Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1664, the Emergency Steel, Oil and Gas Guarantee Loan Act of 1999. I want to address my remarks in particular to the part of this bill that concerns the steel industry. The steel industry took a drubbing in 1998. Global overcapacity, combined with a dramatic drop in world demand for steel due to the Asian financial crisis, led to a surge of steel imports into the United States. Prices dropped dramatically, 10,000 workers were laid off, and three steel companies were forced into bankruptcy. Earlier this year, we searched for a legislative solution to this crisis. A majority of this body voted for the imposition of quotas on steel imports into the United States. That solution would have violated our WTO obligations and allowed retaliation by our trading partners. For that reason, I opposed the quota bill. It has since been defeated in the Senate. I have urged a different solution, a more long-term solution that would help not only the steel industry, but also other industries that may be vulnerable to the shifts that are bound to occur in our increasingly globalized economy. The proposal that I favor is reform of the anti-surge provision of our trade laws that will make that provision meaningful as a remedy to the harm or threat that may be caused by suddenly increasing imports. I will continue to work for reform of the anti-surge law. In the short-to-medium term, I believe that the loan guarantees proposed by this bill will help the U.S. steel industry to recover from the harm it suffered over the past year. By making guarantees available, this bill will enable companies to obtain financing that might otherwise be out of reach. Obtaining financing on reasonable terms will not fully compensate for the damage done by the surges of 1998. But it will help these companies and their workers a little bit towards getting back on their feet. Further, this bill contains mechanisms to ensure that the cost to the government will be minimal: The guarantee program will be administered by a Board consisting of the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Chairman of the SEC; The total amount of outstanding guarantees is limited to $1 billion, the guarantees to any single company are limited to $250 million, and the amount of any guarantee is limited to 85 percent of the loan principal; The loans guaranteed by this program will have to be secured by property providing reasonable assurance of repayment; Participants in the program will have to agree to audit by the GAO; All loans will have to be payable no later than December 31, 2005; and No guarantees may be extended after December 31, 2001. As I said before, the long-term response to the steel surge of 1998 must be reform of our anti-surge law. There will be other surges in our future, and we must be prepared. In the short term, loan guarantees are a sound means of lending a hand to an industry that is at the foundation of our economy and that has suffered from a massive surge of low-priced imports. Accordingly, I will vote ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 1664, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 and in support of the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment with respect to Vietnam. In considering this resolution, I ask my colleagues to bear a few matters in mind. First, today's vote is not a vote on whether to give normal trade relations, NTR, to Vietnam. For that to happen, the United States first must enter into a bilateral commercial agreement with Vietnam and that agreement must be approved by Congress. Second, if we reject this resolution, as we did last year, the result would be a continuation of Vietnam's eligibility to participate in financing programs, those administered by OPIC, the Export-Import Bank, and the Department of Agriculture. Those programs support U.S. exports to and investments in Vietnam and thereby enable U.S. businesses and workers to compete in Vietnam with businesses and workers from other countries. The programs have been available since the President first waived Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam in April of last year. To cut them off now would be to pull the rug from under U.S. producers of goods and services. It would be a setback in our effort to improve U.S. relations with Vietnam and to encourage the development of a market economy in that country. By contrast, continuing those programs for another year represents a small but important step forward. Importantly, it should bolster our efforts to encourage the development of the bases of a free market and rule of law in Vietnam. Third, our trade negotiators have been negotiating a trade agreement with Vietnam, which is a prerequisite to giving Vietnam NTR. On July 25, the U.S. trade representative announced that an agreement in principle had been reached. She also stated that the administration ``will now consult with Congress and others, and work toward completion of a formal Bilateral Commercial Agreement and a mutual grant of normal trade relations.'' We look forward to those consultations which would give us an opportunity to review negotiations to date and other trade issues and any other additional issues relating to trade of concern to us in the Congress. At the June 17 Subcommittee on Trade hearing on relations with Vietnam, I cited a number of important issues that have to be resolved before we can agree to full normalization. Of particular concern is the pace of economic reform in Vietnam. They are taking steps to reform the economy, including steps to root out corruption, enforcement of intellectual property rights, and improvement of the reliability of government-published data. Another area of concern that I mentioned at that time is the potentially disturbing effects that Vietnam's labor market structure, including the exploitation of child labor, may have on competition. Labor market issues are trade issues. Progress on each