Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the objective of H.R. 1833 to provide the U.S. Customs Service with the resource it needs to safeguard our borders and to put a stop to the spread of child pornography on-line. The men and women of the U.S. Customs Service perform vital functions with respect both to law enforcement and preserving the integrity of U.S. trade with foreign nations there on the front line. Much of this bill is devoted to authorizing the appropriation of funds for the acquisition of sophisticated narcotics detection equipment by the Customs Service. Ironically, however, Section 123 (b) would cut the pay of some of the very people who will be operating that equipment. The current pay structure for Customs inspectors and officers was put into place in 1993. It was designed to reflect the unusual demands of inspectors' and officers' jobs, the odd hours, the unpredictability of schedules, the physical safety risk. Under this system, if a majority of the hours in an inspector officer's shift falls within the window from 3 p.m. to 8 a.m., the inspector officer is paid at a premium rate for the shift. 1833 would change it. Let me just give my colleagues an example. For example, take the Customs inspector who regularly works the 3 a.m. to 11 a.m. shift. Assuming that that inspector earns $19.25 per hour as base pay, his or her premium pay under the current system is $154 per week. Under H.R. 1833, the premium pay would be reduced by $96.25 per week, and assuming that shift would work throughout the year, it would amount to a reduction in pay of $5,000 a year. Why this provision? It was introduced without adequate consideration of the adverse impact it would have on actual Customs inspectors and officers. The sponsors of this provision relied on a report by the Inspector General that did nothing more than calculate the absolute increase in night pay differential over a 3-year period since enactment of the current arrangement. The report did not study the cause of that increase, nor did it purport to find that that increase was unjustified. It was simply an accounting of the size of the increase. So what happens? The majority decides to bring this bill under suspension, with no ability for us to present an amendment. This is a distortion of the suspension process. The chair of the subcommittee and others have said this passed unanimously. True, after an amendment was introduced to strike it, it was debated. We lost it on a straight party vote, but we had a chance to raise it. What the majority is doing here is putting forth a bill that is good in almost all of its provisions and tying in a provision that is not justified and, I think, is not justifiable. They essentially trapped the minority, saying if you want to vote against a bill that is generally good because of one provision and it is a serious one, go ahead and do it. Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship should have some meaning in this place. There is no excuse whatsoever for this procedure. It was tried last session, the same trick was tried, and what happened? The bill died in the Senate because of provisions that are not related to the important work of the Customs force and had nothing to do with child pornography, which we obviously must be very concerned about. This is not a tax bill. There is no reason to have this bill brought on suspension or in any other way that prevents an amendment. Mr. Speaker, we talk about common sense. Common sense and common decency in a legislative body mean giving people a chance to present an amendment and debating it. This is not a defensible procedure. I suggest that we vote ``aye,'' because the bill, in all but one of its major provisions, is a strong bill that we should pass. But I just want the majority here to understand that we resent this procedure. There is no reason for it. It undermines the bipartisanship that the majority sometimes says it believes in. We will do what happened last time. We will march over to the Senate and ask it to extricate this House from an unfair procedure. My colleagues may think they are being politically clever, but they are going to pay for it in terms of feelings between the majority and the minority.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. The House should move quickly to approve the urgently needed funding to continue NATO's military operations against Slobodan Milosevic's forces in Kosovo. In addition, the conference report contains emergency funds to assist the Kosovar refugees who are the innocent victims of Milosevic's aggression. Finally, this legislation includes long overdue disaster relief for the Central American countries that were devastated last year by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges. Although I will vote for the bill, I want to state for the record that I strongly oppose the spending offsets contained in the conference report. It is my understanding that we have offset only about ten percent of this bill and of that ten percent, the lion's share will be financed on the backs of our nation's working poor. I am particularly concerned abut the $1.25 billion rescission in funding for the food stamp program. We have seen disturbing statistics in my state of Michigan and across the country that the food stamp case loads have been dropping at an alarming rate. Indeed, census data shows that food stamp case loads are dropping far faster than the rate of poverty. Studies show that one of the key reasons for the decline in the food stamp caseloads and the resulting unspent programmatic dollars is that states have done a poor job in letting people leaving the welfare rolls know that they are still eligible for food stamps, even though their wages leave their families in need and eligible for Food Stamps. A recently published Florida study showed that 58 