Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, there is a poignant scene in Homer's epic, The Odyssey, that bears mention as we consider the legislation before the House today. On his journey home, Odysseus' ship must pass by the island of the Sirens, whose beguiling song has the power to hold men spellbound to such an extent that the sea around their island is heaped with wrecks of ships that have fallen under their spell. Forewarned of the danger ahead, Odysseus stops up the ears of his crew with wax so they cannot hear the Sirens' song, and has himself bound to the ship's mast, and thus safely makes the passage. I was reminded of this ancient narrative when I read the bill before us today. The legislation we are considering extends the Internet tax moratorium until October 21, 2006. It seeks to bind our course when the only certainty is that we haven't the faintest idea of what lies ahead. E-commerce did not exist six years ago. Who know what it will look like six years from now? Some projections show that on-line sales could exceed $300 billion a year by 2002. We have not adequately explored the ramifications of this legislation or considered the concerns of the vast majority of the nation's governors who seek a mechanism to level the playing field between the bricks-and-mortar shops of Main Street and the clicks-and-mortar shops of cyberspace. But the authors of this legislation have stopped their ears with wax. There were not even any hearings on this bill. We need to chart a reasonable course. There is not yet a consensus on what course we should set on the issues of Internet taxation and state tax simplification. Clearly there is a need for an extension of the moratorium, and I actively support an extension of two years. But to stifle action for six years regardless of what might be the winds of change is not a prudent navigation of public policy. A two-year extension of the moratorium would provide us additional and hopefully sufficient time to resolve outstanding issues of considerable complexity. We can always revisit this issue and grant another extension if conditions warrant it. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Delahunt amendment, which extends the current moratorium until October 21, 2003. We shouldn't legislate without a compass on an issue of this importance.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam chairman, on rollcall No. 157, the Istook Amendment, I unintentionally cast my vote as ``no'' when I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time and for being unyielding when it comes to this legislation, with many other colleagues, and I look at all of them. There are core labor standards in this new preferential trade program. They are built into the structure of the generalized system of preferences, GSP. The present provisions of GSP are strengthened in the language as it applies to African nations. In order for them to receive the benefits under this bill, the U.S. executive must assess in providing benefits for any African country whether it, and I quote, ``has established or is making considerable progress towards establishing,'' end of quotes, protection of core labor standards, including the right to organize and bargain collectively, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has mentioned. As to the enhanced benefits granted under CBI, the GSP provisions are strengthened still further. As a result of an amendment in the Senate, our executive must use, in deciding whether to grant enhanced benefits to any CBI country, the same standard as applied, for example, to intellectual property rights, that is, the extent to which a nation is adhering to internationally recognized core worker rights. Further, as not provided in the original House bill, the enhanced benefits may be eliminated or revoked in the event a country retreats in these vital areas. It is also noteworthy that added to the GSP system is the Harkin amendment, requiring that countries implement their commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. The present GSP system, and it is not well understood, I am afraid, has been used, suspending GSP benefits due to worker rights violations in Burma, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Sudan, Syria and Pakistan. The benefits of four other nations have been suspended, then reinstated once labor reforms have been made. GSP has been used in the CBI region to bring about improvements in protection of core labor standards. Some will argue, and they do most sincerely, that these provisions are not strong enough because compliance should be immediate and it should be complete. I believe that a reasonable transition period makes good sense, and there is no way to mathematically define what is complete. The executive in our country will always have some discretion, and it is up to those of us who care about this issue in the public and the private sector to vigorously pursue efforts to implement these provisions. Today, the administration has sent a letter to several of us indicating ``a series of steps to ensure effective implementation of existing labor-related provisions of CBI, as well as of the enhanced provisions.'' Included is an important step of directing the USTR to create a new Office of Trade and Labor headed by an assistant trade representative. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record that letter. Building labor provisions into rules of trade and competition between nations is something that I believe in passionately. It is necessarily a step-by-step activist process, tailoring those efforts to the particular circumstances at hand. In NAFTA there were no enforcement provisions covering the commitments on core labor standards. I opposed it. In this case, importantly, as to Africa and as to CBI, there is enforcement, the power of unilateral action by the United States, whether to grant these benefits, and, if granted, whether to suspend enhanced benefits. These are important steps forward on this vital issue, as part, and I deeply share the beliefs of the sponsors, of a necessary effort to increase trade, and, yes, competition, with African and Caribbean nations in the U.S., and to trying, and this is so important, to increase the partnership between the U.S. and these nations, always keeping in sharp focus the best interests of American workers and producers. There has been indeed a long and diligent effort to follow that path in this legislation. It strives to expand trade and to pay attention to the expanded issues of trade. As a result, I rise in support. The White House, Washington, May 3, 2000. Hon. Sander M. Levin, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Levin: Thank you for your recent letter to the President regarding the African Growth and Opportunity Act and Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) Enhancement legislation, H.R. 434. The Administration strongly supports enactment of this bill, which will strengthen our partnership with these two important regions and provide mutual economic benefits for years to come. We appreciate your efforts to expedite agreement on the remaining outstanding issues in the legislation, and hope Congress will conclude its work and pass a final version of the bill soon. A closer relationship with the CBI countries should be accompanied by progress in other trade-related areas. In particular, we hope to see CBI countries make continued progress in implementing