of the foregoing fronts is necessary to ensure that the benefits of U.S. businesses and workers from normalization with commercial relations with Vietnam are real. Our ambassador to Vietnam and our former distinguished colleague, Pete Peterson, testified before the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means. He stated, based on his active work as ambassador, as follows. I urge all to listen to the conclusions or the findings, the experiences of our ambassador: ``Vietnam has eased restrictions on emigration,'' he said. ``Over 500,000 people have left Vietnam for the U.S. under the Orderly Departure Program.'' Next: ``Vietnam continues to cooperate fully with the U.S. on locating Americans missing in action.'' Next: ``Last fall, the Government of Vietnam released several prisoners of conscience.'' He also said: ``Tolerance of religious worship,'' far, far from perfect, ``is improving.'' ``In 1998,'' he also mentioned, ``there were 60 independently organized worker strikes protesting unfair wages and working conditions. ``The Government is in the process of writing legislation to protect the freedom of association.'' And lastly, that ``the United States,'' he says, under his leadership, ``continues to engage with Vietnam in a very frank dialogue on human rights. The most recent round in this dialogue took place at the assistant secretary level in mid-July.'' Members of Congress will be watching for further progress closely. For now, let us support the accomplishments that have been made to date toward normalization of our relationship with Vietnam. Let us take a cautious step forward by continuing the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. In short, let us keep intact the groundwork on which a meaningful and enduring relationship can be built. Support the waiver. Vote against H.J. Res. 58. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very capable and distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the subject at hand. When the Republican leadership was trying to find the votes for the bill, the majority leader said this: ``You always know how many horses are in the herd, it is just a question of how long it takes to get them into the barn.'' Well, I hope that some of the horses that went into the barn will take a second look and get out of this barn before we get a roaring deficit once again that would burn it down. The proponents of this bill like to talk about a $792 billion cost, but look at the second 10 years. It would be $3 trillion, $3 trillion. And the timing could not be worse, as this chart shows, because at the time there would be an explosion, an explosion, in terms of revenue loss that same second 10-year period, the Social Security surplus begins to fall. During the same period, Medicare runs out of money, 2015. And during that same period, non- Social Security budget surpluses begin to fall. Look, there could not be anything worse in timing. But to make it even worse, the projected surpluses do not even include recognition that there may be emergency supplementals. Listen, I say to the Republicans, to a fellow Republican, Alan Greenspan, who serves in a nonpartisan position at the moment. Here is what he has said about the Republican bill. ``Hold off for a while,'' ``the timing is not right for your bill,'' ``allow the surpluses to run for a while.'' The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means refers to the 1997 tax bill, $275 over 10 years. This is a $3 trillion tax cut over 20 years. This is a ridiculous, a reckless, and an irresponsible proposal. It would return our country to the days of borrow and spend. I heard the chairman of our committee say we can do it all; it is easy. We can do everything. Do not worry, be happy. Well, if this law ever were enacted, this country would be very sad. The Republican Party is becoming the spendthrift party. The spendthrift party. This is reckless, it is irresponsible, let us vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Police Chief Albert Sadow who retired from Hazel Park, Michigan's Police Department on July 14, 1999, bringing closure to 38 years of distinguished public service. Chief Sadow's career with the City of Hazel Park dates back to 1961 when he worked for the Water and Sewer Department at the hourly rate of $1.67. In addition to holding the civilian posts of Assistant City Manager and Personnel Director, Chief Sadow rose through the ranks of the Police Department from Patrolman to Sergeant to Lieutenant, and finally to Chief in 1985. Under Chief Sadow's leadership, the City of Hazel Park profited from many positive changes and innovations in public safety. Through the acquisition of state and federal funds, Chief Sadow brought the Hazel Park Police Department into the 21st Century by installing video display terminals, video cameras, radar units and state-of-the-art computer systems in every police cruiser. Other programs instituted during Chief Sadow's tenure include the Southeast Oakland Crime Suppression Task Force, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), the K-9 unit, Motor Vehicle Carrier and Bicycle Patrol. In his 38 years of service, Albert Sadow never used a sick day, and has been a tireless, and dedicated public servant. Indeed, Hazel Park is as better and safer place thanks to Chief Sadow. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing my friend, Albert Sadow, good health and happiness as he and his wife, Virginia, trade in his police car for their motor home, and spend their retirement visiting their three grown children and enjoying life together.