percent of people leaving the TANF rolls did not know that they were eligible for food stamps. We are all acutely aware of the actual withholding of food stamps from eligible individuals in New York City. As those who are eligible for food stamps are kept from accessing the program, we are seeing a marked increase in the use of soup kitchens and food pantries. In Milwaukee, a full 50 percent of those people who are using these facilities for food are children. This is a disgrace. We have also been withholding food stamp eligibility for hard working legal immigrants. I have proposed legislation, ``The Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act'' to rectify this unfair treatment. These unspent dollars could be going to correct this injustice, rather than offsetting a bill that does not require offsets and is only 10 percent offset, anyway. Rather than revoking funds that should be spent on providing food to America's working poor, we should be focusing on making certain that all children and families who are eligible and require food assistance have access to what they are entitled to. I also object to several of the legislative riders attached to this bill. Included among the many non-germane elements to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, the provision related to the state- tobacco settlement is one of the most perplexing. There is bipartisan support for letting the dollars won in these lawsuits to remain with the states, but what is disturbing is the exclusion of any guidelines on how states can spend these monies in the provision included in this bill. Logically, the tobacco money should be used to fund states' health care programs and related tobacco-prevention programs. This money should not be used to build highways or post offices. Despite the inclusion of such unwelcome legislative riders, I urge my colleagues to approve the conference report. Failure to act on this bill would have a severe and negative impact on our nation's efforts to stop Slobodan Milosevic's aggression in the Balkans and bring relief to Kosovar refugees.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 1999, a Tribute Dinner will honor Sam Davis for his nearly 40 years as Executive Director of the Michigan Association for Children with Emotional Disorders. As the main force for the founding and continuing efforts of the Association, Sam Davis became an indispensable advocate in Michigan for mental health and for special education programs for children with emotional problems. From the very beginning, he has fostered grass roots activities on behalf of children with special needs. In the early years, it was a difficult struggle as society was still wrestling with denial rather than acknowledgement and treatment of mental problems, especially of our children. With the help of Sam Davis' leadership and determination, there followed a period of progress. There was a spurt of action, both in the private and public sectors in Michigan. He served on many Boards and Committees, including the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health Services Board Advisory Committee on Children and Youth; Michigan Department of Mental Health Advisory Council on Mental Illness; and Chairperson of the Children's Advisory Council of the Oakland County Community Mental Health Board. He was also appointed to the Child Mental Health Study Group of the Michigan Department of Mental Health, the Child Care Study Committee, and the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Michigan Department of Education. In recent years the provision of mental health services for our society has come under increased stress and uncertainty. So Michigan will miss even more intensely the strong hand and agile mind of Sam Davis at the helm of the Michigan Association. He leaves with a long record of accomplishment, and these successes stand as a challenge to Michigan to strive more fully where it has failed. Sam Davis has devoted his life to the children of Michigan and as he leaves for other pursuits, his career is a challenge to all who care to continue to do better by our children with mental health and special needs. I am pleased to join with all of those who will join in honoring Sam Davis at the Tribute Dinner on May 20, 1999.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, last night's vote failing to support the NATO air campaign against Milosevic was an infamous moment in this House. The majority proclaims its support for the troops but will not support what the troops are now risking their lives to do. The majority wants to double appropriations for an effort most of them apparently oppose. What is left for bipartisanship when the Republican majority will not use it in times as these? For them, there seems no water's edge. They mock the memory of that great Republican Senator from my home State, Arthur Vandenberg.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Goodling-Fowler bill sends the wrong message at the wrong time to a person who has been more responsible than anyone else for the grievous wrongs committed in the Balkans. If any issue should be above politics and should be above partisanship, it should be these life and death issues. But the majority in this House, too many of them, talk the nonpartisan talk, but have difficulty walking a bipartisan walk on this issue. No one should ask blind loyalty on this kind of a matter, but neither should there be masked politics. The President has not rushed to use ground troops, and he should not. But the opposition often is not sure whether to criticize the President for being too weak, or too strong; for using too little, or too much force. I found the public at home is ahead of many officials. Fifty-nine Members, or I think it may be 57, of the 927th Air Refueling Wing at Selfridge Air Base have been called to duty. We