internationally-recognized worker rights, and we are prepared to undertake a series of steps to ensure effective implementation of existing labor-related provisions of CBI as well as the enhanced provisions of H.R. 434. First, to underscore the importance of trade and labor issues and to improve policy formation and coordination with respect to them, the President is directing the United States Trade Representative (USTR), contingent upon necessary appropriations, to create a new Office of Trade and Labor. Headed by the newly-created position of Assistant United States Trade Representative for Trade and Labor, the office will be responsible for aspects of trade policy-making that involve core labor standards considerations. It will endeavor to handle these complex, interdisciplinary issues in an integrated fashion. Second, we will work to increase the resources available to this office to fulfill its mission. In the President's FY 2001 Budget, funds were requested to hire a Labor Specialist in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to work on issues involving the relationship between trade and labor. A major responsibility of this staff member would be to analyze information on worker rights developed in connection with the expanded reporting described below. This information would help to form the basis, under various trade statutes, for the development of recommendations to continue, suspend, or withdraw benefits in response to the labor rights situation in particular industries and countries. Third, also as part of the FY 2001 Budget, the President requested additional resources to strengthen our capacity to monitor worker rights and working conditions overseas as well as provide capacity building assistance to countries seeking to implement and enforce core labor standards. We anticipate assigning additional labor attaches to the CBI region and Africa as part of this broader initiative to assess the institutional capacity of countries to implement core labor standards and provide them with technical assistance suited to their needs. These officers would also serve as a point of contact for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the purpose of assessing compliance with the standards required to receive and maintain benefits under our trade laws. Fourth, the President is instructing that reporting on compliance with the worker rights provisions of the GSP program be expanded. Section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974 requires the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the status of internationally-recognized worker rights within GSP beneficiary countries. It has been our practice to include this report in the State Department's annual human rights report. To give this reporting greater emphasis, the President is directing the State Department, in collaboration with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Labor, to undertake an expanded analysis of the legal framework and implementation in GSP beneficiary countries of internationally-recognized worker rights, including the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, the prohibition against any form of forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and acceptable working conditions. The FY 2001 Budget includes a request for additional staff members for the Department of State and the Department of Labor for the purpose of improving reporting on worker rights conditions and, in particular, institutional capacity problems for which additional technical assistance might be appropriate. Among the issues the expanded reports could address are; whether the rights are recognized in the country's constitution laws, or regulations; whether the union registration procedures are fair and expeditious; whether there is a minimum wage law and laws or regulations governing occupational health and safety (with regard to workers generally or minors specifically), whether any persons or industries are excluded from any of these rights; whether child labor exists and what is being done to eliminate it; and what means exist for implementation and enforcement. Other issues relating to implementation that could be addressed include: the procedures for obtaining authorization to organize; the number of unions and unionized workers; whether and how workers are informed of their rights and employers of their obligations; whether and how the government assists workers to exercise their rights; whether and how the government investigates allegations of infringement of worker rights and penalizes violators; whether the government can prohibit strikes under certain conditions; and whether there are government inspections of workplaces to ensure compliance with labor laws such as those related to health and safety, minimum wages, and child labor. Fifth, the Administration has used its authority to partially withdraw a country's GSP benefits in instances in which the country does not meet the criteria set out in 19 USC Sec. Sec. 2461 and 2462, but a complete withdrawal of benefits is not deemed appropriate. This approach has two benefits: (1) it enables the U.S. Trade Representative to focus on sectors in which there are particularly serious enforcement problems; and (2) it serves to encourage the country involved to improve its compliance by not unduly penalizing the country for its problems. The Administration intends to continue to use this approach when necessary to enforce the GSP program and promote compliance. Partial revocation can penalize sectors that have failed to meet their obligations while recognizing a government's good faith attempts to meet its commitments in general. It should also be emphasized that flexibility in this matter makes it possible to avoid unnecessarily penalizing firms that meet or exceed the standards set out for extension and maintenance of benefits. It is our expectation that with the additional reporting requirements and personnel available to handle these issues, we will have more information and greater flexibility to respond even more effectively to any problems that arise in a particular workplace, sector or country. At this time, any interested party may submit a request to the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee that additional articles be granted GSP benefits or that GSP benefits be withdrawn, suspended or limited. Under USTR regulations, any person may request to have a country's GSP status reviewed. The information required by federal regulations will be amended specifically to include compliance with labor rights in the beneficiary country. Finally, we stand prepared to expand our assistance to countries wishing to improve their institutional capacity to implement core labor standards. Last year, in response to the Administration's request, Congress approved $20 million for the creation of a new arm of the International Labor Organization (ILO) to provide technical assistance to countries seeking to implement the ILO's landmark Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. In addition, the President's $10 million request for the Department of Labor to provide technical assistance on the design and implementation of labor standards and social safety net programs in developing countries. These activities are an essential component of a larger strategy to ensure that the benefits of expanded international trade and investment are shared as broadly as possible within and among nations. We are prepared to apply a share of these resources to the development of cooperative programs with our Caribbean and African partners as a means of helping them to comply with the requirements of our trade preference programs and their ILO commitments. This year, in addition to requesting a continuation of funding for the ILO's new arm, we have proposed doubling the Department of Labor's technical assistance program from $10 million to $20 million and increasing by $100 million our efforts to eliminate abusive child labor through the ILO and direct bilateral assistance. We urge you and your colleagues to support these requests as a key part of our efforts to expand trade and investment while improving respect for worker rights around the world. And, thank you for your letter. I hope that these thoughts are responsive to the issues you raised. Sincerely, John Podesta, Chief of Staff to the President.