no on the basic bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Kathleen Romig of Royal Oak, Michigan who has been selected as one of the 12 George J. Mitchell Scholars for 2001. Kathleen was identified in a nationwide competition organized by the United States-Ireland Alliance, a non-partisan, non- profit organization based in Washington, DC. The scholarship is named in honor of Senator Mitchell's contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. Scholarships are awarded to individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 who have demonstrated intellectual distinction, leadership potential and commitment to community service. I first met Kathleen in 1996 in my congressional office where she was introduced to public service and social action. She was one of our youngest interns, an eager learner, a fine writer, and a compassionate young woman. Kathleen is a Michigan State University senior and the University's first recipient of the George J. Mitchell Scholarship. During the one- year program, she will pursue a master's degree in social policy at the University College in Cork. She will have formal courses of study, seminars and independent research in her thesis area of social policy. In her application essay, Kathleen wrote, There are alternative ways of viewing the problems of juvenile justice and alternative methods of solving it. Some of the most compelling are being discussed and tested in Ireland and Northern Ireland right now. One such alternative is restorative justice, a fascinating approach that seeks to balance the needs of offenders, victims and communities. After graduation, Kathleen hopes to work in Washington, DC, and continue her interest in juvenile justice dealing with the plight of disadvantaged children. Kathleen is also the recipient of the 2000-2001 Jeffrey Cole Excellence Award, the Walter and Pauline Adams Scholarship, the Gordon and Norma Guyer Public Policy Internship, and the Royal Oak Rotary Club and Oakland County MSU Alumni Association Scholarships. She is a member of the MSU Honors College, Phi Beta Kappa and a National Merit Scholar. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kathleen Romig, a exceptional young woman who has a passion for learning and a commitment to social justice. I wish her good health, happiness, and success as she embarks on new challenges as a George J. Mitchell Scholar.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, budgets are about making choices. When a family sits down at the beginning of the year to write a budget, it must anticipate expenditures and honestly balance these against available resources. Families understand they have to allocate limited income among any number of competing priorities: paying the mortgage, car payments, dinners out, groceries, summer vacation expenses, saving for retirement or a child's future college expenses. The purpose of a budget is to confront these choices and make informed decisions. The budget before the House today has little or nothing to do with making honest, informed choices. The document we are debating is about one thing, and one thing alone: enacting the President's tax program. It sacrifices everything else to that end. At the heart of this budget is a gamble that future budget surpluses will be large enough to pay for the President's ten-year, two-trillion- dollar tax package. As the Congressional Budget Office has admitted, these surplus estimates are notoriously inaccurate. If the projected surpluses fail to materialize, the President's tax cut will eat into Social Security and Medicare. No one in his right mind would take out a home equity loan with a balloon payment and then count on winning the lottery to pay it off. Committing to such an oversized tax package on the basis of uncertain surplus projections is not budgeting. It's gambling with our nation's economy. Budgetary considerations aside, the President's tax package is also the wrong medicine for the economic situation we face today. The President's plan is heavily backloaded, and provides almost no tax relief now when it's most needed. The holes in this budget are big enough to drive Air Force One through. The defense budget anticipated by the budget resolution is tentative, pending the completion of the Administration's strategic review. The budget attempts to paper over these and other deficiencies. The same is true for Social Security and Medicare. Every one of us knows that significant resources will be needed to shore up these critical programs as the Baby Boom generation approaches retirement in a few years. We should step up to the plate to meet the financial challenges ahead, yet the budget before us actually makes the situation worse by diverting funds out of the Medicare Trust Fund, shortening the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by five years. The Republican budget is long on rhetoric but actually shortchanges critical domestic initiatives. For example, the Republican prescription drug proposal provides insufficient funding for the President's so- called ``immediate helping hand'' proposal. The President's proposal is neither immediate, nor helpful to millions of seniors struggling with escalating drug costs. Even worse, the Republican budget pays for their prescription drug bill out of the Medicare Trust Fund, shortening Medicare's solvency. By contrast, the Democratic budget alternative's prescription drug proposal is more than twice as large and provides a meaningful benefit for seniors without endangering Medicare. Similarly, the Majority's budget underfunds education. The Republican budget guts the school renovation program, diverts the money to other programs, and has the nerve to call this an education increase. It shortchanges funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. By contrast, the Democratic budget alternative boosts funding to reduce class size, provides for school modernization and teacher recruitment, and adequately funds special education and Head Start. We can do better, which is why I will support the Democratic budget framework. Our budget provides $730 billion for tax relief. Unlike the GOP plan, which lavishes a disproportionate share of the tax cuts on the richest one-percent of taxpayers, the Democratic plan provides tax relief to all working families. It extends the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. We pay down more of the nation's debt. Finally, the Democratic framework sets aside resources for critical investments in education, prescription drugs, veterans, defense, and protecting the environment. No company in America could get away with a business plan like the one offered today by the Republican majority. None of the families we represent would mortgage their financial future on such a risky foundation. We shouldn't either. Reject the Republican budget and adopt the Democratic substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the President's tax plan is a gamble. It is a risky gamble. It is true, it is the public's money. The Bush plan is gambling with the public's money. It is gambling because there is no budget, and there is no clear indication what it would mean for education, for prescription drugs and others. It is a gamble because it would use 75 percent of the projected surplus, 75 percent, and leave little else for other things. That is only a projected surplus. We have learned in the past how risky those projections are. It is a gamble because 1 percent would receive over 40 percent, the highest 1 percent in income would receive over 40 percent of this tax cut, and they have their own money all ready for a gamble. Some gambled in 1981, and it resulted in the highest deficits in the history of the world. Our alternative is fiscally responsible. Let us pass