met some of these men and women a few weeks ago. Their reaction was symbolized by what was said yesterday by Chief Master Sergeant William Shaw: ``If called up, I will go where I am asked to go, and with pride.'' How many more entanglements do we want of Macedonia, Greece and Turkey before we act? How many more mass murders do we have to see? How broad does the genocide have to become? I suggest that we vote down Goodling-Fowler, vote down the Campbell motions, and support the resolution that was passed by the Senate. It is the right thing to do at this right time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, thirteen years ago today, an innocuous experiment designed to test the energy output of the No. 4 unit at the Chernobyl nuclear facility in Northern Ukraine precipitated the worst nuclear accident in history. The resulting explosions blew off a 2,000- ton metal plate that sealed the top of the reactor. The graphite core of the reactor burned out of control for days, releasing more than 100 tons of lethally radioactive material into the environment. The human cost of this disaster is mind numbing. It is unlikely we will ever know how many deaths can be directly attributed to Chernobyl, but the figure is measured in the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands more were subjected to radiation poisoning. The resulting damage from the Chernobyl disaster was greatly multiplied by the efforts of the Soviet Union to cover up the incident. It was nearly a week before the Soviet Union provided the world with anything more than a few sketchy details concerning the accident. Rescue workers and firefighters were initially sent to the scene without protective gear. For nearly all of these individuals, this was a death sentence. The 40,000 inhabitants of the nearby city of Pripyat, located just two miles from Chernobyl, were largely kept in the dark about the accident. They were not evacuated for days. Today Pripyat is a ghost town. More than a decade later, the consequences of the Chernobyl accident continue to plague Eastern Europe. Ukraine has been especially impacted. According to the World Health Organization, thyroid cancer among children living near Chernobyl has risen to levels 80 times higher than normal. Vast tracts of what was once prime farm land remains dangerously contaminated and will remain so for decades to come. The ten-story protective sarcophagus that was later built around the ruins of the reactor is in need of repair and replacement. The legacy of Chernobyl is a heavy burden for the people of Ukraine, and our country must do more to help. As we observe the thirteenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, let us resolve to learn from this tragedy and prevent it from happening again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 573 to authorize the President to award a gold medal honoring Mrs. Rosa Parks. She has embodied the importance of individual responsibility and the significance of individual action. When she stood up for her rights as a human being, she truly made a difference. In her autobiography Quiet Strength, Mrs. Parks explains that she did not change things alone. She writes, ``Four decades later I am still uncomfortable with the credit given to me for starting the bus boycott. I would like people to know I was not the only person involved. I was just one of many who fought for freedom.'' Her enduring modesty has also been an example for others, reminding us that standing up for principle is enough of a reward, whether it is in the limelight or in the shadows. The reality is, of course, that Rosa Parks was the pebble that started an avalanche, and for that she is honored as the Mother of the Civil Rights Movement in America. I have had the privilege of knowing Rosa Parks over the decades of the civil rights movement. As she has for millions of Americans, she has been for me a source of inspiration in the battle for good will among us all. I urge support for this important resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 54, recognizing the historic significance of the first anniversary of the Good Friday Peace Agreement. In stark contrast to recent events in Yugoslavia, the Good Friday Peace Agreement stands out as a hopeful example of how deeply-rooted, persistent and intransigent problems can be resolved peacefully, and how the cycle of hatred and violence can be brought to a halt. In Northern Ireland, we see a situation in which the two sides have taken courageous steps towards bridging the gap that divides them. Many steps remain, but the principles for peace have been agreed upon, and they are embodied in the Good Friday Peace Agreement. Now is the time for full and timely implementation. Problems and violence persist in Northern Ireland. The murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson represents one such unacceptable act of violence and a step in the wrong direction. House Concurrent Resolution 54 communicates to our friends in Northern Ireland that we support them on their difficult road to a lasting peace, and that they must, now more than ever, stay the course. I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are again. For the 4th year in a row--the majority will take the House through the motions of attempting to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring two-thirds supermajority of the House and Senate in order to pass a tax cut. Today is the Republican equivalent of Ground Hog Day. Each year at this time the Republican leadership comes out of its hole, sees its shadow, and dusts off this proposed Constitutional Amendment that essentially says, ``stop us before we tax again!'' I said the majority is taking us through the motions because this is the same bill they've brought to the Floor in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Each time, the