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 7, 2000 a dinner will be held under the sponsorship of American Arab and Jewish Friends, a program of the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ). The NCCJ is an organization founded to improve understanding and friendship between the Arab and Jewish communities. The dinner honors two exceptionally distinguished citizens of Michigan, Edward Deeb and Harvey Weisberg. Ed Deeb has been a leader in the food industry for almost forty years, currently serving as President and CEO of the Michigan Food & Beverage Association, Chairman of the Eastern Market Merchants Association and head of the Michigan Business and Professional Association. His commitment to community is demonstrated through his continuing coordination of the Metro Detroit Youth Day and his service in numerous organizations in a variety of capacities, among them the Salvation Army, United Way Community Services, Boys & Girls Clubs of Southeast Michigan. Harvey Weisberg also has had a distinguished career in the food industry, playing a leading role in the retail business in Michigan. He has long been actively involved in improving the lives of those who live in Metro Detroit. He is a National Commissioner and a member of the Michigan Anti-Defamation league of B'nai B'rith, serves on the boards of the Jewish Welfare Federation, United Jewish Charities, Hillel Day School, United Hebrew Schools and the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce. Harvey had recently become involved with the Children's Sports For Peace Organization, which is planning to build sports facilities in Israel, Gaza City and other Arab cities. It has been my pleasure to know Ed Deeb and Harvey Weisberg during their decades of professional and community work. I admire their efforts to create broader understanding between the Arab-American and Jewish communities in Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Edward Deeb and Harvey Weisberg. It is very fitting that they be honored for their endeavors. May they help to stimulate further efforts to foster meaningful dialogue about major challenges and opportunities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I reflect on the career of Mr. Edgar A. Scribner, as he retires from the Presidency of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO and is honored this evening in Detroit, Michigan. For over 40 years, Ed has worked to improve the lives of working people and the Metro-Detroit community at large. After earning a B.S. from Wayne State University and attending the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, Ed planted his roots firmly in Detroit--the heartland of the organized labor movement. His labor activism began at Teamster Local Union #372, carried him to the Michigan Teamsters Joint Council #43 and finally, almost 12 years ago, to the Metro-Detroit AFL- CIO. Ed embodies the ideals, values and basic tenets of organized labor and community service. He has worked on behalf of those principles for most of his life, doing so with intelligence, diligence and depth. He was effective--displaying strength and charm simultaneously. He has indeed touched many, many lives. From inspiring young people in the classrooms at Wayne State and the University of Michigan or the Detroit Area Boy Scouts Council, to working on health care issues while serving on the Greater Detroit Area Health Council Board or as the Chairman of the Blue Care Network Board of Directors, the breadth and success of Ed's service to the community are indeed impressive. There is no doubt that his example inspires future labor and community activists to follow his lead. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join my salute of an exceptional leader: Edgar A. Scribner. His work on behalf of working people, the people of Metro-Detroit and our community at-large will resonate for many years to come. I wish him good health and happiness upon his retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in Congress to commemorate the 85th 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. This campaign of murder and oppression, perpetrated by the Turk government attempted to systematically wipe out the Armenian population of Anatolia, their historic homeland. Even though the Turk government held war crime trials and condemned to death the chief perpetrators of this heinous crime against humanity, the vast majority of the culpable were set free. To this day, the Turk government denies the Armenian Genocide ever took place. Indeed, the government of Turkey goes even further calling the Armenians ``traitors'' who collaborated with the enemies of the Ottoman Empire during war. We cannot permit such blatant disregard and denial to continue. Genocide is genocide, no matter how, when, or where it happens. Mr. Speaker, there are many living survivors in my district. The memory of their tragedy still haunts them. They participate each year in commemoration ceremonies with the hope that the world will not forget their anguish. They hope that one day the Turkish government will show signs of remorse for a crime committed by their ancestors. To me, Mr. Speaker, the Armenian Genocide is not just a footnote in history. It is something that people all over the world feel very deeply about. It is an issue above politics and partisanship. It is a question of morality. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that each of us works to ensure that our generation and future generations never again witness such inhuman behavior and suffering. The crime of genocide must never again be allowed to mar the history of mankind, and today we stand with our Armenian brothers and sisters, to remember and commit ourselves to a better future in their memory.