Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose assisted suicide. I voted against a recent Michigan ballot initiative which would have legalized it in my State. I did so because I believe that it is increasingly evident that with modern pain management techniques doctors can make comfortable patients who are critically ill. The primary responsibility to handle this issue has traditionally been with the States, which almost universally prohibit assisted suicide. Under current law, assisted suicide is not explicitly listed as a Federal crime. The DEA has never prosecuted a physician for assisted suicide under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Instead, the responsibility for enforcing medical standards has historically been a State responsibility. The effect of H.R. 2260 would be to add assisted suicide to the list of Federal crimes under the CSA which carry a mandatory 20-year jail sentence. For the first time, the Justice Department and the DEA would be required to become involved in determining the intent of doctors when they prescribed pain medication to patients. Associations representing about half of our doctors and almost all of our nurses have said that they believe the fear of being investigated by the DEA would lead many doctors to prescribe less medication for pain. I support the other sections of H.R. 2260, which would support efforts to educate health professionals about effective pain management. I have long supported pain management education for health professionals and a comprehensive approach to end- of-life care. I first introduced legislation in this area in 1990. That legislation became law. The most recent version of the legislation would improve upon our earlier efforts by taking steps to provide patients and their families with the information and support they need during the difficult time at the end of life. This legislation would also improve Medicare's coverage of self-administered drugs for pain. All of these issues--pain management, support and information, and the payment policies of Medicare and other insurance payors--should be part of our efforts to prevent suicide and assisted suicide.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who also has been immersed in issues relating to E- commerce.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is highly versed in these matters.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. One of the most important, prominent features of the globalizing economy at the dawn of this new century is the rapid rise of the Internet as a mode of commerce. The Internet is not only a meeting place for buyers and sellers, it is an important channel of distribution. Thus, for instance, computer software can be sent from a supplier to a customer at the speed of light. Providers of services such as information technology can assist customers thousands of miles away. So far, the Internet has remained free of tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade. Those latter nontariff barriers are important issues to consider in this instance, and in others. Some may be tempted to attach new trade-impeding regulations to this new technology. We should resist that temptation at this relatively early stage in the development of the Internet as a mode of commerce. This resolution urges the administration to seek a global consensus on making the existing moratorium on special E-commerce tariffs and taxes permanent. I support that endeavor. While I vote for this resolution, I want to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in expressing disappointment in the manner by which it is being brought before this body. This House has a constitutional responsibility in the regulation of U.S. trade with foreign nations. That means providing comprehensive guidance to the administration as it embarks on a new round of world trade negotiations. Fulfilling our constitutional responsibility requires more than considering a single negotiating objective as we are doing today. Rather, we should be considering a broader range of negotiating objectives. There is, for example, a resolution, I believe with over 200 signatures, relating to the vital importance of maintaining U.S. anti-dumping laws. Also, there is the important issue of the role of core labor standards in trade negotiations. Here I want to express, because it has been mentioned by the chairman of the subcommittee, the need for us to face this issue of core labor standards in trade negotiations. I think they are vitally relevant to them. At the end of the Seattle Round of world trade negotiations, this House will most likely be called upon to enact implementing legislation. We must not wait until the last minute to provide our input. Instead, we should be working with the administration now to develop and refine our agenda going into the new round. We must not defer this responsibility. So I urge my colleagues, remembering, though, the need for a broader ring of consideration, to vote for H. Con. Res. 190. I urge all of us to participate in developing a set of objectives for the new round of world trade negotiations that covers the gamut of issues confronting American workers, farmers, and businesses in the global economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the American public is crying out to the majority: stop the posturing. They want production when it comes to the budget, not more politics; and the Republican majority here simply has not produced. As my colleagues know, there is something unreal about all this. We are 3 weeks into a new fiscal year, and they are still stuck in the mud on appropriations bills. This particular legislation is a smoke screen. It is an effort to hide, first of all, their ineptitude; secondly, the fact that they, the Republican majority, has already, already incurred into Social Security funds is also a smoke screen to attempt to hide their inability to act on key issues, education, Social Security reform, Medicare. The public can see through this smoke screen, and they can spend ten millions of dollars on television, and it will not work. There are three words that I think apply to them in this bill: stop the posturing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the