Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) our distinguished colleague and a member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time there is remaining on all sides.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57. Our relationship with China indeed faces many major challenges. The question in each case is whether using this annual review to withdraw NTR will confront the challenges. I want to focus today on two of these aspects, our trade relationships and our human rights relationships. First is the trade. Clearly, there are major problems to confront in our trade relationship with China. The large and growing current trade deficit; how we integrate a huge economy that remains nonmarket-based in many vital respects and that does not operate within a clear rule of law into a world trading order based on free market rules and the rule of law. Neither of these problems is easily solved. The current trade deficit results, in part, because China restricts market access and because it exploits and manipulates its nonmarket mechanisms, both capital and labor. It is imperative we address these problems in negotiations with the Chinese in the bilateral WTO access talks. Some were addressed before the negotiations broke off, but others were not. And they were reasons the U.S. could not sign off on an agreement with the Chinese a few months ago. The answer on key trade issues is not to withdraw NTR today but to insist on clearly adequate terms and conditions before NTR is granted on a permanent basis. Enactment of today's resolution would bring further trade negotiations with the Chinese to a halt, to a complete halt. It would indeed lower our trade deficit. It would do so by terminating most of our trade rather than by addressing the structural issues, issues which are helping to create the trade deficit today, which must be addressed as we look at the longer run when China will increasingly be a competitor as well as a consumer of American made products and services, and issues which must, as I said, be fully addressed before permanent NTR is even considered. Now let me, if I might, address human rights issues, which indeed must be addressed. Recent events in China demonstrate that the U.S. must bring sustained pressure on China on human rights. The recent suppression of followers of Falun Gong demonstrates once again that, however more open in some respects Chinese society is today compared to a decade ago, and it is, when it comes to any perceived threat to communist authoritarian control, the power of central authority will trample individual rights. The problem with the use of this annual debate as a main tool is that it involves an instrument, withdrawal of NTR, which, absent a cataclysmic event, everybody knows in the end will not be invoked. On the one hand, I agree with those who say that withdrawal of an NTR is not a sufficiently relevant or effective mechanism to press ahead on human rights. On the other hand, I agree that the operation of a normal trade economic relationship will not likely by itself transform China on human rights and Democratic values. In a word, we need to find an alternative instrument. I realize it is not easy to find such, but I urge that we have not worked hard enough in its search. We debate once a year and then mainly wait for the next year. We, the administration and the Congress, do not spend sustained time trying to persuade other nations to join themselves with us on human rights issues. There is no certain answer. But quite clearly, the withdrawal of NTR is not, partly because idle threats rarely create much, if any, pressure. So, in both respects, both as to trade and human rights, a ``no'' vote on this resolution is in order. But, and I say this with the full depth of conviction, it must not be the end of this work on trade and human rights but a stimulus to further vigorous efforts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), an expert on trade matters.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). (Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. Speaker, the trigger. It is not a trigger; it is a shot in the dark at the last minute. Let me tell my colleagues why. It is not tied to the debt but to interest on the debt, gross interest, that can go up as trust funds increase. There also can be a perverse result. If there is a recession, there would be no tax cut. And then when we come out of a recession, a tax cut. It applies only to the income tax, not to the other tax reductions. So what it applies to is the least regressive. One-third goes to 1 percent, another one-third goes to the 9 percent highest income earners in this country, and only one-third goes to 90 percent of taxpayers. It is already terrible enough in terms of its regressivity. One last thing. According to the CBO, the debt subject to the limit does not decline until 2006, and that assumes no tax cut. So if we look at this trigger, it may result in no income tax reduction across the board through the first 10 years. It just does not make any sense. Secondly, I want to show my colleagues this chart, the explosion in the second 10 years of a $3 trillion revenue loss. That is the same period when Social Security surpluses begin to fall, when Medicare runs out of money in 2015, when non-Social Security budget surpluses begin to fall. This is reckless, reckless, reckless. It sells out our ability to act on Social Security and Medicare for the long run. Vote a resounding ``no'' on