Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today, as we conclude the work of the 106th Congress, it is appropriate that we mark an important milestone in Ukraine: This afternoon, at 1:16 local time, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was shut down for good. 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. The human cost of this disaster is staggering. It is unlikely we will ever know how many deaths can be directly attributed to Chernobyl, but surely the loss of life is measured in the thousands. Hundreds of thousands more were subjected to radiation poisoning. Nearly 15 years later, the consequences of the world's worst nuclear accident continue to plague Eastern Europe. Ukraine has been especially impacted. Vast tracks of once prime farm land remain dangerously contaminated. Thyroid cancer among children living near Chernobyl has risen to levels 80 times higher than normal. The concrete and steel sarcophagus that encases the ruined Reactor Number Four is leaky and in need of repair. In addition, the loss of Chernobyl's generating capacity exacerbates an already difficult energy shortage in Ukraine, which depends heavily on energy imports, especially during its harsh winters. It is fitting that the first year of the new century should see the closure of this apparatus from a dangerous past. At the same time, we must be mindful that Chernobyl's legacy remains a heavy burden for the people of Ukraine which does not end with the shutdown of this facility today. The fatally flawed nuclear technology that build Chernobyl was truly a kind of Pandora's Box that, once opened, released lasting harm and grievous sickness into the world. The sole consolation is that we can yet hope to redress the damage. The final closure of Chernobyl ends a tragic chapter in Ukraine's history, and begins a new one. I call on every member of the House to join with 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, last weekend a former colleague passed away, Neil Staebler of Michigan. Neil Staebler was the embodiment of the democratic person. His career in the public arena combined a belief in the importance of the involvement of citizens at the grassroots and the fullest integrity and honesty of political leaders of all levels of government. Having achieved financial security in the world of business, Neil Staebler joined with G. Mennen Williams and Martha and Hicks Griffiths in an effort to transform the Michigan Democratic Party into a modern and progressive institution based on broad citizen participation. Perhaps even sooner than they anticipated, this small group succeeded. Soapy Williams became Governor, Martha Griffiths went to Congress, and Neil Staebler began a decade as State Democratic Chairman. In that capacity he spread a message of the importance of people becoming involved in political affairs to every town and virtually every hamlet in Michigan. Neil Staebler deeply believed that government must be the people's servant, not its master. While there were, of course, many differences between the parties over policies during the Williams-Staebler era in Michigan government, no one questioned the honesty and degree of commitment of the political leadership or the caliber of people--Phil Hart and so many, many others--brought into public life in the executive, and judicial branch. The famous chronicler of Presidential elections and politics, Theodore White, summed up Neil Staebler so very well: ``one of the most moral men in American politics.'' It was my deep privilege to know Neil Staebler over a period of almost four decades. Like for so many other younger men and woman who came into politics in the 1960's, I entered at a time when public service beckoned as an important calling. John F. Kennedy became the most famous inspiration for a new generation. Neil Staebler stood tall among those, many of whom like him had served in World War II, who led the endeavor to help the America of the post war period implement its promise of freedom and equal opportunity for all its citizens. Neil Staebler's generation left this Nation a legacy that it must not forget. He was so proud to have served, no matter for only one term, in the Congress of the Untied States. We who serve here now join in sending our deepest condolences to his beloved wife of 65 years, Burnette, to his children, Michael and Elizabeth, and to all the Staebler family. They have so many reasons to be proud of the life of Neil Staebler.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize three community leaders as they are honored by the Warren-Center Line-Sterling Heights Chamber of Commerce. The first annual inductees into the Macomb Foundation's Hall of Fame are three individuals who have made outstanding contributions to improving the economic and community life of Macomb County: Tarik Daoud, owner of Al Long Ford in Warren; Gerald Elson, on behalf of General Motors Corp, and Mark Steenbergh, mayor of the city of Warren. Mr. Tarik Daoud, owner of Al Long Ford in Warren, is honored for his long-standing commitment to the community. He is an active member of the local Chamber of Commerce and serves on the board of directors. Mr. Daoud is involved with the Lion's Club, has supported local high school sports programs and has served on the planning board of the Warren YMCA. Mr. Gerald Elson, currently the vice president of General Motors and general manager of operations for the North American Car Group, and General Motors Corp., are being recognized and honored for their commitment to investing in the economic fabric of the city of Warren. The recent $1.2 billion investment in the Warren Tech Center will make it a premier international facility and help to solidify Warren's long- term economic vibrance. And, finally, the Chamber recognizes a dedicated public servant, an individual committed to serving the residents of the city in which he was born and raised. Under Mayor Mark Steenbergh's leadership, the former tank plant is being transformed into an attractive and accessible industrial park, a project I had the pleasure to work on with him. Mark is also striving to improve the quality of life of Warren residents by pursuing plans to improve city services, rebuild older neighborhoods, and fashion a new community center for all the residents to enjoy. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Tarik Daoud, Gerald Elson, General Motors, and Mark Steenbergh for their years of dedication and devotion to the people of our community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, under any terms. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It passed the House earlier this session, 315 to 109, and we are considering it again today because the Senate, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) mentioned, made a modification with the agreement of the House and the administration. Let me take a few minutes to review the history as to why this bill is on the floor today. Our country has what is known as a worldwide taxation system. In general, U.S. residents are taxed on income, regardless of where it is earned. Rules such as the foreign tax credit ensure against double taxation. By contrast, most European countries have a form of territorial taxation. Under those systems, income is taxed only if it is earned within the territory of the taxing jurisdiction. This system tends to favor exports over comparable domestic transactions. To put our exports on a level playing field with Europe and others, we enacted in 1971 the Domestic International Sales Corporation Law, DISC. The European community successfully challenged that law in the GATT, and we successfully challenged the territorial tax regimes of Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. These disputes ultimately were resolved in 1981 by an understanding adopted by the GATT Council. Based on the 1981 understanding, we replaced the DISC with FSC, the Foreign Sales Corporation statute. The goal of that statute was to ensure that when U.S. producers of goods, both industrial and agricultural, export, our tax system does not put them at a disadvantage. This system worked well for almost 20 years; but in 1988, the European Union decided to walk away from it and challenge the FSC. In its decision adopted by the WTO earlier this year, the FSC statute was held to violate WTO's subsidy rules and the U.S. was directed to withdraw the subsidy by October 1. Whatever one may think of the reasoning of the WTO dispute panel, our commitment to a rules-based trading system requires that we bring our law into compliance with its decision, and this bill does that precisely. It does so in a way that makes our tax regime a bit more like a territorial tax regime. What this bill does is to define a category of foreign source income that is excluded from gross income and, therefore, not subject to U.S. tax. It makes clear that to come within this category, income need not arise from an export transaction. Qualifying transactions will include certain sales of property produced outside the United States. Thus, this bill definitively eliminates the export contingency that the EU argued was a WTO inconsistency. At the same time, and I emphasize this, as is clear from the bill itself in the committee report, this bill does not provide an incentive for U.S. producers to move their operations overseas. It carefully defines the property that can be involved in transactions subject to the new tax regime. No more than 50 percent of the fair market value of such property can consist of, a, non-U.S. components, plus, b, non-U.S. direct labor. This provision has been carefully reviewed by those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the Department of Treasury, and, I might add, the minority leader. Enactment of this bill is critical to U.S. businesses, workers, and farmers. The cloud of the WTO decision affects everyone from airplane manufacturers and manufacturers of other industrial products to software developers, to wheat growers, and so on. If we fail to enact this bill, there is a serious risk that the EU will go back to the WTO. It would cause great harm to U.S. businesses, to workers, and to farmers. As I said in September, there are other issues, tobacco issues, pharmaceutical issues. They cannot be considered, though, within this bill. If we need to amend, to modify U.S. laws, we should do so later on. But we have a constraint. The deadline was October 1, now it is November 17; and if we fail to act by that date, as I said earlier in September, we are going to hurt American businesses and the workers who work for them, and we are simply going to help European competitors. As I said a month ago, if we want to help European producers, vote against this bill. But if we want to help American workers, businesses and manufacturing goods, let us vote for this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery. There is nothing stealth about what we are doing. We are taking a bill that my colleagues put together, putting accountability into it for HMOs, and adding the provisions that many of us have been working for and the President laid out clearly in his veto message or the message which indicated he might veto it. There is nothing secretive about it. The reason hospitals are in difficult shape the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) talks about since the mid-1980s, is because, in 1997, behind closed doors, talking about a stealth procedure, there were cuts made in reimbursement provisions way beyond what anyone imagined. The impact of those cuts is way beyond, way beyond what anyone expected. Let me just mention the provisions that we are working for. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), an hour ago, came to this floor in vain against illegal immigrants. I think he misshaped that argument saying we were trying to totally open the doors. No, we wanted equity for people who are here under the same circumstances as we granted amnesty to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for those people that he represents. Now we are arguing that legal immigrants, legal immigrants should be able, under State option, to receive Medicaid benefits. There is a letter here from three Governors urging that my colleagues grant it, including the Governor of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). He just gives it the back of his hand, no the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) personally. Because we stood out on the grass here a month ago, or whenever it was, urging that the gentleman's party grant the States the right to cover children and pregnant women legal immigrants. His party says no to it. Now, in terms of hospitals, look, all we are suggesting is, in the 2nd year, my colleagues not cut, because of the impact of the 1997 balanced budget agreement. There is nothing revolutionary. I know where my hospitals, the ones that I represent and in the metropolitan area are. They want something other than my colleagues have provided in this bill. People with Lou Gehrig's Disease, they will not act. People who have other needs, other preventative conditions, they act on some, but they will not act on others. So we have been pleading with them to do so. We have also asked, in terms of the Children's Health Initiative Program, for some assistance to the States so they will do better than Texas in terms of covering uninsured kids. There is nothing stealth about this. It is very much in the open. We want a better bill than my colleagues have provided, a considerably better bill. Give us the chance. Their fear is, if we can bring it up, so many Members on their side will vote with us, we will pass it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill and this rule are useful in one sense, and that is that it really shows what the majority