community of Ferndale lost a good friend and a dedicated public citizen when Patrick Sullivan passed away on October 2, 1999. Patrick Sullivan was a life-long resident of Ferndale. Beginning in 1957, he worked his way up through the ranks in the Ferndale Police Department, first serving as patrolman, and then rising to detective, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and ultimately achieving the rank of Chief. As Chief of Police, he was responsible for bringing intense training and professioanlism to the Department; he was called a ``cop's cop.'' He retired from the department after 35 years of dedication and devotion to the safety and well-being of his fellow citizens. After his retirement as Chief, Patrick Sullivan served one term as a Ferndale Councilman, and then as security director of Ferndale Schools. Regardless of the position he held, Patrick Sullivan was a larger-than- life man. His brother, Joe, who succeeded him as Chief, said it best, ``Patrick was like an M and M--hard on the outside, and soft on the inside.'' He has an extraordinary interest in kids--always there for them when they got into trouble, helping them find their way in his tough but caring approach. His cottage up north was open to hundreds of youth who otherwise would not have been able to have a vacation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending our condolences to Patrick Sullivan's wife Glenda, his son, Kevin, his brothers and sisters and his four step grandchildren. Patrick Sullivan will indeed be missed by all of us privileged to know him and the hundreds whose lives he directly impacted with his friendship and warmth of personality.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dingell- Norwood ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' legislation. Well, here we are again. More than a year has passed since the last time the House debated HMO reform. Last year the decision before the House was between the half-hearted, watered-down approach offered by the House Leadership and a strong, enforceable patients' bill of rights that would empower patients and allow health care professionals to perform their jobs without interference from the health insurance bureaucracy. The choice before the House is the same today. We can vote for real HMO reform by voting for the Dingell/Norwood bill or we can vote for something much less. Medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by insurance companies. In addition, HMO's must be held accountable when their decisions cause a patient's injury or death. A right without an enforceable remedy is no right at all. The story of one of my constituents, Timothy, painfully illustrates the importance that this House pass the right reform package. After an accident at work, Timothy developed a rare nerve disorder, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. People with this disease experience extreme pain when their skin is blown or even touched. If the condition is diagnosed and treated within the first few weeks, the patient can usually expect great relief and often complete remission of the disease. Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy is treated with special injections given by an anesthesiologist. Both Timothy's primary care physician and orthopedist agreed that this treatment was needed. When Timothy went for treatment he was told his managed care plan would not cover the injections. He was told that the HMO was not confident that his condition warranted treatment and an appointment would be made to get a second opinion. The appointment did not occur for 3 months! By that time it was too late for treatment. Timothy was in constant agony. Some months later, Timothy had a massive heart attack and died. His cardiologist found no sign of heart disease, and suspected that the heart attack was directly related to the stress and pain caused by his condition--a condition that may have been cured with prompt medical treatment. Today we have a chance to do what the Congress failed to do last year and give the American people a strong, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. Vote for real reform and support Dingell/Norwood.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this so-called access bill is in truth a smokescreen, so flimsy that it is easy to see through. Its main effect would be to sink Dingell-Norwood, not help the uninsured. It is about access of the majority to special interests and their access to the majority far more than it is about access of 45 million uninsured to health insurance. Mr. Speaker, that is clear because, number one, according to the analysis of the joint task committee, and I am sorry the chairman of the committee is not on the floor; here is the letter dated October 6 from the Joint Committee on Taxation that is under the control of the majority. It says that this bill would help 160,000 taxpayers, only 1 percent of the uninsured. Ninety-nine percent of the uninsured would be left high and dry while giving a tax benefit to those already insured, and the higher one's income, the more would be the tax benefit. Number two, it is not paid for, and it is going nowhere. Three, the majority have refused to allow the minority to present an amendment to pay for the cost of Dingell-Norwood. They say they are doing that because the amendment would not be germane. What is not germane is the inability and unwillingness, not the inability, but the unwillingness, of the majority to make this amendment germane. The majority claimed there was no consideration in committee of the Democratic paid-for proposal, but all but two parts of it were in the Republican tax bill that passed this House, and the other two were in a proposal presented in the Committee on Ways and Means by Democrats. The best answer is a large vote for Dingell-Norwood and place the Republican leadership in a quandary as to what to do next to thwart the will of the American people. Let us give a resounding vote to Dingell- Norwood.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Friday, October 1, and as a result missed rollcall votes 466 through 469. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 466, ``no'' on rollcall 467, ``yes'' on rollcall 468, and ``no'' on rollcall 469.