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut was so eloquent, I hesitate to say anything. We fought to integrate family planning and health programs with the support of a number of people in this place. Now what you are doing is standing up and saying tear them apart. The gentlewoman is 100 percent right. Let us defeat this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, in the late 1970s I was in charge of administering the International Voluntary Population programs of this country. The big battle in those days was whether population programs should be integrated so that programs relating to family planning be integrated with health, with programs relating to the role of women, with programs relating to maternal child health, also programs relating to the role of men in the family. There were those who wanted to build a brick wall between population programs, family planning programs, and other programs, including health programs. Those who believed in integration won that battle. Those who thought that the only answer was availability of contraceptives lost that battle. In the last decade, more and more the world has come to accept the interrelationship between family planning programs and other population programs, including maternal child health programs. Well, here we are now with an amendment that tries to build a brick wall between population programs and child survival programs. The truth of the matter is that that wall is as fallacious as the wall some tried to build 20 years ago between population and health programs. We are doing this in reverse. The spacing of children is a program that deeply relates to the health of children, period. The evidence is clear on that. It is a dreadful mistake to now say that child survival should not include anything that relates, for example, to birth spacing. Let me read from a statement by CARE and Save the Children. And by the way, if any organizations know about child survival, it is CARE and Save the Children. They say, this latest amendment ``fails to appreciate both the integrated nature of maternal and child health services and the important role of birth spacing in improving child survival. Imposing this restriction would be impractical from a program implementation standpoint and would undermine rather than enhance access to this small but critical component of child survival programs,'' signed by the president of CARE and the president of Save the Children. This is truly a misguided amendment. I do not think anybody is saying that child survival funds are going in large numbers to programs relating, for example, to the spacing of children. Let us take a second look. This issue is not one related to abortion, for example. Indeed birth spacing cuts down the number of abortions, the evidence is clear. This is a question of whether we look at programs in a comprehensive way or try to chop them in pieces and build walls between them. Do not do it. It is a mistake. There is no evidence of abuse. I do not know any organization that cares about kids internationally that is supporting this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could we be informed of the time on all sides.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, by a previous agreement, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I feel deeply about the outstanding issues with China. We have had, indeed, a healthy debate. These are the right issues. Unfortunately, this resolution is the wrong answer. I want to talk about trade and human rights. We have to be concerned about the imbalance of trade as shown on this chart. We have to be concerned about how we integrate a still nonmarket economy and one that is not based on the rules of law into a system that is based on the rule of law and on free market economy rules. We have to worry about that integration and how it is going to occur. I very much disagree with those who think it is easy, that we should have just signed on the dotted line when Premier Zhu was here. There were outstanding issues that needed to be resolved, both in terms of market access and also in terms of the role of capital markets and labor markets in China when it is still not anything close to a market- based society. How are we doing that? The best hope is to negotiate these issues in WTO accession by China. That is the best way to do it. Are we there yet? No. Can we get there? Perhaps. If we do not, I will vote ``no'' on permanent NTR. If we make more progress, I could vote ``yes''. But look, face it, all of our concern about market issues, about the imbalance here, all of our hopes to, in a rather soon fashion, address these issues will be pulled away from us if we were to pass this resolution. China accession, WTO accession negotiations would come to a careening halt, not only now, but for the foreseeable future. We have got to do the hard work on trade. I want to say a word about human rights. I feel deeply about this, too. One of my family entered China the day of Tiananmen Square. But, look, this discussion every year is not moving the ball forward. Everybody knows that, if we were to pass this resolution, it would not pass the Senate. If it were ever to pass the Senate, it would be vetoed by the President. We have got to do the hard work on human rights beyond this annual discussion. So, look, the issues are the correct ones. But we need more than symbolism. We need more than symbolism. We need to do the hard work every day, day-to-day, on these trade issues and human rights issues. In that sense, this resolution is a diversion. I hope out of this discussion will come a dedication to do WTO China right in the interest of American workers and businesses and on human rights to every day find new mechanisms to express ourselves. We do not take ourselves seriously enough when we devote ourselves only once in a year. This is an every-year job on trade. It is an every-day job on trade. It is an every-year job on human rights. It is an every-day job on human rights. Let us roll up our sleeves and do more than symbolism. I urge that we vote ``no'' on this resolution and then get busy solving the trade and human rights issues that are embedded in our present relationship with China.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, by prearrangement, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)