is all about. Truly, it makes a mockery of all the talk about bipartisanship. There was not, in the last 24 hours, I think, 1 minute of discussion between the majority leadership and the minority leadership. There was no effort to dialogue with the administration. Instead, I guess the majority thought they would put together a stew of the bad and the good and try to get this through. There has been a lot of talk about compassion in this campaign. This makes a mockery out of the talk on the majority side about compassion. They delete provisions regarding pregnant women and children. They delete the provision for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, just among a couple of important aspects of this. And then, look, hospitals in my district, many of them are in trouble. And so what they do is hand a bundle, 40 percent, to HMOs and they shortchange the hospitals that really need it. Whose side are they on? So they want a Presidential veto. I would have thought they would have learned by now. They are going to get one. The President will get on the bully pulpit, as he can do so well, and tell America what this bill is all about. And I hope he takes that pulpit all around this country. Because this puts in place what Republicans are really all about. Halloween, it unmasks their efforts on compassion. It takes the mask off all of this talk about bipartisanship. This is a totally partisan effort on their part, and I think it will not pay them dividends on November 7 and it will hurt the American people.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican campaign strategy has been to hide the Republican congressional leadership. Maybe that is one reason we are still here in D.C. But the need to end this session has forced the Republican leadership into the open, showing true Republican colors. Take the health field as an example. It appears that, in the bills today, no patients' bill of rights, no prescription drugs, no help for legal immigrant kids and pregnant women, shortchanging hospitals in need to give a bundle to their HMO contributors. President Clinton will veto these bills. I hope the President will take his fight against a do-harm Republican Congress to the countryside and use this Halloween period to unmask who the Republican opposition really is and is about.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this debate is baffling. The Speaker has come here and said we need to be brought together, but he chooses a course that divides us. There is a lot of talk by Republicans, including Mr. Bush, about bipartisan, but this action is strictly partisan. What went into this bill and what was left out was decided completely within Republican ranks and its inner sanctum. Tell me of your meetings with the President to decide on this package. Tell me of your meetings with the minority leadership in the House or the Senate. There were not any. Instead, we have decisions made inner sanctum and very much with special interests in mind. Mr. Speaker, 187 pages of this Medicare and Medicaid bill never went through committee, was never voted on the House floor. So here we go again, forcing a presidential veto. There will be another chance to act on the BBA after the President forces us into the right course.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ann Marie Comiskey who will be named Troy's Distinguished Citizen of the Year by Leadership Troy at their annual community awards banquet on Wednesday, October 25, 2000. Ann was nominated for this prestigious award by the Troy Women's Association. She has been involved with this group for the past 23 years where she has served in numerous capacities, including President, Chaplain, Historian, Membership Chair, Parliamentarian and several other positions on the Board of Directors. Ann has also served on multiple committees to organize many of the Association's events. Ann Comiskey's dedication to her community extends beyond the Troy Women's Association. She is currently a member of St. Anastasia Church where she serves on the Missions Committee and has served as a Eucharistic Minister and a teacher of Catechism. Ann has shared her knowledge in education and counseling on the Advisory Committee to the Troy Adult and Community Education Department, President of the Wayne Monroe Adult and Community Education Association, and is a member of the Michigan Adult and Community Education Association. She is currently one of the Vice Presidents of the Boys and Girls Club of Troy where she has devoted her time to the Taste of Troy Committee and is also the Chair of the 50/50 Raffle and Sustaining Membership Committees. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a remarkable woman for her energy and enthusiasm during her years of dedication and devotion to the people of her community. Ann Comiskey is, indeed, a distinguished citizen.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. Clement Catholic Church in Center Line, Michigan as they celebrate 150 years of service to the Warren and Center Line communities with an anniversary mass on October 15, 2000. Generation after generation has been blessed and served by St. Clement Catholic Church which has held a prominent place in their lives. Beginning in 1857, the Church has engaged in a series of reconstruction and expansion programs in order to accommodate the growing number of students. Today, their present church is an outstanding edifice--adorned with stainglassed panes, a marble altar, and has a seating capacity, of 1600 parishioners. St. Clement Catholic Church has benefitted from outstanding leadership, and the communities are most grateful to the service and dedication of members of the clergy, past and present. Education has been a priority and though there were periods of financial hardship, the students were always a priority. Today, Father Ron Victor continues the tradition of caring and devotion to the communities of Center Line and Warren. I have thoroughly enjoyed attending many events at St. Clement including its traditional festivals and fish-fries. Over the years, it always has been a pleasure to meet and spend time with many parishioners of the church. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating St. Clement Catholic Church as they continue their mission of faith and service to the parish and broader community, and wish them continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the former Mayor of Warren, Ronald Bonkowski, passed away. His sudden death stunned all of us who knew him and thousands of citizens in Warren and elsewhere in Macomb County who knew him through his service in public office. Today, the date of the funeral for Ron Bonkowski, there appeared in the Macomb Daily a tribute to him, and I insert it into the Congressional Record as a testimonial to his life's work. I know that I express the feelings of my constituents in extending condolences to his wife, Christine, and their four children and his mother, Estelle Bonkowski. Bonkowski Will Be Missed Ron Bonkowski will be missed. By his family, friends and by the political types that take pride at being Warren residents. In the years Bonkowski served the public, from his earliest days on what was then the county board of supervisors, to the Warren City Council and for three terms as mayor of Warren, he did not define his public service as work. ``Politics is an art. First you must love it, and secondly, know when to walk away from the turf of politics,'' he told editors of The Macomb Daily during a visit with the newspaper's editorial board. When word spread through Warren that Bonkowski, 62, had fallen victim to an apparent aneurysm early Friday, the only way to describe the reaction was that across the city, county and state there was an expression of disbelief. The towering Bonkowski had been troubled in recent years with severe back pain, a medical problem that triggered his decision to retire from elective politics. He had recently purchased a winter home in Arizona to escape our bleak winters in favor of the dry, warm climate of the Southwest. Bonkowski's keen financial mind and accounting knowledge proved to be an asset while serving as Warren's full-time mayor, and through the years earned the respect of mayors across the state. He won praise from mayors such as Dearborn Mayor Mike Guido, who while attending a Michigan Week function in Macomb County at the time Bonkowski was serving as mayor, said: ``When I look at Warren's operating budget, and the services its population expects and is getting, you have to admire Bonkowski's financial wisdom at being able to get the best out of every tax dollar.'' During visitation hours at the D.S. Temrowski Funeral Home for the public to pay respect to the former Warren mayor, many who came shared their thoughts openly: ``He was a smart man. And always boasted about the positive image of Warren. We need more Ron Bonkowskis . . .'' Former city attorney Walter Jakubowski, now a 37th District Court judge, said of the many good character traits he learned from the former mayor was ``to be true to yourself and be loyal, and no bull . . .'' And at today's services at St. Martin DePorres, the former mayor will be remembered as a good family man, proud of his Polish heritage, and thankful for having been given the opportunity to serve as the mayor of Warren. We share the community's loss of its former mayor. He was taken from his family and friends at too young an age. But in his length of public service, he accomplished what some politicians just dream of achieving. His booming voice was tempered with love and compassion for the people who called Warren their home. Ron Bonkowski will be missed, but never forgotten for his contributions to the City of Warren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with high honor and deep admiration that I share the words of President William Jefferson Clinton as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a national treasure from the State of Michigan, Mildred ``Millie'' Jeffrey. As a Catholic schoolgirl, Millie Jeffrey dodged the stones of neighborhood bigots and watched Klansmen march through town with a burning cross. As a union organizer in Mississippi, she stood bravely as company men snapped bullwhips at her feet. Clearly, they didn't know whom they were up against. She may be small in stature and humble in manner, but she is very strong. She worked for Walter Reuther and counseled the Kennedys, influencing all with her courage and unflagging commitment to social justice. To meet the need for more women in public office, she started the National Women's Political Caucus, and sparked the effort to nominate Geraldine Ferraro 16 years ago. For countless women around the world, she remains an inspiration. Her impact will be felt for generations, and her example never forgotten. It has been my personal privilege to work side by side with Millie Jeffrey over these years on many vital issues ranging from the world of politics including the campaign of Robert Kennedy to the world of civil rights and the rights of women. It is hard to convey through the written word Millie's enthusiasm and dogged devotion to her causes. She not only continues to ``light up'' a room, but she remains committed to action and results. In closing, let me share a bit of Millie Jeffrey herself from an upcoming documentary film of her life, ``You never win freedom permanently. You have to win it time after time after time--whether it's union rights, civil rights, equality in education or for women in any aspect of our lives. We have to keep at it, and at it.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere congratulations to the Jewish community of Ukraine, and particularly to Rabbi Kaminezki, as they celebrate the reopening of one of Ukraine's most important symbols of Jewish culture--the Golden Rose Choral Synagogue in the city of Dnepropetrovsk. This important event, which took place on September 20, symbolizes the rebirth of the Jewish community in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, as a result of a great deal of hard work and perseverance, the Jewish community in Ukraine can be described as one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in all of the countries comprising the former Soviet Union. Today in Dnepropetrovsk, for example, the town where the Golden Rose Synagogue is located, Jewish orphanages, schools, food centers, community centers, medical centers, centers that provide care for the elderly, and centers for Holocaust survivors and victims of communism, are all thriving. What I find even more promising, is that similar positive developments can be seen in many cities and towns across Ukraine. Today, there are more than 260 Jewish public organizations functioning in Ukraine--organizations that are successfully working on a daily basis to promote and consolidate national self-identity and revive important cultural and religious customs and traditions for all Ukrainian Jews. I am pleased that the Ukrainian Government is committed to continue working together with Jewish community leaders across Ukraine toward resolving the complex issue of the restitution of objects that used to be Jewish community property. In this regard, it is important to stress that more than 33 synagogues, including the one known as Brodsky's Synagogue in Kiev, have already been returned to the country's religious communities. I hope that in coming weeks and months all Ukrainians will continue working together to promote religious tolerance and freedom. Ukraine's progress in this area so far should stand as a positive example for other countries in the region to follow as they seek to create environments in which no person is subject to persecution solely on the basis of his or her religious or ethnic background.