bill goes down to defeat. The majority knows it won't pass again today, but they can't help themselves. The irony here is that there is actually broad support on both sides of the aisle for cutting taxes, not raising them. There is some difference of opinion on who's taxes should be cut. I would argue that the lion's share of any tax relief should be targeted to working American families and not the very rich. The other key debate concerns Social Security and Medicare. In my view, it is simply irresponsible to move ahead with a $778 billion tax cut before taking action to assure the long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The budget surplus gives us a unique opportunity to address these programs. We should save the entire surplus until we've taken care of Social Security and Medicare. I urge the House to reject this ill-conceived effort to tamper with the Constitution. Instead of wasting more time debating bills that all of us know will never pass, we should roll up our sleeves and get to work on saving Social Security and Medicare. Then we can take up tax relief for working American families.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last year, the Republican leadership tried to thwart action on campaign finance reform. This year they are trying it once again. Why? Because they know it will pass the House on a bipartisan vote, because they fear public pressure will grow in the Senate. The Republican leadership is saying again our private campaign money is our primary concern; the public interest be damned. Soft money is hardening the arteries of our democracy. So-called issue ads are snuffing out discourse on public issues. Truly, it is time to act. That is why I am now going over to sign the discharge petition, and so many of my colleagues have already done so.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution. This budget is a blueprint for another budgetary train wreck. The Majority's budget is irresponsible. It is simply wrong to move ahead with a $778 billion tax cut before taking action to assure the long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The budget surplus gives us a unique opportunity to address these programs and we must not squander it. We should save the entire surplus until we've taken care of Social Security and Medicare. No one believes the House can approve the appropriation bills that would be drawn from this budget template. Do we want a repeat of last year's budgetary derailment when Congress was unable to complete action on eight of the thirteen regular appropriation bills? But that's exactly where we're headed with the Majority's budget resolution. Under the resolution, non-defense discretionary appropriations would be cut by $46.4 billion next year, a full 16 percent below this year's funding level. Which programs does the Majority propose to cut? Energy assistance for the elderly? Maternal and child health care? Head Start? Law enforcement? The GOP budget resolution doesn't give any specifics. The Republican budget also does nothing to shore up Medicare. All of us know that Medicare is projected to run short of funds in just eight more years. If Medicare's solvency is the price for the GOP's tax cuts, that price is too high. I will support the Democratic substitute that will be offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt substitute is a responsible alternative to the budgetary gridlock that will surely follow adoption of the Majority's budget resolution. The Spratt substitute fulfills our obligations to Social Security and Medicare. It reserves 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and extends Medicare's solvency until 2020. I want to speak to the issue of legal immigrants. The Spratt substitute also restores vital benefits for legal immigrant that were wrongly taken away under the 1996 welfare law. I led the fight last year to restore food stamp eligibility to the children of legal immigrant as well as elderly legal immigrants who entered the country before enactment of the 1996 welfare bill. The Spratt substitute would permit states to cover legal immigrant pregnant women and children with Medicaid, restore SSI eligibility for legal immigrants who entered the country after August 22, 1996 and were subsequently disabled, and would assure food stamps to legal immigrants who were residents as of August 22, 1996 and are over the age of 65. This is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible budget resolution and support the Spratt substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 1999 I reintroduced the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 1999, along with my colleagues Representatives James Greenwood and Darlene Hooley. This legislation intends to respond to the critical needs of the elderly and their families during often difficult times in their lives. As advancements in health care provide better care and extend life expectancy, we must also be cognizant of the care we provide in the last stages of an individual's life. It is my hope that by addressing the needs of patients and families dealing with pain and medical difficulties at the end of life, we can focus attention on the constructive steps that can be taken to provide help and assistance to seniors and other Americans during this critical period. We should not allow end of life care to be eclipsed by the debate over physician assisted suicide. In my discussions with families and physicians, people are concerned with the quality of care and the type of information available during this difficult period of one's life. The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act builds on the Patient Self-Determination Act enacted in 1990, which I sponsored, by strengthening many of its provisions. The Patient Self-Determination Act requires health care facilities to distribute