this bill and support the motion to recommit as well as the Rangel substitute bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first of all I do not know if the speaker is here. Unless he is reading a bill that we have not seen, there is no reference to the earnings test. I think that indicates the sloppiness with which this matter is being confronted. We have changes at the last minute. I want to comment on that. But before I do that, I want to say this. We should be giving back our constituents some money in the form of a long-term guarantee for their Social Security and Medicare and you do not do that one iota. And we should also be giving back constituents their money in terms of really paying down the national debt, and you do essentially lip service to that; lip service to that. You created this national debt, at least you ought to get together with us and pay it down. Listen, I was here when they passed those budgets. Look, this proposal of the Republicans would reduce the revenues by almost 800 billion in 10 years and 3 trillion in the second 10 years, and I want my colleagues to think about this: The second 10 years, according to the actuaries, those are the exact years when the Medicare and the Social Security surplus begins to decline, and so does the on-budget surplus. So essentially, when those revenues begin to decline, they take $3 trillion out of the budget. It will not work. What they are doing, the Republicans, is playing for the next election, and what we are doing is planning for the next generation for Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to comment on the amendment of my friend, and I much admire him, and I do not like to get in between him and his wife, but his wife, I think, is right on this one, and let me express why. When I was in the foreign aid agency in the Carter years, an assistant administrator, we wrestled with this issue of how to make real these, not these, but the AID projects in Africa and other places and not have them simply go for a lot of infrastructure that was unrelated to the basic needs of the people in the country, and I think that is what the gentleman from Illinois is trying to say here. The problem is that the way OPIC is structured this would not work, and also I think, and we need to work on this, is restructure these amendments. We have to be sure that we are not taking away the prerogatives of the country in whose domain the project is. Now a lot of these infrastructure projects that are insured through OPIC have to get the permits, the approvals, in one form or another from within the country, and I think the impact of the gentleman's amendment really is for us to dictate further than we want to what African nations think is something useful for themselves. Also, these 40 percent, and I will not call them quotas; I think what the gentleman is trying to do is to get it down to the grass roots. I think it is a good purpose, but with these stringent numbers and percentages I think we are going to tie up investments the gentleman would not. So I think the better course is not to pass this amendment, but to work together to try to make sure OPIC funds go where they should.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition. The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations, including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned, there is a provision that the President must certify that any product that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP. The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights, including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a different standard applied, and I will fight for that. I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core worker rights.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe I would be among the first to acknowledge there were problems arising out of globalization, and we need to attend to them. But the worst thing we can do is kind of take a sledgehammer and somewhat blindly whack at them. They are more serious than that. It is true there was a 2-year moratorium. It expired. And since then this fund has been used. It has been used in several instances. I think there is evidence it has been used constructively and effectively in the interest of U.S. workers and families. If that is not true, let us have a full debate about it. There needs to be oversight. Those on the Committee on House Oversight should be diligent. But let us not come here somewhat out of the blue and make a major change in policy when the evidence of the last couple of years is that this may well be a useful fund. It is not giving a billion dollars to another country. These are loans that are guaranteed that have been invariably, or almost so, paid back.