Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) my colleague and classmate.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a very active Member of this House.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support a reduction in the marriage tax, and we Democrats voted for that. But under this bill of the Republicans, half of the cuts, as the minority leader said, would go to those who pay no marriage penalty at all. I want to say a bit about the distribution. I am sorry that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is not here. Look, take the chart my colleague distributed from the so-called bipartisan Joint Tax Committee. Here is what it says. What it says is that those earning over $200,000, in terms of the billions of tax cuts, would receive as much as all taxpayers who have income $50,000 and less. That is fair? Those who are earning $75,000 to $200,000 would have a reduction in their effective tax rate between seven or eight-tenths of 1 percent while everybody under $50,000 would have no reduction in their effective tax rate or at the most two-tenths of 1 percent. Take your own figures. That is fair? Let me emphasize a critical point. When this bill is in full effect, and forget about the sunset which will never go away, if this bill is passed, it would cost $280 billion over 10 years. The total tax cuts embraced by the Republican majority in the House and Senate come to $874 billion over 10 years. And my Republican colleagues could not sell the $792 billion, the public said no, they want fiscal responsibility. The Republican majority leaves no room for prescription drugs. They leave no room for long-term care. In the Democratic alternative, we have embraced a targeted marriage penalty relief proposal and targeted estate tax relief. It is fiscally responsible. Theirs is irresponsible. It is not conservative. It is reckless. It is not compassionate. It is callous. Their fiscal irresponsibility is bad policy. I think once again it is going to prove to be bad politics. The bill penalizes, in the name of removing this penalty on marriage, it penalizes fiscal responsibility. There is no plan. They come here willy nilly. All they have is a political plot for Philadelphia. We can do better, if we will sit down, not in a so-called conference without any Democrats and without the administration, and seriously talk about a fiscally responsible tax-cut package. We can have it. Mr. Speaker, as long as the Republican majority goes this way, we are going to get vetoes, and we are going to get deadlock. They think they will have a political issue. It did not work before, and it will not work now.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close briefly and then I will let others refute if they want to. Mr. Speaker, this is not going to be the last time that we debate our economic and trade relations with China. I hope not at all. Indeed, China PNTR as it passed the House has been molded so that we will be assured of continuing surveillance, continuing oversight, continuing pressure, and continuing debate. The whole purpose of that effort as we shaped and reshaped it was to make sure that we both engaged China and confronted it in terms of our economic and trade relations. As a result, as we have discussed, and I do not want to go into this in detail, we set up a commission that has major responsibilities, that is created at the highest level and that has jurisdiction in terms of human rights, including worker rights. That commission is going to report back to this Congress with provisions written in to assure that we will be discussing and debating it. Indeed, I see these mechanisms, these instrumentalities as ways to assure our greater involvement, not our lessened involvement, our deeper engagement on a regular basis rather than the once-a-year consideration. We also have provided that there shall be major enhanced oversight in monitoring responsibilities by the executive, including Commerce and USTR and, as I expressed earlier, the hope that there will be full appropriations for these purposes. Also, we created within the legislation the strongest anti-surge provision that has ever been introduced and eventually, I trust, enacted into American law, a safeguard provision to make sure that if there is a major deleterious effect of this growing, complex relationship on American jobs in any particular sector there will be a prompt answer from the United States of America. It is an effort to both expand trade but to do so shaping it. It is an effort that globalization will continue, in my judgment, there is no way to slam the door on it, but to shape it, to wrestle with these issues. So I do think it is now important that we look to the future, that all of us join together in realizing that the challenges are mainly the challenges of the future and not of the past. This is going to be a changing and difficult relationship. It is going to have a lot of edges to it, including rough edges. We are going to smooth them in an effective and constructive way, not by insulating ourselves or isolating China. Neither is going to work. What will work is an activist, internationalist kind of approach to these problems that looks after the needs of American workers and businesses in a world that is indeed changing. So I urge strongly that we vote no on this resolution. I take it that a no vote is indeed a yes vote to an activist effort to make sure that as China and the U.S. evolves into a fuller relationship that it will be one with our eyes open and one with our hands strong to make sure that American workers land on their feet and that American businesses as they work overseas conduct themselves in a way that we will be proud of. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my distinguished colleague and friend.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we had a very thorough and informed debate in the House just a few months ago on these very issues. The spotlight is now on the Senate. There is a clear majority there for passage of permanent NTR, and I express the hope of many of us that there can be full debate on the Senate side and action there expeditiously, which I think should mean within the next few weeks. I want to dwell on the major challenges ahead, because clearly the U.S.