it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the resolution pending before the House, which would disapprove the Department of Labor workplace safety rules related to ergonomics. In the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure. There have been ten years of science and study on this issue. Each year, it is estimated that 1.8 million Americans suffer from workplace injuries, many of which result from overexertion or repetitive motion. Musculoskeletal injuries on the job cause 300,000 injuries each year. Workers in the meatpacking and poultry industries, auto assembly, nursing homes, transportation, warehousing, construction and data entry are among those most affected. Due to the demographics of these jobs, women are particularly at risk. Many of these injuries are serious enough to require time off from work, and cost businesses billions in workers compensation. It speaks volumes that after years of delaying these workplace safety standards with the argument that more time and study were needed, the Republican Majority has rushed this resolution of disapproval to the Floor with little notice, no committee hearings, no possibility of amendment, and only one hour provided for general debate. It's also ironic that, should the House adopt the resolution before us today, a workplace safety rulemaking that began 9 years ago during the first Bush Administration will be derailed by the signature of George W. Bush. If there are problems with the new ergonomics rules, they can be addressed through the regular process, through hearings, and perfecting changes. Instead, today we have a sledgehammer. Republicans should not be putting the special interests ahead of the public interest. We've studied this and studied this for the last ten years. The results are in. It's time to protect Americans from these preventable injuries. In the interest of protecting millions of workers from debilitating injuries, Congress should reject the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I reflect on the outstanding accomplishments of Ms. Jean Chamberlain, as she is honored by the Oak Park Business & Education Alliance of Oak Park, Michigan. The Oak Park Business & Education Alliance is dedicated to the empowerment of urban schools. Their decision to honor Jean is a reflection of her long-time dedication to the communities of South Oakland County. For over 40 years, Jean has been a resident of Royal Oak, Michigan. She began her public career after raising a family. Her valuable leadership has helped bring together the cities, the county government and local businesses of southern Oakland County. Since March of 1993, Jean Chamberlain has served as the first and only South Oakland Governmental Liaison. She previously acted as the Executive Manager of the Greater Royal Oak and Oak Park Chambers of Commerce. She continues to work with a variety of organizations including the Woodward Dream Cruise Board of Directors; the Eight Mile Boulevard Association; and the Salvation Army Advisory Council, among others. Her tireless work resulted in the Michigan Women's Commission naming her, in 1998, as one of the 20 most outstanding women in Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join my salute to an exceptional leader, Jean Chamberlain. I wish her continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as cochair of the Congressional Motor Sports Caucus, I want to express my strong support for the resolution before the House today, which honors the life and accomplishments of Dale Earnhardt, Sr., who lost his life on the last lap of the Daytona 500 on February 18. Dale Earnhardt was arguably the greatest driver in NASCAR history. He was Rookie of the Year in 1979, won his first Winston Cup Championship the very next year, and won six more championships by 1994, tying the record held by Richard Petty for most career titles. He won a remarkable 76 races in his lifetime, yet it wasn't until 1998 that he finally conquered the Daytona 500. Known by such names as Ironhead, the Man in Black, and the Intimidator for his take-no-prisoners style of driving. Dale Earnhardt was a force to be reckoned with on race tracks across America. I recently saw an excerpt from an interview he gave, where he commented on the dangers associated with stock car racing. He said, ``Do you want to race, or don't you? I want to race.'' These 12 words sum up Dale Earnhardt's philosophy about his sport. Stock car racing continues to be one of the most popular spectator sports in America, and no one had more to do with that than Dale Earnhardt. His black number 3 Chevy Monte Carlo and distinctive signature are known not only in the United States, but worldwide. Fans across this Nation have been honoring Dale Earnhardt's achievements and mourning his tragic death. It is appropriate that the House of Representatives join them as we pass this resolution today. As we commemorate the life of a NASCAR legend, I offer my condolences to the family, friends, and many fans of Dale Earnhardt. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Police Chief Richard A. VanderEyk, who retired from the Pleasant Ridge Police Department on February 2, 2001. Chief VanderEyk's public service began in March of 1967 when he entered the United States Air Force. After his discharge from the Air Force, Chief VanderEyk was employed as an officer with the Pleasant Ridge Police Department in 1973. He was promoted to Sergeant in 1988 and to Chief in 1991. Chief VanderEyk earned an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice and continued to improve his skills through education. He attended the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police Criminal Justice Management Institute's New Chiefs School in 1991 and in 1997-1998 the Police Staff and Command School at Eastern Michigan University. Chief VanderEyk has supported the law enforcement community at every level. Beginning with his membership in the Fraternal Order of Police, then extending to the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the Michigan Association of Police. He also served as treasurer and a member of the executive board for the Oakland County Association of Chiefs of Police. Throughout his life, dedication and hard work have been synonymous with this outstanding public servant. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief VanderEyk for his years of public service and in wishing him and his wife, Jacqueline, good health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 15, which expresses Congress' sympathy to the citizens of Gujarat, India, for the devastating losses suffered as a result of last week's deadly earthquake. This resolution urges economic and disaster assistance to help the victims of this disaster rebuild their lives. As an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 15, and a longtime friend of India, I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure. This tragedy has cost the lives of tens of thousand in India, injured more than 100,000, and displaced more than a half million men, women, and children. Fires still burn throughout the devastated region. The damage to the region is expected to exceed $5.5 billion. In the face of such a catastrophe, it is imperative that the global community actively respond. Already, nations around the globe, and countless non- governmental organizations, have offered assistance to India. We in the United States can do no less. I commend President Bush for quickly offering assistance to India, and urge my colleagues to do still more. I offer my condolences to the people of India, and especially the victims of the Gujarat earthquake and their families. I thank my colleagues, Mr. McDermott and Mr. Royce, for offering this resolution, and urge all my colleagues to support it.