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am coming right after that last 1-minute. It is pure nonsense. This $864 billion bill that was reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means last night is fiscally irresponsible. It sacrifices the future of Social Security and also of Medicare on the altar of that kind of political hype from the Republicans. Let me read from a Republican, his comment, the gentleman from Delaware. ``I am not exactly sure in all of this,'' and I quote, ``how Medicare is going to be solved. And there is no consideration for debt retirement; virtually no consideration for emergency spending. This is all very problematical. The size of it creates some real problems.'' And then he goes on to say that it is a political statement. It is indeed a political statement. It gambles with the future of Social Security and it gambles with the future of Medicare. Look, that is not conservatism, it is fiscal radicalism. We need to continue on the path of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Joan Stefanski who today retires from her position of Director of the Ferndale Chamber of Commerce after twenty-two years of distinguished service to the Ferndale community. She has been instrumental in coalition-building in the City of Ferndale. A unique contribution has been her efforts in building relationships between business and the homeowners of Ferndale. A familiar scene were the block parties where business men and women would volunteer along with the residents. Joan has that special skill of bringing together people of diverse interests and abilities, and encouraging a partnership between them. Years ago, the assumption by many was that Ferndale was a city in decline. Many citizens felt otherwise and Joan Stefanski was among the key activists. She played an important role in business development in the city, bringing about a re-blossoming of Ferndale. An example was the decision of Credit Union One to remain in Ferndale, thus helping to keep Ferndale commercially viable, and set the tone for other companies to bring their business to the city. Today, we see downtown Ferndale moving ahead rapidly. Today, we see the neighborhoods increasingly sought after as a place of residence. As a Congressman, I have thoroughly enjoyed the many years of our working relationship. Whether it was trying to find a reasonable and real solution to the Ferndale Post Office difficulties, bringing together people to form the Southwest Oakland Coalition for the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse, or attending Chamber meetings, among many endeavors, my staff and I have always found working with Joan to be most productive and satisfying. Joan Stefanski has also been an unassuming and highly effective pioneer in breaking down barriers to women in the business world. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in wishing Joan Stefanski and her husband good health and happiness as they move to their retirement home on the west side of Michigan and in honoring her for over 20 years of exceptional and committed service to the community of Ferndale.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 28, 1999, a large group of people from a wide variety of walks of life will gather to spend some time with, and pay tribute to, a distinguished citizen of Michigan-- Frank D. Stella. In many cases, those in attendance will be meeting one another for the first time. They may have little in common in terms of their occupations or their political affiliations and they will come from virtually all ethnic and religious backgrounds. What they will have most in common is their friend, Frank Stella, the warmth of his friendship, and the depth of his humanity that each has witnessed over the years. Frank Stella has been involved in a unique breadth of community activities, incessantly finding time from his highly successful entrepreneurship as Chairman and CEO of F.D. Stella Products, which he founded after his return from service in World War II. The following are just a sample of his activities over four decades: Board of Trustees at the University of Detroit-Mercy; Chairman, Merger Committee, Mt. Carmel Mercy Hospital and Samaritan Hospital; Chairman, Wayne State University Advisory Board; Board of Directors and Board of Trustees, Michigan Cancer Foundation; Board of Directors, Hispanics Organized to Promote Entrepreneurs (H.O.P.E., Inc.); Board of Directors, Detroit Renaissance; Board of Directors, New Detroit, Inc.; Board of Trustees of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, DC; National Committee for the Vatican Judaica Exhibition; Chairman, Board of Directors and Executive Committee, Save Orchestra Hall, Inc.; Board of Directors, Michigan Opera Theatre; Board of Directors of the Detroit Round Table (Christians and Jews); Board of Trustees, WTVS/Channel 56--Detroit Public Television; and Member of the Board and Executive Committee, Detroit Symphony Orchestra Hall. I have been particularly privileged to work with Frank Stella in an arena that embodies his love of life--music. He was instrumental in the efforts to save Orchestra Hall. That magnificent and historic amphitheater for the sound of music was threatened by a wrecker's ball. Frank Stella jumped into action with others and today its unique acoustics spread the joy of classical and other music, instead of being replaced by a proposed fast food establishment. He also has been instrumental in the development of the Michigan Opera Theater. Frank Stella's life has been a testament to the American truth. Diversity is a source of strength. Pride in one's heritage empowers our nation, especially when it is blended with an appreciation for the heritage of all others. On June 28, hundreds of friends will gather--in Frank Stella's style--with informality, no long speeches, no pretenses, some good food and exuberant cheer. Proceeds from the dinner will not go for fancy personal gifts but to help others, the next generation, through the F.D. Stella Scholarship Fund at the National Italian American Foundation. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to enter these words into the Congressional Record. It is so fitting they be placed in the proceedings of this institution, which embodies Frank Stella's faith in American democracy and is built on the kind of political activity in which he has participated but which in the end can rise above all partisanship.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, genocide should never be appeased. The lesson of Kosovo is that it does not have to be. NATO has shown that it is willing and able to keep the peace in Europe. We have stopped the genocide. Now we have to return the Kosovars to their homes in security and help them rebuild their lives in this troubled land. We should salute our men and women in uniform. We should also salute our men and women in leadership positions, both military and civilian. We should be standing here applauding with our hands, not placing handcuffs on our President and our military leaders. I favor continued Congressional oversight. There are plenty of hurdles yet to overcome and it is time for Congress to come together and forge the policies needed to advance our goals in Kosovo. This is not the time for rear-guard actions here on the Floor to make it more difficult to overcome the challenges ahead in the Balkans. I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment and to reject the Souder amendment. It is time for peacekeeping. It is time to stop the war on the President on this issue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 435, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999. The bill was passed by the House on February 9 of this year by a vote of 414 to 0. On May 27, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The Senate made only two amendments to the bill, neither of which should create concern for us in the House. The first is that 8 dyes were deleted from the bill's duty suspension provisions. These eight provisions were not sought by Members of the House. Accordingly, their deletion under a compromise agreement in the other body should not present any concerns for us. The second change is to make retroactive to May 15 provisions for ensuring the entry of the personal effects of athletes participating in the Women's Road Cup Soccer Tournament, the Special Olympics, and the 2000 Olympics. As the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) mentioned, H.R. 435 is a bipartisan effort representing the collective input of many Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration. The U.S. Customs Service, the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. ITC all have reviewed and commented on this bill to ensure that no domestic producers or other private sector interests would be adversely affected. Public input also has been incorporated into this bill. The provisions of H.R. 435 fall into three categories. First, the bill makes certain clerical corrections to the trade laws, such as amending and updating outdated provisions; Second, the bill contains 112 various duty suspensions and tariff reductions. These suspensions and reductions relate to duties on certain anti-HIV, AIDS and cancer drugs and duties on chemicals, raw materials, and miscellaneous equipment. Suspension of these duties reduces prices for consumers and improves the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers by reducing their input costs. H.R. 435 also allows for the duty-free entry of equipment and personal effects of participants in the 1999 Special Olympics, the Women's World Cup, and the 2002 Winter Olympics. Let me just say a word about the efforts here. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to see this provision become law, including the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), another member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), and others, such as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Third, the bill includes additional tariff and trade provisions, such as authorization of custom user fees to maintain existing preclearance services for air and sea passengers arriving from Canada, the Caribbean, and Mexico. These authorizations are essential to maintaining the preclearance services that expedite the processing of passengers at our airports and seaports. Miscellaneous trade provisions include extension of normal trade relations with Mongolia. The small revenue loss resulting from a few provisions in the bill require an offset to meet budgetary requirements. This cost is offset by a provision in the bill that clarifies the tax treatment of certain corporate restructuring transactions where assets are transferred subject to a liability. The tax treatment under current law of these transactions is uncertain, and some taxpayers are restructuring transactions to take advantage of this uncertainty. In some cases, taxpayers are claiming tax bases in excess of the value of assets with resulting excessive depreciation deductions. The provision in the bill would eliminate the uncertainty and tax these transactions by reference to their underlying economics. The provisions of this bill have been thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they are noncontroversial and do not adversely affect U.S. consumers and U.S. industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support its final passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing along with my colleagues Representatives Houghton, Matsui, Sam Johnson, Herger, English, and Crane to introduce our bill, ``The International Tax Simplification for American Competitiveness Act of 1999.'' There has been general agreement