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as indicated, this is a bill that passed the Senate. It was unanimous. It was noncontroversial. This is a bill mainly about facilities, about headquarters for the further negotiations of an FTAA. I want to support it in that vein. I also want to say, if I might, just a brief word about the content, about the subject matter. There is a reference in the concurrent resolution to greater cooperation and understanding on trade barrier reduction throughout the Americas. I am pleased that, as the ministers have been meeting, that their perspective on trade issues has widened and is more vast than relating only to trade barrier reduction, as important as that may be. I am pleased that in recent weeks, as I understand it, that the trade ministers have placed on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting of trade ministers in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the issue of core labor standards and their role in the trade equation. I believe very much that that has to be considered, and in the end part of the negotiations relating to an FTAA. It seems to me that in view of the discussions to date, that there is an understanding among the trade ministers that there needs to be a diligent effort to look at all of the critical aspects of trade in these further negotiations. As I said, this bill, however, is not basically about the content of the negotiations, it is about where the Secretariat should be located. The Florida delegation very understandably would like to see that placed in Miami. I think there is an advantage not only to Florida, but to the rest of the Nation. I support this in the vein with the comments that I have made regarding the subject matter of future negotiations regarding an FTAA. At some point there will have to be consideration by this body as to the procedures which will guide the eventual negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose all late term abortions with exceptions only when the mother's own life is at risk or to prevent serious consequences to her health. Unfortunately, we are again considering legislation which fails to provide these vital protections for the mother, a bill which will again be vetoed by the President. In addition, federal courts have blocked fifteen different state laws with similar or identical language because they do not contain health exceptions as required by the Supreme Court and because the term ``partial birth abortion'' has no medical meaning. I would urge the Majority to allow this House to consider legislation--the Greenwood-Hoyer bill, of which I am a co-sponsor--that bans all late term abortions while offering the necessary and appropriate protections for the mother and that could become law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Esther K. Shapiro who will be awarded the Anti-Defamation Lifetime Achievement Award on April 4, 2000. This is indeed a high honor. Esther Shapiro has devoted her life to social justice and civil rights. Her passion for human rights is longstanding. It began in the 1940's when Esther and her late husband, Harold, were evicted for hosting an African-American in their government-owned housing. In the 1960's, she was drawn to the civil rights activities in the Deep South, and was part of the Michigan Friends of the South, an organization that courageously supported the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Freedom Marchers. In her hometown, Detroit, Esther devoted her effort to win equal opportunities in housing, labor and politics for African-Americans. She was the first director of Detroit's Consumer Affairs Department where she worked to protect all consumers from abuse and scams. Although recently retired, Esther Shapiro remains an activist as a consumer consultant to non-profit, government and business organizations, and currently serves as advisor on consumer affairs to Councilwoman Maryann Mahaffey, President Pro-Tem of the Detroit City Council. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating this remarkable woman, Esther K. Shapiro, for her passion for human rights. I wish her good health and happiness as she continues to make this world a better place for all.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to join the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and all of the others who are supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I first saw Aaron Henry in action in the 1960s, in the battle within the Democratic Party, and at the convention of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party for Equality and for Integration. In the early 1970s, I had the opportunity to work with him in Mississippi as part of what we called the Mississippi-Michigan Alliance. It was an effort to spark registration within Mississippi, and to try to make sure that all voices there were heard. During those joyful days that I spent with him at his home with his beloved family and at his drugstore on Fourth Street, I had the chance to come to know him firsthand. Aaron Henry had a dream, a dream of an integrated America, a dream where everybody counted. He lived to achieve that dream. He lived a life of good works. He was instrumental in the founding of the NAACP in Mississippi. He also, as we know, as we have heard, ran for office in Mississippi and was elected to the House of Representatives, which was a proud day for Mississippi. Aaron Henry came a good long way in his life, and America has come a considerable way on that path of an integrated America because of the likes of Aaron Henry. Today we take another step along that path. I am honored to join the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). Mr. Speaker, I close by just briefly referring back to what I had the chance to enter into the Record after the passing of Aaron Henry. I said at that point, ``Hopefully, his native State will mourn him across its cities and its farms. He was born in its rural land, toiled in one of its important towns, and journeyed it throughout from border to border. His legacy is his hopefulness. The task now of his beloved State, of his beloved Nation, and of all of us who loved him is to keep his faith and continue his battle.'' Today, with the naming of the building in Clarksdale in his honor, it is another small step in the battle that involved and really enmeshed the life of Aaron Henry.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the greatest magician of all time was Harry Houdini. He was the first person to do the Straight Jacket Escape. In that one, Houdini allowed himself to be tied up in a straight jacket and hung upside down from the eaves of a tall building. Invariably, Houdini found some sensational way to escape. The Republican majority has turned the budget process into an annual escape act. Each year, the Republicans march down here and tie themselves up in a straight jacket budget. Then they spend the next few months trying to escape from it. Invariably they fail and they resort to budgetary sleight-of-hand, smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks. Invariably, the appropriation bills are not passed and we are left with a last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that funds most of the government. This year's Republican budget is no exception. The budget the Republican Majority is advancing today is completely unrealistic. It calls for a $150 to $200 billion tax cut, but the only way they can achieve this is through draconian cuts in discretionary spending, which even they won't be willing to vote for when the appropriations bills reach the Floor. The fact is that if the Majority actually implemented everything in their budget, the tax cuts would significantly exceed the projected non-Social Security surpluses for the next five years. This is irresponsible. We should use the budget surpluses to pay down the debt and extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The bottom line is this: The GOP budget is a straight jacket that Houdini himself couldn't escape from. I urge my colleagues to reject the Majority's budget and adopt the Spratt Substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk on the Republican side about the ``straight-talk express.'' This bill is the ``double-talk express.'' These are the facts: our Democratic bill does more, does more for small business than the Republican bill. The Republican bill does most for the very wealthy. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) eloquently stated, about three-quarters of the tax relief in this bill goes to the upper 1 percent, and this is called a small business bill. This is called a minimum wage bill. Mr. Speaker, we are not fighting any tax relief; we are fighting for the right kind of tax relief. What the Republicans are doing here is using the minimum wage as a bargaining chip, and the very wealthy pick up most of the winnings. The class warfare here, if there is any, is against the working poor. A Member of Congress earns in one month what a low-income family working hard earns in about a year. I do not demean the work of those of us in Congress, and we should not demean the work of those who are in low-income categories. We passed a welfare reform bill here; and I voted for it, people moving from welfare to work. Tens of thousands of them who have moved from welfare to work under the present minimum wage cannot earn enough to get above the poverty line; cannot earn enough when they work hard 40 hours a week to get above the poverty line. What my colleagues are trying to do is to nickel and dime this bill and tie it to a bill that is going to be vetoed. Why pass a bill through here that the President says he is going to veto? What is the sense of doing that? This is the same old same old Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, it is time to turn a new leaf in this House. The people who work hard for a living at a minimum wage deserve an increase. They are way behind in terms of real dollars where they were 15 years ago, even after the action of a couple of years ago. It is a disgrace to tie this bill to something else. Bring it up alone. Mr. Speaker, we know why they will not do it, because they know it will pass. Eventually, we are going to pass a bill here that addresses the needs of hard-working, low-income families, and not a bill that gives almost 75 percent to the most wealthy 1 percent in the United States of America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with my colleague, Mark Foley, in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2000. We believe this bill will accelerate Medicare's transformation from a ``sickness'' program to a ``wellness'' program. Helping seniors stay healthy improves quality of life for Medicare beneficiaries, and in the long run, it will save Medicare money on hospitals and nursing homes. The Medicare Wellness Act would modernize Medicare by adding basic preventive care benefits. Most working Americans take these benefits-- things like blood pressure screening, glaucoma testing, and cholesterol screening--for granted. Unfortunately, the Medicare program currently pays nothing if seniors choose to get these screenings. In 1997, Congress added the first preventive care benefits to Medicare. For the first time, Medicare beneficiaries could get mammograms, colorectal cancern screening, and diabetes self-management services. Unfortunately, the number of seniors getting those screenings has not increased as much as we hoped. Part of the reason is that all those benefits are still subject to Medicare cost-sharing. For many seniors, that means they still can't afford to get the screenings they need. Another problem is that seniors simply are not aware of the new benefits. The Medicare Wellness Act would correct both problems by eliminating cost sharing for prevention services and authorizing new public education efforts. In my congressional district, use of Medicare's prevention benefits is still disappointingly low. According to researchers at the Dartmouth Medical School, over 70% of my senior constituents do not receive annual mammograms, and over 80% are not screened for colorectal cancer. I believe the Medicare Wellness Act will help improve these rates, while also giving 1.4 million people in Michigan access to new prevention benefits. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Bob Graham, Jim Jeffords, and Jeff Bingaman, who have introduced companion legislation in the other body. The bipartisan, bicameral consensus that Medicare needs to cover preventive benefits gives us a real opportunity to improve Medicare now. The sooner we act, the sooner senior citizens will have better health insurance.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 91 which congratulates Lithuania on the tenth anniversary of the reestablishment of its independence. After declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1918, Lithuania enjoyed two decades of self rule. During this period, Lithuanians were free to follow their cultural traditions and express their national identity. In 1940, Soviet troops invaded and occupied Lithuania and Lithuanians spent the next five decades under Soviet domination, forced to deny their heritage, language and traditions. At last, Lithuania regained its independence in 1990; indeed, I was pleased to visit Lithuania shortly thereafter and celebrate the regaining of its independence. History is a crucible that melts away the extraneous to reveal the truly relevant events in human experience. One hundred years from now, when historians look back at the events of the 20th Century, I suspect they will marvel at the astonishing speed at which the barriers to freedom, which for so many years seemed so insurmountable, finally fell in Lithuania and throughout Eastern Europe. A century from now, the history books will say that freedom came to Lithuania as a result of the persistence and unbending spirit of the Lithuanian people. It is altogether fitting that Congress recognize and congratulate Lithuania on the 10th anniversary of the reestablishment of independence. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this important resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, bipartisan legislation, to repeal the Social Security retirement earnings test. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation which has the backing of so many of us on the Committee on Ways and Means. This legislation is supported by the Clinton administration. Indeed, the President called for repeal of the test more than a year ago. As the Subcommittee on Social Security learned during the hearing on this bill on February 15, the retirement earnings test is both confusing to beneficiaries and difficult to administer. It discourages older people from remaining in the workforce and contributing to our country's economic growth. It is past time to eliminate this disincentive to work. The bill repeals the test for workers who attained the normal retirement age. Its repeal will allow literally hundreds of thousands of Social Security recipients to work without a reduction in their benefits. This is an idea whose time has come. It is important to note that the repeal does not adversely affect the long-term financial health of Social Security. This bill shows that members of the committee can work in a bipartisan way. I hope this effort remains such. Let me stress that passage of H.R. 5 today is not in any way a substitute for comprehensive Social Security reform. Congress must redouble its efforts to pass legislation to extend solvency of the fund. Again, the President has proposed legislation that would defeat the interest savings earned by paying down the publicly held debt to make Social Security stronger. This would extend the solvency of the program to 2050. There is an old proverb that says that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. We are taking a good first step with the passage of H.R. 5 today. It should not, Mr. Speaker, be our last.