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 2000, Pipefitters Local 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in southeastern Michigan will dedicate their new hall in honor of a distinguished attorney and its long-time friend, Boaz Siegel. It represents a fitting testament to the decades of service of Boaz Siegel to the thousands of rank and file members of Pipefitters Local 636 and their families. As has been true in a number of vital areas within the construction industry in Michigan, Boaz Siegel was a pioneer in crafting, on a cooperative basis with labor and management, a series of trust funds covering the health, pension, vacation and employment security needs of countless numbers of hardworking families. He has faithfully helped these funds to grow and prosper during a remarkable nearly fifty years as legal counsel and adviser. During three of these decades, Boaz Siegel was a professor at the law school of Wayne State University, providing stimulating and rigorous teaching and training in the fields of labor, administrative and contract law to thousands of students who have become vital links in the legal profession throughout Michigan and the nation. His intellectual brilliance combined with high integrity and the ability to see various sides of an argument led to service in many fields of public service. He used his insights as a lawyer who had represented key sectors of the labor movement to help fashion, with other labor and management appointees of Governor George Romney on a Special Commission, a report leading to long overdue reforms of the workers' compensation laws of Michigan in the mid-sixties. Earlier he had served on the Wayne County Board of Supervisors and was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Labor as a public member of the National Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans. I fully hope, as one who benefitted from Boaz Siegel's professional talents and rigor in law practice and as a long-time friend of his and his wife Bess, to be present at the building dedication on October 20. It will be a real privilege and pleasure for all of us assembled for this happy and worthy event for a truly worthy human being.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor four outstanding individuals for their exceptional and distinguished service in Macomb County: Lillian L. Adams, Executive Director of Sterling Heights Area Chamber of Commerce, the Honorable Peter J. Maceroni of the Macomb County Circuit Court, who are the year 2000 honorees for the 17th annual March of Dimes ``Alexander Macomb citizens of the Year'' award dinner and, Donna Greco Issa and Philip E. Greco of the Philip F. Greco Title Company who will receive the eighth annual ``Family of the Year'' award. Lillian L. Adams has served 8 years as Executive Director of the St. Clair Shores Chamber of Commerce and 24 years in the same position at the Sterling Heights Area Chamber of Commerce. Her participation with the Macomb County Community Growth Alliance and the St. Joseph Mercy Community foundation has contributed to the growth of the county. Lillian is also a loyal supporter of the March of Dimes and the Kiwanis Club, along with serving on the boards of the Otsikita Girl Scouts and Macomb Symphony Orchestra. She is also a founding member of the Sterling Heights and Shelby Township Community Foundations, and is past president of the Utica Community Schools Foundation for Educational Excellence. I have been privileged to personally work with Lil Adams on a variety of community projects including the massive improvement to M- 59 in Macomb County, the anti-drug program of the Utica Community Action Team and the widening of Van Dyke Avenue. Judge Peter J. Maceroni, who was elected to the new Ninth Circuit Court Judgeship in 1990 and re-elected in 1996, was appointed to the Michigan Trial Court Assessment Commission by Governor John Engler. Judge Maceroni, as Chief Judge, is responsible for the supervision and operation of the entire Ninth District Court and instituted special programs for the video transmission of prisoner arraignment hearings. This video program has increased security by having fewer prisoners transported over public roads. He has also served as president of the Macomb County Circuit Court, the Italian-American Bar Association and director of the Macomb County Bar Association. Philip E. Greco and Donna Greco Issa, hold the positions of President and Treasurer, respectively at the Philip F. Greco Title Company. Working alongside their father, Philip and Donna learned the business and are extremely active in the Macomb community. They are indeed deserving of the ``Family of the Year'' award. Philip is a leader in many community groups and organizations. He was President of the advisory board for St. John's North Shore Hospital and is a serving member of many charitable committees. Donna Greco Issa volunteers at St. Joseph's Hospital, the Italian- American Cultural Center, the Macomb Medical Society Toys for Tots and various area women's Councils of Realtors. Donna plays an important role with the March of Dimes, and has been involved with the March of Dimes WalkAmerica since 1986. She now serves as a proud member of the Southeast Michigan chapter board of directors. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and recognizing Lillian L. Adams, The Honorable Peter J. Maceroni, Philip E. Greco, and Donna Greco Issa for their outstanding contributions to society. I wish them success as they continue to make their community a better place.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this session is descending into utter confusion, and if it is confusing here, we can imagine what the public thinks. The Republican majority here in the House has moved from pillar to post. First a $900 billion tax cut, much of it for the very wealthy, eating up a good portion of the nonSocial Security surplus. Well, that did not fly, so now we have a proposal, 90 percent of the surplus for debt retirement. So we go from $900 billion in an unworkable tax proposal to 90 percent of that surplus, that would have been used up in large measure by the tax bill, now for debt retirement. Well, to add to the confusion, we now have this bill tied into another bill, and what could be the reason for it? The gentleman from Ohio talked about how it was necessary for budget reconciliation, he used those terms. Let me just read a statement on this point that we have worked on with the staff and I would like to have someone refute it if it is wrong. The debt reduction lockbox provisions in H.R. 5203 are in no way, shape or form a reconciliation bill in the Senate. The Senate had no budget reconciliation instructions for debt reduction. Among other things, the debt reduction provisions violate the Byrd Rule in the Senate and section 306 of the Budget Act which protects the jurisdiction of the budget committees. As such, a motion to proceed