that the current U.S. rules for taxing international income are unduly complex. This legislation addresses these problems by rationalizing and simplifying the international tax provisions of the U.S. tax laws by simplifying foreign tax credits; encouraging exports; providing incentives for performance of research and developing in the United States; enhancing U.S. competitiveness in other industrialized countries; and minimizing revenue loss. Our current tax policies are out of synch with our trade policies and the realities of the global marketplace. In the early 1960s, U.S. companies focused their manufacturing and marketing strategies in the United States, which at the time was the largest consumer market in the world. U.S. companies generally could achieve economies of scale and rapid growth-selling exclusively into the domestic market. In the early 1960s, foreign competition in U.S. markets generally was inconsequential. The picture today is completely different. First, U.S. companies now face strong competition at home. Since 1980, foreign direct investment in the United States has increased by a factor of six (from $216 billion to $752 billion in 1997), and imports have tripled as a share of GDP from an average of 3.2 percent in the 1960s to an average of over 9.6 percent over the 1990 97 period. Second, foreign markets are more attractive today than they were in the past. For example, from 1986 to 1997, foreign sales of S&P 500 companies grew 10 percent a year, compared to domestic sales growth of just 3 percent annually. Foreign markets also afford increasingly attractive investment opportunities. From the perspective of the 1960s, there was little apparent reason for U.S. companies to direct resources to penetrating foreign markets, since U.S. companies should achieve growth and profit levels that were the envy of their competitors with minimal foreign operations. By contrast, in today's economy, competitive success requires U.S. companies to execute global marketing and manufacturing strategies with the result that provisions of our tax system designed when foreign operations were viewed as presumptively tax-motivated have become increasingly outmoded. It is because of the great changes in global trade that we involved ourselves in this issue. The current rules guiding our international tax policies were written at a time when the focus was on preventing tax avoidance, not on promoting international competitiveness. Our main goal this year is to build on the successes that we had in the 105th Congress. This will be our fourth bill in this area, and our third with our Senate counterparts, Senators Hatch and Baucus. It includes some new provisions, but in many ways reflects the reality that much has been done to correct some of the problems facing U.S. industries in this arena, but there is a great deal of work left to be done. Our first order of business is to simplify the international tax regime to ensure American competitiveness both at home and abroad. The tax provisions that we are introducing today will significantly affect the national welfare and will enhance the participation of the United States in the global economy of the 21st century. I look forward to working with my House and Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation into law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let us get to the reality here. The majority party has passed a budget resolution that places this Congress in a box, and they do not know how to get out of it. So what is the tactic today? It is to bring the so-called lockbox here. As to Social Security funds, that is easy to get out of. All anybody has to do is bring a bill up here and put a label on it that it is Social Security reform, and the lockbox is unlocked. The gentleman before me talked about, we must not spend Social Security surplus monies. What did my colleagues do within the last few weeks? The majority party here loaded onto an emergency bill provisions unrelated to emergencies. Where did the money come from? From Social Security surplus funds. So why are my colleagues so blatant 1 week and so pious the next week? The public wants some consistency. That is what it wants. What it wants is reform, not a bunch of rhetoric. What it wants is something palpable, not political. They will see through this. I mean, sure, we are going to vote for this, because this is an effort to try to get us into a position of appearing to be preserving Social Security, though it really does not do it very well. I heard a previous speaker talk about Medicare and how important it was to preserve Medicare funds. This lockbox does not do it. When we look inside, there is no Medicare money in it, with or without a key. So this is the challenge to the majority, to try to get out of the box that the resolution on the budget placed us in and to do something real about Social Security reform, get a bill in front of the Committee on Ways and Means that has the support of the majority leadership, not its covert effort to undermine Social Security reform, and let us get with it and let us do the same as to Medicare. Let us get with it. People do not want devices like boxes, with or without keys. What they want is legislation. Let us get with it. Let us do away with the tricks, and let us get on with concrete legislation, to do what the American people want, preserve Social Security for 75 years, and reform Medicare so that my kid and my grandchildren know it will be there for them.