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority here delayed sending this bill for over a month so they could go back and sell it. They went home. They did not sell this package. The American people spoke by their reaction, and they said to the Republicans, keep to the path of fiscal responsibility that Democrats started this institution on many years before. Do not spend, the Americans said, a surplus not likely to occur in a way not helpful to most Americans. But the Republicans, as evidenced by what they have said here, they do not hear. They are not listening. So, where are we? The Republicans cannot even put together a budget and appropriation bills for 1 year, the year 2000. How can the American people trust the majority here to put together a fiscally responsible bill over 10 years? The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means earlier today said this: ``Since President Clinton killed this responsible,'' that is his word, ``tax relief plan, he has given himself a license to spend, and spend he will.'' But we all know the President cannot spend a dime without the approval of this Congress. Who is in control of this Congress? I think it is the Republican majority. Their message has been, help save me from myself. I will go recklessly. Well, they are in the majority. They should now react by putting together, with the President and with the Democratic minority, a new package. But they are not doing that. What are they going to do? Instead, tomorrow, as we understand it, we get this somewhat by rumor, in the Committee on Ways and Means the Republican majority is going to put up a bill. It is going to cost, we are told, over $50 billion over 5 years. It will be paid for at best for 1 year. That is another example of fiscal irresponsibility. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have voted for previous fiscally responsible bills, deficit responsible bills; to have stood with all the Democrats in 1993 for fiscal responsibility. This Democratic Party once again says to the Republican majority, begin to listen to the American people. They want us to sustain the path of fiscal responsibility that has brought low inflation and low interest rates. The President vetoed the bill because it would have moved us away from fiscal responsibility to irresponsibility.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Battalion Chief Dennis Foster and Battalion Chief Dale Monnier who will be honored on their retirement from the Sterling Heights Fire Fighters Union at their Annual Dinner/Dance on September 24,1999. It is my privilege to recognize these two firefighters for their outstanding contributions to public service. Beginning their service in 1974, Battalion Chiefs Foster and Monnier continually sought to further their knowledge and experience in the field of public safety, always committed to providing their community with the best service. Their participation in community events have made these gentlemen an integral part of their city, and their acts of heroism have made Sterling Heights a safer and better place to live. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me, the citizens of Sterling Heights and the Fire Department in recognizing these outstanding firefighters for the dedication and accomplishments they have provided to the people's welfare in Sterling Heights. I wish them good health and happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, a dinner will be held in honor of Frank Garrison, President of Michigan AFL-CIO. The dinner will mark the more than four decades of Frank Garrison's public service. The chairs of the dinner will include two former Governors, William Milliken and James Blanchard. The sponsorship of two leaders from different political parties is a reflection of the broad nature of Frank Garrison's activities. During his service as the legislative director for the UAW in the 1970s and early 1980s, he was a key player in a wide variety of efforts, including the lobbyist disclosure law enacted in 1976, the Open Meetings Act, and the Essential Insurance Act and other insurance reforms that protected consumers' access to insurance at fair prices. He also fought for measures to bring health care to more of Michigan's citizens. An equal, if not greater passion, was that of participation in the political process in general and the Democratic Party in particular. I first came to know Frank well when I was running for Governor in the 1970s. There were many a plant gate that we visited together, often in the dark wee hours of the early morning. We were determined to meet voters face to face, often ourselves facing the obstacles of climbing around, and a few times over plant gates to reach incoming or outgoing workers, not always reaching our destination with complete ease. Of all Frank Garrison's public passions, however, the greatest was the labor movement. He delved deeply into its efforts to represent Michigan's workers and give them a fair share of the economic pie. He deeply believes that the reforms of the 1930s giving workers the right to organize and be heard was one of the key ingredients of the success of American capitalism. He has fought to unite labor movement and to make certain that it was a vital participant in all facets of the public arena. As Frank Garrison retires, I join his many friends in saying to him how much we admire his years of service, often at very considerable sacrifice for himself, his wife Dora and their three daughters. He can leave and move on to the next challenge with an inner feeling of true accomplishment