to consideration of such a bill under budget reconciliation rules could be filibustered in the Senate. What the House is doing is converting the House-passed pension IRA bill into a nonreconciliation bill for the Senate. So this bill is not only confusing, it is counterproductive. Well, what is the second reason given for combining these bills? It is said it is to get the attention of the Senate. How about e-mail or the telephone, or just walk across the rotunda and sit down with the majority leader in the Senate and we will be glad to join with the White House, and let us get busy and do some work and pass some legislation. What we are doing here is treading water while the session is sinking. It just does not make any sense, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said. We Democrats are ready to work. We are ready to move on. We are ready to pass legislation and not to add to an already confusing situation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, said that the real issue is overriding the veto. He, I think, exposed what this is all about for the majority party. The real issue should be marriage penalty relief. My suggestion is that, if people really want such relief, my Republican colleagues withdraw this effort that is doomed to failure and they do what we have never done on the Committee on Ways and Means, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has said, sit down and work out a marriage penalty relief bill on a bipartisan basis. They never tried to do that. The majority of us favor marriage penalty relief. We can do it on a bipartisan basis. But, instead, we have a bill here that goes way beyond that. It is too broad. It is part of a package that is much too large; and as a result, the package is weighted too much in favor of the very wealthy. No one on the majority side has ever answered this fact: according to CBO, almost half of the tax cut in this bill goes to couples that pay no marriage penalty at all. So let us sit down and do what we should do and work out, if we are serious, a marriage penalty relief bill. My Republican colleagues do not have a political issue with this because the majority of the public understands what they are after, and that is a 30-second ad instead of a 5- and 10-year tax relief bill. So I close by saying this, we are ready on the Democratic side to sit down with my colleagues, if they are serious about policy and do not want what they think is a good political move, and put together a marriage penalty relief bill. I hope they will do that after the veto is sustained.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me try quickly to put this in perspective. The U.S. has a worldwide taxation system; we tax income on earnings wherever earned. The Europeans have a territorial system, and I will not go into a lot of detail. In essence, what that does is to favor exports over other transactions, especially domestic transactions, so they have a system that nurtures exports. We responded by creating a system, a DISC system that was an effort to put our producers of goods, manufacturing goods and agricultural goods, on a level playing field with Europe. It went into effect, and it lasted for a couple of decades; and then it was decided by the European community, I think, partly tactically to challenge it, and the WTO said it was an illegal subsidy. So what we are faced with is an October 1 deadline; and it is being faced by producers of goods, manufacturing goods and agricultural goods. We have been striving to find a replacement, and now we have one here facing the October 1 deadline. I want to make it clear this bill does not provide an incentive for U.S. producers to move their operations overseas. No more, under this provision, than 50 percent of the fair market value of such property can consist of a non-U.S. component plus non-U.S. direct labor. This provision has been carefully reviewed by Democrats, by Republicans, by the Treasury Department, and by outside groups. Let me be clear, if we fail to enact this bill by October 1, and that is the constraint we are under, there is a serious risk that the EU will go back to the WTO and seek authority to retaliate by raising tariffs on potentially billions of dollars of goods made in the U.S. and exported from the U.S., causing great harm to the U.S., both businesses, workers and farmers. Look, there are other issues, tobacco issues, pharmaceutical issues. They cannot be considered within this context. If we need to amend U.S. laws, we can do so later on. We have a constraint, October 1; and if we fail to act by that date, we are going to hurt American businesses and the workers who work for them; and we are simply going to help European competitors, nothing to do with tobacco, nothing to do with pharmaceuticals, nothing at all. If we want to help European producers, vote against this. If we want to help American workers, businesses, manufacturing goods, we are not talking about services, vote in favor of this bill; and then we will go on to these other issues at some other point.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill; and I congratulate the leadership of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for all of their hard work on this. This bill, in a few words, will improve life for the millions of poor children. It would seem obvious that the essential purpose of our child support enforcement program should be to collect child support for children who need it. Thirteen and a half million children in the U.S., almost 20 percent, currently live in poverty. One-third of children in single-parent families are poor. And those children are half again as likely to be poor if they do not receive child support. Unfortunately, under current law, the top priority of our child support enforcement system is to reimburse States for past welfare costs. In my home State of Michigan, we collect over $160 million a year in child support owed to children who have received welfare at some point. These children and their families are among the poorest in the State. But the vast majority of the child support money we collect in the State does not go to improve their lives. Instead, over $60 million is paid to the Federal Government and almost $70 million goes directly into the State treasury. Most of the rest is used to pay administrative costs or to reimburse the State for health benefits provided to the families. Little of it goes to the kids who need it. This policy deprives poor children of needed income and creates a disincentive for their fathers to pay support. The legislation we are considering today would put kids first in the child support system. I believe that this legislation will reduce child poverty, and that is such an essential task. Child support income is more than a fourth of the household budget for the average family that receives child support. The only source of income that is larger