-China economic relationships are at the beginning of a new phase; they are far from their final form. So I believe there is a need to focus on these challenges, and we cannot simply put our economic relationships and our broader relationships with China on automatic pilot. As we know, there were major provisions in the legislation that passed the House that attempt to address these very critical challenges, and we need to focus on their effective implementation. The legislation set up a high-level executive congressional commission to be a continuing watchdog and a creative force in the area of human rights, including worker rights. We need to be sure during this session that that legislation is adequately funded. We need to be sure that the appointees to this vital high-level commission have the interest and the determination to make that commission work, as the Helsinki Commission has worked, and, if I might express the hope, even more so. We need to be sure that this commission gets off to a strong start. I hope whatever the point of view may be in terms of PNTR that all of us will join together on both sides of the aisle and within each caucus and conference to make sure that happens. The legislation also calls for strong monitoring and enforcement of Chinese trade-related commitments and, as the chairman of the committee indicated, there are numerous, indeed essentially innumerable commitments. There also in the legislation is a strong anti-surge mechanism to make sure that there is a safeguard against major loss of American jobs in any specific sector. We need to be sure that the requests for adequate funding that have come on behalf of the Commerce Department and USTR to carry out these critical monitoring enforcement duties are fully funded in the appropriation processes. Those processes are far from complete when it comes to these aspects. We also need to be sure that the ongoing discussions in Geneva, in the working group on China, that in these discussions in Geneva the administration continues to press for a regular annual review within the WTO of these commitments by China. I see that we have been joined by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), with whom I have had the chance to work on these very provisions, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee and the chairman of the full committee. I think all of us join in indicating the importance of the implementation process of these provisions. In a word, we need now to focus on the future. We are far closer to the beginning than to the end of the challenges that we face in our economic relationships with China. China, as it grows, is already 1,200,000,000 people and is projected to become the second largest national economy within 20 years. We need to focus on these challenges as China emerges from 50 years as a state-controlled economy and with state abuses of human rights and individual freedoms. So today I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and to join together to continue on this important and difficult road of confronting the challenges ahead. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I favor a marriage penalty tax relief bill. That is why I say to my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, I am for the Democratic substitute, and I can face the thousands of voters in my district, whose numbers the Republicans like to cite for each of us in the House. We know our districts, and I know this bill that I am supporting; the Democratic substitute is the answer. They are desperately, on the Republican side, trying to escape the ``do nothing'' label. It sticks and it sticks, and it will continue to be adhesive as long as they simply send bills that will be vetoed. They will never escape that label. Why will this bill of theirs be vetoed if it were to pass? First of all, half of the relief in their bill goes to those who do not pay a marriage penalty. So they attach the marriage penalty label, though more than half of the money does not apply to that situation. Secondly, many families with kids will not get the full relief that the bill promises because of the way they have shaped it. Thirdly, the lion's share, and this is important, of the money goes to the top quarter of the tax filers. Fourthly, look at the out-year projections. Assuming the AMT is eventually applied, and the chairman of the committee has promised that, the 20-year cost of their bill is $700 billion. $700 billion. That plays lightly with the future of my grandchildren and with the need to address Medicare and Social Security. So if this bill is not what it says it is, if it is tilted against low- and middle-income families, if it shortchanges millions of families with children, and if it could break the bank, why this bill? The answer is contained in the chairman's original speech. Pure politics. Philadelphia is what is on their mind. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said, here we go again; and I say, there they go again passing a bill that will be vetoed by the President of the United States. We can do better. The Democratic substitute does better, and that is why so many of us are going to vote for it and against the Republican bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I must confess, I am deeply distressed by the tone of this debate, at least in parts of it. Let me just cite one fact. For the 41 Nations that have been identified as the most heavily-indebted poor countries, external long- term debt rose rapidly from less than $7 billion in 1970 to $169 billion today. There has been some reference that the amendment would pay off multinational banks, as if these are multinational corporations, kind of using that rhetorical device. We are talking about debt owed to multilateral institutions and governments, not in this instance to private for-profit institutions. It has also been said that cash flow is not affected. That is just patently wrong. Unless debt is eliminated, these countries cannot obtain further cash flow. With elimination of debt, they will. Mr. Chairman, this is no scheme. This is a proposal, an edifice built by sovereign nations, by the G-8, who have decided that it is in their self-interest