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mayor Harvey Curley of the City of Eastpointe, Michigan, who will retire in November 1999 after a distinguished career serving his community over the last twenty-five years. Beginning in 1975, Harvey Curley was elected to the East Detroit Board of Education, serving as its President from 1978-1983. He also served two years on the Zoning Board of Appeals and as Councilman from 1985 to 1987. He has stood at the helm of elected city government since 1987 when he began his three terms as Mayor. During Harvey Curley's tenure as Mayor, he was responsible for the re-development of the southwest corner of Gratiot and Nine Mile, transforming that area into a thriving commercial strip. In addition, many Municipal Facility Construction Projects were developed under his leadership: the New Parks Garage at Public Works Complex, the New Municipal Court Building, and the New Community Center. Harvey Curly approached his public service with pride in his community, devotion to its continued improvement, enthusiasm, patience and a tireless commitment to projects small or large. It was always a pleasure to work alongside him on issues important to Eastpointe and the State of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mayor Harvey Curley for all that he has done to make Eastpointe a better place to live and work, and to send him every good wish for good health and happiness in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, Shays-Meehan is clear about voter guides. What the Doolittle amendment does is to essentially gut Shays-Meehan in terms of sham issue ads. The gentleman from California says he wants a bright line so only certain words would be covered. In first amendment instances, there are no bright lines in terms of free speech, that you can only use such words or you cannot. In terms of censorship, the Supreme Court standard does not have a bright line, allowing only this word or that word. What the gentleman from California would do would be to gut the heart of this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I read earlier an ad in a Senate race from the State of Washington paid for by the Democratic Party. Now an ad from the Republican Party in Kentucky in a Senate race. Voice: ``We all know Scotty Baesler voted to export thousands of Kentucky jobs to Mexico, what with that NAFTA trade deal.'' Voice of Mexican actor: ``Muchas gracias, Senor Baesler.'' Voice: ``But he also voted to give China special trade privileges, even though they're shutting out Kentucky-made products.'' In Chinese: ``Thank you, Scotty Baesler.'' ``And now he wants,'' the voice says, ``to give U.S. tax dollars to the U.N.'' In a multiple foreign language voice or voices, ``Thank you, Scotty Baesler.'' And then in writing on the screen, ``Tell Scotty Baesler to start putting Kentucky first.'' If it had said ``defeat Scotty Baesler'' it's under Federal regulations. Because that one word is left out, although the whole atmosphere of that ad is a campaign ad, it falls outside of Federal regulations. Express advocacy is the test and that is express advocacy, that ad. No one is accusing opponents of Shays-Meehan of being corrupt. They are defending a corrupting system. Sure the public does not run up and say to us, ``Vote for Shays-Meehan.'' And one reason is because they are cynical that this Congress will ever act. It is time for us to respond to that cynicism. It is time for us to act. Vote for Shays- Meehan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court said, and I quote, ``To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from current and potential officeholders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Of equal concern is the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements and the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions.'' Twenty years ago the main problem was unlimited individual contributions going for undisguised campaign ads. Today the problem is different. It is unlimited contributions from individuals and groups going for campaign ads that are disguised transparently as issue ads. So this is the real question. Will it take a Teapot Dome scandal to get action under this dome on campaign finance reform? The Annenberg study says the abuse of sham issue ads is growing. I read for my colleagues this campaign ad from last year: ``Linda Smith on education: I have decided the U.S. Department of Education is not necessary. That explains why Smith cosponsored a bill to eliminate the Department of Education, voted to cut Head Start and student loans, voted against testing standards to make schools accountable. Linda Smith even voted to slash safe and drug-free schools in half. Linda Smith puts her narrow political agenda ahead of our schools. Tell her to stop voting against kids.'' If the words had been used ``defeat Linda Smith,'' under our campaign laws, instead of the word ``tell'' which was used, that was clearly a campaign ad. Games played with language using the word ``tell'' instead of the word ``defeat'' should not thwart the law. Corruption by money of the democratic process is not freedom.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, during our summer recess, a City which I am proud to represent and in which I live, Royal Oak, lost one of its greatest and proudest sons, Ralph Conselyea. His business activities were centered there. So was his sense of community and they merged to benefit all of the citizens of Royal Oak. Its downtown is today so vital that often forgotten is its days of difficulties in the 60's and 70's. In those days, Ralph Conselyea whipped into action and joined in the purchase and renovation of key properties. His good works spread beyond downtown into every corner of the City-- through the Lions Club, the Goodfellows and many other groups. Ralph Conselyea for decades was considered ``Mr. Royal Oak.'' He was always willing to respond to requests for information and advice, and I was among the many who benefitted from his wisdom and kindly spirit. As we reconvene, it is fitting that we promptly take formal note of the lost felt by so many and to express sincerest condolences to his wife and the entire Conselyea family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I was absent on rollcall vote 384. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. Reluctant because I believe the underlying aim of its sponsors is a positive one. States and local communities have played an active role in efforts to express and implement their citizens' conscience on a number of vital social, moral and economic issues. I have been working actively for us to broaden our perspective on trade. As the nature of trade has changed, so has our need to broaden our view beyond the conventional, too-narrow focus. Trade is about more than just opening foreign countries to our goods and services. It is also about the ways in which countries regulate their labor markets as well as their capital markets, and the discussion of trade policy must take that fact into account. That debate also must include issues of human and environmental resources, as well as intellectual property. The trouble with the approach in this amendment is that it overreaches, as previous trade policy has underreached. The struggle to develop a new consensus on trade policies revolves around hammering out national trade policy. This does not mean there is no role for the States and local institutions. It does mean that it won't work if we end up with 50 or 150 different international trade policies. In the 50 year history of the GATT, including the more recent era of the WTO, the U.S. Government has never challenged or threatened to challenge a State or local law as violative of world trade agreements. In fact, on the rare occasions when this issue has arisen in the past, the administration has worked with State, local and foreign governments to reach out-of-court solutions. Indeed, in enacting the laws that implement the Uruguay Round agreements, we were very careful to establish mechanisms that would ensure a cooperative relationship between the Federal administration and State and local governments on international trade matters. For example, measures in the Uruguay Round agreements act include: A requirement that the U.S. Trade Representative establish a Federal State consultation process, including procedures for taking into account information and advice from States in formulating positions on matters that directly affect them; A requirement that USTR notify a State and consult with its legal officers when a foreign government complains about a law of the State; When a WTO dispute settlement panel holds a State law to be violative of WTO agreements, the USTR must ``consult with the State concerned in an effort to develop a mutually agreeable response . . . and shall make every effort to ensure that the State concerned is involved in the development of the United States position regarding the response.'' In short, existing law is designed to bring State and local governments into the process of formulating trade policies that directly affect them, while preserving the Federal Government as the central decisionmaking hub. This division of labor facilitates our ability to deal with our foreign trading partners and encourages that trade policy makers take into consideration the interests of all Americans. I understand the desire to send a message on the shortcomings of American trade policy. We also need to consider the form of our message since we are legislators and the consequences of a particular proposal if it were to become law must be taken into account. The exact language of this amendment says, in sum, that never, under any circumstances, could funds under the act be used by the Government to participate in any legal action, brought by itself or by any other party, where it was argued that a State or local action contravened obligations of the national Government under specified comprehensive international agreements. This kind of an absolute handcuff on Federal power has been urged in earlier decades on other vital matters. As we fight for a stronger, broader, more relevant American national trade policy, we need to remember the role of State and local initiatives. But we cannot retrogress to an article of confederation in the vital field of national and international economic/trade issues. Accordingly, I will vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one word three times, reckless, reckless, reckless. That is what the Republicans are doing. Fiscal discipline guards our prosperity here, and they are turning their backs on it. The choice this year is clear. As Chairman Greenspan said, let the surpluses run, pay down the debt, or let the deficits grow again. The Republicans are back at it, letting the deficits grow again. And even if the budget assumptions are correct, and those assumptions are wrong, there would be no money left to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has a Social Security plan that would use the same trillion dollars that he is using for the tax cut. Look, the choice in 8 or 9 or 10 years would be this. Continue the tax cuts that are in this bill and explode the deficit or let the tax cuts expire and that would be the biggest tax increase in American history, $175 billion a year, if we let this bill be sunsetted. The Republicans like to talk about the biggest American tax increase in history in 1993, $275 billion over 5 years. This would be, under their plan, if there is a sunset, a $175 billion tax increase in a year. Lastly, this bill is grossly unfair. If the Republicans shed any tears here, they are crocodile tears for middle and low-income taxpayers. Here is what Deloitte & Touche says: A couple with an annual income of $50,000 with 2 children would get a tax cut of $265; a couple with $200,000 would get a tax cut of $2,720; and, look, the millionaire would receive a tax cut of $9,861 compared to the family of $50,000, $265. It is not only excessive it is grossly unfair. Let us turn it down.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the truth squad needs to work overtime here. The chairman of the committee has said this bill secures Social Security and Medicare, and a subcommittee chairman said it saves Social Security forever. That is eternally untrue.

Mr. LEVIN. No, I will finish, and then I will yield.

Mr. LEVIN. It is untrue. The lockbox saves what is already coming in. It does nothing for the future. What the Republican bill does is take money from the future to apply it now. Medicare is in jeopardy. It will run out of money in 2015. The Republicans say give back some of the money. We Democrats are in lower interest rates. The Democratic program is also trying to save some money to assure Social Security and Medicare. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said his bill is a breath of relief. What it is in the future is a hurricane of red ink. The Republicans were wrong in 1981, they were wrong in 1993, and they are wrong today. Reject this reckless bill.