is the parent's income from work. Research shows that single parents who receive child support are more likely to work than those who do not. The child support income would allow these parents to forgo second and third jobs to try to keep their families afloat. Our work, though, on child support is far from over. Nationwide, less than a third of eligible families receive child support now. In Michigan, which has a better-than-average child support enforcement structure, barely half of eligible families receive any child support at all. Almost 200,000 mothers and their children receive zero. Child support collections through the Federal child support enforcement system have increased since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. It gave child support collectors new tools, like the ability to suspend driver's licenses. But clearly we still have much work to do in this area. But this bill is an important further step, one that will improve the quality of life for millions of poor children. I say this in tribute to the work of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and everybody else over the years, some of the Members who are not here today in this Congress who have worked on this important area. We should pass this legislation and put children first in our child support system.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and everybody else who has joined together for this happy moment. And that it is. I first knew Bill Broomfield as a constituent. My wife and I moved to Berkley in 1957. Bill Broomfield was Congressman while we lived there through 1972 when the districts changed. I also came to know Bill Broomfield as a competitor, in a sense. In the early 1960s, I was the county chair of the Democratic Party; and then in 1968, I was the State chair. And we tried very hard to defeat Bill Broomfield. So I knew him as a competitor. And then I had the privilege, beginning in 1982, to know Bill as a colleague. And throughout all of these relationships, his characteristics were constant, a dedicated public servant, honest to the core, hardworking in DC., and at home; and when I was the Democratic chair I thought he was too hardworking. It also was so characteristic that in all of his relationships, there was a complete civility. I think these characteristics were well noted upon Bill's retirement, first by President Carter who said, ``Your record number of terms is testimony to the impact you have made on the lives of all whom you have served so well over the years,'' and also former President Ronald Reagan who said, ``It was an honor to have you `on my team.' Through your dedication, you have established a distinct record of community service that has so intimately been dedicated to your fellow man.'' During those years, the Carter years and the Reagan years, as noted, Bill Broomfield was on Foreign Affairs and became ranking there. And they were years of controversy, as Bill Broomfield remembers so well. I was there during many of these controversies. El Salvador, just among some of them, the nuclear weapons freeze, Lebanon, issues relating to Greece and Turkey, and even though often we were on different sides, there was always this effort to find a consensus and, most important, an air and reality of civility. Truly, Bill, has been a public servant, a wonderful public servant in terms of your dedication. I first represented Royal Oak in 1982 in the Congress. That was 10 years after Bill Broomfield no longer represented his home city Royal Oak. But everywhere I went in those early years, Bill Broomfield was fondly remembered and still remains such. As mentioned, he was born in Royal Oak, he was raised in the city of Royal Oak, he went to schools there, several of which have been torn down, some near where we now live. He represented the Royal Oak area in the State and then the Federal legislatures for almost 25 years. So in a word, it is highly fitting today that the post office in Royal Oak be named after Bill Broomfield. It marks, this designation, the service of Bill Broomfield and his wife Jane on behalf of the citizens of Royal Oak. Royal Oak has grown mightily these last 10, 15 years, so much so that I think Bill's beloved parents would hardly recognize it. But Royal Oak has remained, in a sense, as it was and it has retained its roots, and the post office is an important institution within this community. So I say to you, Bill Broomfield, it is a pleasure to join so many others in this effort today. We feel especially pleased that you are here, healthy and continuing in service to the community. This is a joyful moment for us all. I am sure this institution will rise together in naming the post office of Royal Oak after a distinguished, dedicated public servant, William S. Broomfield.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the preceding speaker on the Republican side, has joined others at throwing darts at President Clinton and Vice President Gore. About 1993, they are the last ones to do that, the last ones who should be doing it. Here is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said about the 1993 act: ``It is a recipe for disaster. The economy will sputter along.'' The Speaker then, Mr. Gingrich, talked about that package leading ``to a job killing recession.'' The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the Republican chairman of the Committee on Budget, said about the 1993 act: ``We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter.'' They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. They are on another deficit splurge, turning gold into lead. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) made clear how they have already exhausted the surplus. Their taxes are over $1 trillion. That is neither conservative nor is it compassionate. It is reckless, and it is cold politics. I finish with this point. They take Medicare monies, and they say they are going to put them back. The Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means said it is just like any other entitlement, and I quote him. Well, title 20 is an entitlement along the lines that they would do with this. They have cut title 20 by 36 percent since 1995. The last people in the world to be trusted with Medicare is the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about the importance of doubling the funding for the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years. As we all know, we have already made two down payments on this goal, first in 1999 and again in 2000. Unfortunately, last month the House approved a Labor-HHS-Education bill which significantly backtracks from our commitment. We must insist on a bipartisan basis that this serious underfunding is corrected in conference. I support full funding for the NIH on behalf of all of my constituents who struggle with illnesses that we do not fully understand. I know, as they do, that the work of