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I favor a tax cut, but one that is fiscally responsible, that does not undermine the fiscal discipline that has brought unprecedented prosperity to our Nation. This proposal that the Republicans are peddling does not meet that test. First of all, it is a first chapter in a book, but the Republicans will not tell us the rest of the book, the other chapters. We all learned long ago, do not buy a book according to the first chapter. Secondly, the first chapter has a false title. Most of the reductions of taxes in this bill, most of them have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Third, this first chapter does not even tell the story. The cost for the first 10 years would be $182 billion. In the second 10, it would explode by an additional $300 billion. And if we include the AMT adjustment that that side says it wants to make, it would be an additional $47 billion a year. Look at this chart. If Members look at the 20-year projection, we are talking about $700 billion. What does that mean for Medicare? What does that mean for social security? They peddled the argument that our marriage penalty provision, our proposal, brings no relief. That is wrong. The only reason CBO might say that is because we say we first have to adjust and we have to take care of social security and Medicare. Once we do that, our marriage penalty provides relief. They have the cart before the horse. They have this before social security and Medicare relief. They talk about a valentine, and they have a red chart, a red poster over there. That is not a valentine, that is a veto. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) should not be misguided, the President is going to veto this with red ink, because that is what they would lead to without thinking through where all of this leads, without telling us what is the rest of their plan. The American people, they want some straight talk. They want some fiscal responsibility and they want some bipartisan effort, and this bill fails on all accounts. Vote for the substitute and vote against this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, December 5, 1999, the community of St. Lucy's Catholic Church, will gather to celebrate their 75th Anniversary. I rise today to honor St. Lucy's on this special occasion and pay tribute to their service to the community. Like many other immigrant communities, Croatian immigrants came to the metro-Detroit area because of the promise of jobs and opportunities in lumber, mining and the automobile industry. After their arrival, they realized that a central component of their former life--the community church--was missing. They regained this sense of community when Father Oskar Suster was given permission by Bishop Michael Gallagher to form a new Catholic parish to serve the Croatian ethnic community. In 1924 they purchased their first building at the corner of Melbourne and Oakland Avenues in Detroit. Following in the name of their patron saint, St. Lucy's Catholic Croatian Church has spent the last 75 years serving as a radiant light in the Croatian community. The Church, now located in Troy, Michigan, includes the sons and daughters of those original immigrants as well as many new arriving families. I have enjoyed participating in some of their activities and seeing firsthand the pride parishioners have in their Church and the sense of community it represents. I have also enjoyed the opportunity to participate in the community's discussions on issues of special concern, especially those touching on events transpiring in the Balkans. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating St. Lucy's Croatian Church on the occassion of their 75th anniversary and wishing them many more years of important service to their community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well here we go again. Another year and another last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that funds most of the government. The Republican Leadership didn't do its homework all year and now they expect a gold star because they got a C on the final exam. Most Americans will probably find little fault with many of the major provisions of the legislation we are considering today. Although the Republican Majority fought it every step of the way, most Americans support our initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size in our schools. They support the President's program to put more police on the streets in our communities. They support our efforts to strip the harmful anti-environmental riders that threatened the ecological health of our land, water and air. The American people support our efforts to preserve access to health care for older Americans by correcting the excesses of the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. On all of these issues and countless others, President Clinton prevailed over the extreme opposition of the Republican Leadership. The major shortcoming of this agreement is not what's in it; the problem with this bill is what's not in it. As just one example, the vast majority of Americans support managed care reform; indeed, the House passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights earlier this year. There is one reason, and one reason alone why HMO reform is not included in the package we are debating today: the Republican Leadership does not support meaningful managed care reform. The Congress also should have acted this year to extend prescription drug benefits to the elderly, too many of whom are being forced to choose between food and medicine. Most Americans support this, I support this, the President supports this. A major reason prescription drug coverage is not included in this budget is because the Republican Leadership does not support it. It's ironic that the Majority spent most of this year trying to push through a massive and irresponsible tax cut that chiefly benefited the very richest people in America, but was unwilling to even discuss a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors. I remain dismayed that the Majority has also blocked campaign finance reform, a much needed raise in the minimum wage and sensible gun safety measures. In addition, this Congress should have done more to help low- income working families. Despite the good economy, the number of people with health insurance has declined and the number of children going hungry has actually increased. We should have taken action on all these fronts this year. Finally, despite the repeated claims of the Majority that they are not spending even one dime of the Social Security surplus, the fact is that this agreement falls short of their rhetoric. As with the previously adopted appropriations bills, the budget package before us contains numerous accounting gimmicks whose only purpose is to disguise the real cost of this legislation. I don't think anybody is fooled by all the smoke and mirrors. What is the point of having a budget process when the Leadership of this body consistently refuses to follow it? I will vote for this agreement, but I do so reluctantly. At