to act on this debt. Then it is said, well, let us give the money to the child survival fund, instead. As a former assistant administrator of the Foreign Aid Agency, I am all for monies for child survival, but let no one think that that is an alternative to governments pulling their own weight. Indeed, the Republican administrations have insisted that aid has to be shifted to help countries pull their own weight. I want to read the last part of the GAO report. I hope the gentlewoman from California will give me another minute if I need it, but I do not think I need it quite yet. I want to straighten out the references to the GAO report. I just saw it now. But we do not have to read it from cover to cover to know that the statements here using the GAO report are a distortion, purely and simply. Here is the key paragraph, and I have dealt with a lot of GAO reports, including when I was in a previous administration: The uncertainties over whether the initiative provides a lasting exit from debt problems, the tension between quick debt relief and preparing poverty reduction strategies and the difficulties in financing the initiative should not be seen, however, as a reason to abandon efforts to provide debt relief to eligible countries. Heavily-indebted poor countries continue to carry unsustainable debt burdens that are unlikely to be lessened without debt relief. But participants and observers may need to have a more realistic expectation of what the initiative may ultimately achieve. To use this report as an argument to thwart the effort of the administration to live up to its essential commitments as part of a G8 program I think is inexcusable. I want to close with this. What is in our national interest? Africa and other countries face a tragedy, a human tragedy that could affect all of us, including our security and surely our sense of morality. For us to sit here and insufficiently fund debt relief is inexcusable in terms of American national security and American ethics. We must do better. Adopt this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans took the advice of their consultants. Look at the label, they said, and forget about the contents. It is true. They have used bottles and vials here on the floor; but for many seniors, they would be empty. If seniors have $1,000 in prescription costs, they would pay more for the insurance under the Republican plan than they would get back, and if it is $7,000 in medicine costs, seniors would pay 85 percent. I ask this question: Why should coverage for medicines be different than for visits to physicians and to hospitals? We Democrats say there should be no difference. My Republican colleagues say, set it up under the private insurance plan. They say, ours is one-size-fits-all. Yes, ours is under Medicare that has choice. My Republican colleagues essentially do not build theirs within Medicare. They say have it through private insurance with no assured premium, and I emphasize this, and no assured set of benefits. We can do better.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, before we move on, I do want to say just a few words about the matter that we have just been discussing. The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and I have discussed this matter briefly, and I understand the budget constraints under which he is working. I hope, however, that we do not translate those constraints into an argument that the amount provided herein is adequate for the compliance efforts that are needed in terms of trade legislation, including China PNTR. Because that is simply not correct. If the administration request is not met eventually in terms of USTR, here is what would happen. This relates to critical legislation relating to trade. The USTR would not be able to fund 13 trade compliance positions, including seven related to China; I repeat, 13 trade compliance positions, including seven related to China. We simply cannot abide that. The economic relationship with China, as well as with other countries, is a complex one, and we simply have to meet the challenges of compliance. In terms of the Commerce Department, if the administration request is not met, what it means is that Commerce will not be able to fund 19 enforcement officers in the market access compliance unit devoted to China enforcement and monitoring; and 16 trade analysts for import administration. Indeed, Commerce, which did not receive cost of living increases, will have to decrease staff in import administration and in the market access compliance unit. There are other ramifications in this bill for the ITC. So I would simply urge that while the point of order has been upheld, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), having fought the good fight, reluctantly has to acquiesce because of the shape of the budget resolution, that as this matter moves through the process, there will be an effort, and a successful one, to meet our obligations. We cannot pass trade legislation that involves major compliance and enforcement issues and then not provide the administration with the wherewithal to carry out those obligations. As Mr. Jasinowski said, that would be bad for the business community. It will be bad for the entire community, for the workers and the businesses of this country. Mr. Chairman, I would like it understood that as far as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is concerned, I am sure, and the vast majority of us, we will not yield until this matter is attended to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bonior- Campbell amendment. The American system of justice is based on the principle of due process. This principle is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that requires that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. Indeed, it is precisely our nation's commitment to due process that separates the United States from undemocratic, authoritarian governments in other parts of the world. No fewer than four federal courts have ruled that secret evidence is unconstitutional. Secret evidence has allowed people to be held for months, even years, without any opportunity to confront their accusers or examine the evidence against them. Too often, secret evidence has later turned out to be no evidence at all, but rather unsubstantiated hearsay that fails to stand up to the full light of day. The use of secret evidence to detain and deport legal immigrants must stop. To that end, I have cosponsored H.R. 2121, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act. The amendment we are considering now further underscores our determination to end this abuse of fundamental fairness. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bonior-Campbell amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to take a hard look at this issue and came to the conclusion that it was time, really overdue time, to act; and, therefore, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The American system of justice is based on the principle of due process. This principle is enshrined, and I emphasize that, enshrined in the fifth amendment to the Constitution that requires that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. Indeed, it is precisely our Nation's commitment to due process that separates our beloved country from undemocratic, authoritarian governments in other parts of the world. No fewer than four Federal courts have ruled that secret evidence is unconstitutional. Secret evidence has allowed people to be held for months, even years, without any opportunity to confront their accusers or to examine the evidence against them. Too often, secret evidence has later turned out to be no evidence at all, but rather unsubstantiated hearsay that failed to stand up to the full light of day. The use of secret evidence to detain and deport legal immigrants should stop. To that end, I have cosponsored H.R. 2121, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act. The amendment that we are considering now further underscores our determination to terminate this abuse of fundamental fairness. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Bonior- Campbell amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am opposed to this resolution. In a word, globalization is growing. It is here to stay. The question is whether and how we are going to shape it. If you vote yes, I guess you are saying, Don't try to shape it; throw up your hands, retreat from the process. I think the answer instead is to pursue, to persevere, to roll up our sleeves, to understand the strengths of the WTO; and where there is a need for reform to get in there and work for those reforms. The WTO provides a rule-based foundation for growing international trade. There is no alternative but to have some kind of a global rule- based system. The alternative is anarchy, and that is not in the interest of the U.S. as the largest world trader. The World Trade Organization has also provided a means for us to attack nontariff barriers in addition to the traditional barriers to trade, tariffs, et cetera. It is far from perfect. We continue to press Japan in terms of their nontariff barriers. We have made some progress through the WTO in certain areas. It also has addressed the new technologies as they evolve in the world. But there are other ways that the WTO has not adapted to change. Now its rulings are binding. They were not under GATT. That means that the procedures have to be more open than they are. We have to eliminate the secret procedures. We should be in there and this administration has been in there fighting for those changes. Also, more and more globalization includes the evolving economies. That means there are new issues, issues of labor, of worker rights, labor market issues, issues of the environment. The World Trade Organization needs to address these issues. With the help and support of some of us, the administration has been endeavoring to do that. So, in a word, it seems to me this is the question: If you vote yes, what are you saying? You cannot be saying reform. You cannot reform an organization that you say withdraw from. What you need to do is to get in there and to work at it. That is why I believe there needs to be a no vote. Let me just say a word about some of the arguments that are used, for example, sea turtles and the Venezuela ruling. What the World Trade Organization said in those cases was the U.S. has to apply the same laws to others as we apply to ourselves. That is not a radical proposition. Let me comment briefly on what the gentleman from Arizona said. The WTO does not endanger American antidumping laws. Period. The way the Uruguay Round was structured, our antidumping laws can persevere and we can pursue them. Mr. Speaker, I think to vote yes on this sends the wrong message. It is the message of retreat. It is the message of withdrawal. A yes vote if shaped correctly, and I think we need to do it, says to the world, we are going to be part and parcel of a global organization. Where it has strengths, we will support it vigorously. Where it has weaknesses we can work actively to change it; that is what we have been doing these last years. That is what we need to do with even greater energy and endeavor. I urge a no vote on this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The WTO has its roots in the decision of this country and others after the Second World War not to make the mistakes that we made after the First World War, and that was for this country to engage, to take a leadership position, to craft international institutions to respond to problems, to challenges, and to opportunities. Trade is not win-win. There are losers as well as winners. Our challenge is to try to make sense out of that dynamic, to try to make sure that in our country we come out ahead and not fall behind in terms of the international scene. They say send a message. It is the wrong message. It is the message of withdrawal. It is a message to tear down. It is much harder to build, and it is easy to tear down. Do not tell me the WTO never changes. I went to Geneva with others to work to safeguard our antidumping laws in those negotiations and we succeeded. If Members think the world is unmanageable, if they want to put blinders on, vote ``yes'' or ``present.'' If they want to roll up their sleeves and make this a better world economically for this country and the other nations, vote no. Vote no.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on the four sides, please.