NIH-funded scientists offers their best hope for a cure. At the same time, each year NIH researchers uncover new information which helps doctors better treat patients with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, mental illness, and many other terrible diseases. The National Institutes of Health fund well over a third of all biomedical research in the United States. But NIH's role goes well beyond that, because NIH is the primary funder of all basic research. Basic research, which is generally focused on discovering new scientific principles, often cannot be patented and is therefore not appealing to for-profit companies. But basic research provides the building blocks on which new treatments and cures are built. Of the 21 most important medications introduced between 1965 and 1992, 15 were developed using tools from federally funded research. Seven were directly developed by government-funded researchers. One of these exciting new drugs, Cisplatin, was developed by researchers in my home State at Michigan State University. Working with NIH's National Cancer Institute, biophysicist Barnett Rosenberg developed Cisplatin, an anti-cancer drug which cures sixty to sixty- five percent of testicular cancer cases and reduces risk of death by fifty percent when used to treat cervical cancer. Without NIH's expertise and resources, Dr. Rosenberg might not have been able to complete the pharmacology, toxicology, and clinical trials needed to get this drug to the cancer patients who need it. Each year that we increase funding for NIH, we make possible more discoveries like this and we make sure that the public benefits from those discoveries. Currently, the economic cost of illness in the United States is estimated at about $3 trillion. An annual appropriation of $16 billion--less than 1 percent of the Federal budget--is a small price to pay to maintain NIH's strength in controlling and curing disease. I hope that all of my colleagues will join with me and the other members of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus in supporting full funding for the NIH and medical research.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 99. I support the President's decision to waive the Jackson-Vanik prohibitions with respect to Vietnam for an additional year. This action takes place against a backdrop of bitter relationships in the past with Vietnam. Memories of those years remain, and appropriately so. Over the past 5 years, the U.S. has gradually been reengaging with Vietnam. In 1994, we lifted the comprehensive embargo that had been in place since 1975. In 1995, we reopened the American Embassy in Hanoi. In 1998, the President decided to waive the Jackson-Vanik prohibitions. This body supported that decision with decisive margins. Each of these steps was a long time in evolving. Each responded to positive developments in Vietnam. Notably, the government of Vietnam has improved cooperation in the location of U.S. servicemen and women missing in Vietnam, and there has been improvement in the administration of programs to facilitate the resettlement of Vietnamese wishing to immigrate. We must be clear concerning what today's vote is about, and what it is not about. Today we simply vote on whether to approve or disapprove the Jackson- Vanik waiver for Vietnam for an additional year. Approving the waiver will continue the availability of export-related financing from OPIC, Ex-Im Bank, and the Department of Agriculture. Disapproving the waiver will cut off those sources of financing with an impact on U.S. exports, our businesspeople and our workers. Approving the waiver will not extend most favored nation status to goods and services from Vietnam. Imports from Vietnam will remain subject to restrictive tariffs until the Congress approves a bilateral trade agreement. Two weeks ago, our country did, in fact, sign a trade agreement with Vietnam, negotiated over a period of 4 years. However, that agreement is not before the House today. When the President eventually submits it for approval, we will have to give careful consideration to a number of issues, including the extent of Vietnam's commitments, the extent to which it is implementing its commitments, our ability to monitor and enforce those commitments and Vietnam's compliance with international standards in areas including labor and the environment. Fully normalizing relations with Vietnam is a long-term task. It requires us to work with Vietnam, including through the provision of technical assistance. For now, we must preserve the forward momentum that has developed over the past 6 years. To cut off programs now would be to pull out the rug from under U.S. producers of goods and services. In short, let us keep intact the groundwork upon which a meaningful and enduring relationship hopefully could be built. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) be allowed to yield further time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4868. This bill reflects a bipartisan effort. It reflects the input of individual Members as well as the administration. The rule of thumb in putting this bill together, as in the past, was the provisions should be noncontroversial and carry a minimal cost. That rule was followed here. As the title suggests, the provisions in this bill are of a technical nature, but these technical changes can have a real concrete impact on U.S. businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers. For example, the bill suspends or reduces import duties on over 150 items. This improves the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing by reducing the price of inputs. It also provides a benefit to consumers by reducing the price of goods not produced in commercial quantities in the U.S., including anti-HIV/AIDS drugs. The bill also includes an important provision to encourage product development and testing in the United States. It makes the importation of prototypes for development, testing, product evaluation, or quality control purposes duty free. Currently, the value of such prototypes is effectively taxed twice, once when the prototype was imported for testing and again as part of the value of the finished product. This bill would eliminate that double dip which discourages testing and development of products in our country. The bill also includes important provisions to streamline import processing. This will alleviate some of the administrative burden that can delay the shipment of goods from port to consumer. Finally, I would like to mention that, thanks to the hard work of the able gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), my friend and colleague, the bill contains a prohibition on importation of goods made from dog or cat fur. This is a significant provision that serves a humane consumer protection purpose, and we are very pleased to be in support of it. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.