the end of the day, the lasting legacy of this session of Congress will be shaped more by what we failed to accomplish this year than what we're doing in this legislation today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today, along with Representatives Houghton and Thurman, I am introducing the Trade Enhancement Act of 1999. This bill will strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to counteract foreign country measures that act as market access barriers to U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods and services. It will do this by updating section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as well as the Sherman Antitrust Act. For 25 years, section 301 has been essential to the effective conduct of U.S. trade policy. Section 301 investigations by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (``USTR'') have opened foreign markets for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses. These investigations have also led to negotiation of multilateral and bilateral agreements that liberalize trade, expand markets and strengthen rules of fair and open competition for manufactured and agricultural products and services, and improve protection of intellectual property rights. Today, benefits from these agreements flow not only to the United States, but to all WTO members. Section 301 remains an important policy tool, even with the advent of binding dispute settlement in the WTO. As international trade and economic integration have grown, new barriers have arisen or have become more apparent. In a number of cases, neither U.S. laws nor WTO rules yet provide an adequate means for addressing such barriers. This bill identifies three significant gaps in the existing body of U.S. and WTO law and amends U.S. law to address foreign country barriers that exploit those gaps. The first gap concerns market access barriers masquerading as health and safety measures. Such barriers come within the purview of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (``the SPS Agreement''). However, barriers in this sector have tended to proliferate in a fragmented way, which makes them difficult to challenge one at a time. WTO-inconsistent health and safety regulations often focus on individual products or narrow product categories. It is generally inefficient to take each one on independently. However, there is no mechanism under current law to call attention to or challenge a series of regulations en bloc. This bill begins to fill that gap by creating an ``SPS Special 301'' provision, modeled after the existing Special 301 for measures affecting intellectual property rights. It requires USTR to make an annual identification of the most onerous or egregious instances of foreign country trade barriers disguised as health and safety measures. As with Special 301 for intellectual property rights, identification of the priority foreign country SPS measures will trigger a requirement for USTR to undertake a section 301 investigation of those measures. The bill also requires the President to take into account the extent to which a country's health and safety regulations are based on scientific evidence in determining that country's eligibility for benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences. The second gap in current U.S. and WTO law concerns market access barriers that take the form of private anticompetitive conduct supported, fostered, or tolerated by a foreign government. For example, some governments delegate regulatory-type authority to trade associations, which are thereby able to engage in conduct that would violate the antitrust laws if engaged in by entities in the United States. These practices allow foreign producers to gain a regulatory advantage over exporters from the United States and other countries. Neither current U.S. laws nor the rules of the WTO are equipped to address fully joint public-private market access barriers. Section 301 authorizes USTR to respond to certain foreign government measures, but does not refer expressly to some of the forms of conduct that make these barriers effective. Nor does section 301 authorize USTR to respond to the private activity component of these barriers. U.S. antitrust law authorizes the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to address foreign anticompetitive conduct that harms U.S. exports, but this authority has rarely been exercised, and there is no requirement that it be exercised in appropriate cases. Nor are WTO rules yet adequate to address joint public-private anticompetitive conduct. This was illustrated by the recent Japan-Film decision, in which the WTO declined to find that U.S. benefits under the WTO had been ``nullified or impaired'' due to a Japanese distribution regime that discriminated against imports, including U.S.- made photographic film and paper. Joint public-private barriers flourish in environments where government rulemaking and administration are opaque. While WTO rules require transparency in these processes, the WTO to date has failed to apply its rules in a way that achieves that result. Also, the WTO rules are not designed to address the private component of joint public- private market access barriers. The Trade Enhancement Act of 1999 begins to fill this second gap by upgrading the authority of USTR so that the agency is better able to respond to joint public-private market access barriers. It does this in two principal ways. First, the bill broadens the definition of foreign conduct that will trigger USTR's authority to take responsive action. To the category of conduct requiring responsive action by USTR, the bill adds a foreign government's fostering of systematic anticompetitive activities. (Under current law, a foreign government's toleration of systematic anticompetitive activities triggers USTR's discretionary authority to take responsive action.) The bill also makes clear that anticompetitive conduct triggering USTR's authority includes conduct coordinated between or among foreign countries (not just within a single foreign country) and conduct that has the effect of diverting goods to the U.S. market (not just conduct that keeps U.S. goods and services out of foreign markets). Second, the bill establishes a mechanism for addressing the private components of joint public-private market access barriers. Under current law, at the conclusion of a section 301 investigation, USTR must determine whether the foreign country under investigation has engaged in conduct requiring or warranting responsive action. Under this bill, if that determination is affirmative, USTR will be required to make an additional determination, to wit: whether there is reason to believe that the conduct at issue involves anticompetitive conduct by any person or persons. If the latter determination is also affirmative, USTR will be required to refer the matter to the Department of Justice. Upon referral of a matter from USTR, the Department of Justice will be required to undertake an investigation to determine whether there is reason to believe that any persons have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. That investigation ordinarily will have to be completed within 180 days. An affirmative determination will require the Department either to commence an enforcement action against the alleged violators or explain to Congress its reasons for declining to do so. The third gap in current law is the lack of any express penalty for foreign non-cooperation in the gathering of evidence relevant to an investigation of market access barriers. In recent years, there have been several instances in which a foreign government refused to cooperate with USTR in the conduct of a section 301 investigation or the enforcement of a bilateral trade agreement. In certain cases, these attempts to obstruct the conduct of an investigation extended even to refusing to meet with Cabinet-level and other senior Administration officials. These actions prevent the United States from developing a factual basis to understand and resolve important trade problems and issues and, in addition, contradict longstanding norms of diplomatic behavior. The Trade Enhancement Act of 1999 begins to fill the third gap by creating a deterrent to non-cooperation in investigations of market access barriers. USTR will be authorized to draw an inference adverse to the interests of a foreign respondent in the event of non- cooperation in the provision of relevant evidence. The adverse inference would be limited to the issues on which the foreign government refused to cooperate. This sanction is modeled on discovery sanctions that courts and administrative bodies in the United States commonly apply. Mr. Speaker, it is important that the agencies working to open foreign markets to U.S. goods, services, and capital be equipped with modern tools to address modern problems. It has been over a decade since these tools were last upgraded. In that time, the nature of foreign trade-impeding activity has changed. It has become more sophisticated. The tools used to defend U.S. rights ought to be equally sophisticated. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge that it receive serious consideration by the committees of jurisdiction and by the full House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 66th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 to 1933, a tragedy that claimed the lives of at least seven million Ukrainians. Too often, we have seen the horrors of famine in all parts of the world. Famine usually brought about by prolonged wars, droughts, floods or other natural occurrences. Rarely have we seen such famine brought on by the repressive actions of a government. In 1932 to 1933, leaders of the former Soviet Union used food as a weapon against the innocent people of Ukraine. Seeking to punish Ukraine for its opposition to Soviet policies of forced collectivization of agriculture and industrialization, Joseph Stalin unleashed the horror of the Ukrainian Famine on the people of Ukraine. Estimates of the number of innocent men, women and children who died reach over 7 million, and even today the Ukrainian population has not yet fully recovered. This year marks the 66th year since this man-made, artificial famine in Ukraine. I rise today, as a co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, to join in commemorating with the Ukrainian-American community the tragedy of 66 years ago. The Ukrainian community's main commemorative observance will be held on Saturday, November 20, 1999 in St. Patrick's Cathedral with a solemn procession along New York's avenues and a requiem service. We must honor the memory of all those who perished and never let such a tragedy happen again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a measure which is long overdue. The Financial Services Modernization Act will help keep the American finance industry competitive and at the same time provide one-stop shopping for consumers. I recognize that the bill the House is debating today is the product of nearly 20 years of effort and compromise. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. In particular, I want to comment on two key sections of this bill. The provisions of this bill dealing with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ensure the continuation of this vital program, but they could have been stronger. Under this agreement, the Community Reinvestment Act will continue to apply to all banks. Further, for the first time a bank's rating under CRA will be considered when it seeks to expand into new financial activities. However, I would have liked to see more banks covered under the CRA. The $250 million asset threshold in the conference report has the effect of giving too many banks a 5-year ``safe harbor'' from CRA examinations. The conferees would have done better to hold to the more reasonable $100 million threshold included in the House-passed bill. I am also concerned about the privacy protections contained in this legislation. In a word, these protections are inadequate. Consumers should have the right to control who has access to their personal financial information. The privacy provisions contained in this legislation are an improvement over current law, but they don't go far enough. It is vital that Congress take additional steps to address this concern and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this. Despite these concerns, I want to compliment the extraordinary effort that went into crafting this compromise. I urge my colleagues to support the Conference Report on Financial Services Modernization.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Andrea Allemon who will be named Troy's Distinguished Citizen of the Year by Leadership Troy at their annual community awards banquet on November 4, 1999. Andrea Allemon's dedication to her community has been extraordinary. As a result of her leadership in the Boys and Girls Club's Taste of Troy to the Troy Daze Festival, almost every event I attend in Troy has Andrea's presence. As a dedicated parent, Andrea founded the Parent Teacher Organization at Smith Middle School and served as its president. She was also responsible for initiating the school clinics at Smith Middle and Athens High. The Athens All-Night Party was another one of Andrea's start-up events which she supervised for five years. In her neighborhood, Andrea Allemon has served as an officer, member of the Board of Directors and New Members Chair for the Emerald lakes Village Homeowners Association. She personally welcomes each new family to the neighborhood. Serving as a ``foster mom'' to an individual who lives in adult foster care, she has opened her home sharing holiday feasts for the past 25 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a remarkable woman for her energy and enthusiasm during her 31 years of dedication and devotion to the people of her community. Andrea Allemon is indeed a distinguished citizen.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague from Illinois, if you are interested in government waste, cut out the boondoggles in your bills, including in the districts of your leadership. These bills do nothing for Social Security, they do nothing for Medicare, and they will hurt every family. They also engage in budgeting by deceit. They say they have not raided Social Security, but they have, by $17 billion. Now they are engaging in deceit by delay. Here is the headline in the Post: ``Hill negotiators,'' that means Republicans, ``agree to delay part of NIH research budget.'' Here is what NIH says: ``These delays would hurt or could seriously hamper research efforts. To accommodate this delay, NIH would have to delay funding of over 8,000 new research grants until the final days of FY 2000, research for cancer, research for heart disease, research on diabetes.'' Republican budget gimmicks at the expense of America's health.