information to patients regarding existing State laws on living wills, medical powers- of-attorney, and other advance directives so that individuals can document the type of care they would like to receive at the end of their lives. Since passage of that legislation, there has been an increase in the number of individuals who have advance directives. However, a Robert Wood Johnson study found that less than half of hospitalized patients who had advanced directives had even talked with any of their doctors about having a directive and only about one-third of the patients with advanced directives had their wishes documented in their medical records. This legislation seeks to address these problems and improve the quality of information provided to individuals in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities. It will encourage seniors and families to have more open and informed communication with health care providers concerning their preferences for end-of-life care. Specifically, the bill requires that a trained professional be available, when requested, to discuss end-of-life care. It also requires that if a patient has an advance directive, it must be placed in a prominent part of the medical record where all doctors and nurses can clearly see it. In addition, the bill establishes a 24-hour hotline and information clearinghouse to provide consumers, patients and their families with information about advance directives and end-of-life decision making. Included in this legislation is a provision designed to ensure that an advance directive which is valid in one State will be honored in another State, as long as the contents of the advance directive do not conflict with the laws of the other State. In addition, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to gather information and consult with experts on the possibility of a uniform advance directive for all Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, regardless of where they live. A uniform advance directive would enable people to document the kind of care they wish to get at the end of their lives in a way that is easily recognizable and understood by everyone. The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act also addresses quality end-of-life care by responding to the national need for end-of- life standards. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Health Care Financing Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for Care Policy and Research, to develop outcome standards and other measures to evaluate the quality of care provided to patients at the end of their lives. This legislation also responds to the serious crisis in pain care. As documented by the Institute of Medicine, studies have shown that a significant proportion of dying patients experience serious pain despite the availability of effective pain treatment. In addition, the aggressive use of ineffectual and intrusive interventions at the end of life may actually increase pain and eliminate the possibility for a peaceful and meaningful end-of-life experience with family and friends. This bill will improve the treatment of pain for Medicare patients with life threatening diseases. Currently, Medicare does not generally pay the cost of self- administered drugs prescribed for outpatient use. The only outpatient pain medications currently covered by Medicare are those that are administered by a portable pump. It is widely recognized among physicians treating patients with cancer and other life-threatening diseases that self-administered pain medications, including oral drugs and transdermal patches, are alternatives that are equally effective at controlling pain, less costly and more comfortable for the patient. To address this inadequacy in coverage, the bill requires Medicare coverage for self-administered pain medications prescribed for outpatient use for patients with life-threatening disease and chronic pain. The bill also focuses on the need to develop models to improve end- of-life care. The bill provides funding for demonstration projects to develop new and innovative approaches to improving end-of-life care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. It also includes funding to evaluate existing pilot programs that are providing innovative approaches to end-of-life care. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are proposing seeks to improve the quality of care for individuals and their families experiencing the last stages of life so they may do so together with dignity, independence and compassion. Summary: Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act Section 1. Title Sec. 2. Development of Standards to Assess End-of-Life Care The HHS Secretary, through HCFA, NIH, and AHPR, shall develop outcome standards and measures to evaluate the performance and quality of health care programs and projects that provide end-of-life care to individuals. Sec. 3. Study and Recommendation to Congress on Issues Relating to Advance Directive Expansion HHS will study and report to Congress on ways to improve the uniformity of advance directives. Sec. 4. Study and Legislative Proposal to Congress HHS shall study and report to Congress on all matters relating to the creation of a national, uniform policy on advance directives. Sec. 5. Expansion of Advance Directives Individuals in hospitals, nursing homes and health care facilities will have an opportunity to discuss issues relating to advance directives with an appropriately trained individual. Advance directives must be placed prominently in a patient's medical record. This section also ensures portability of advance directives, so that an advance directive valid in one state will be honored in another state, as long as the contents of the advance directive do not conflict with the laws of the other state. Sec. 6. National Information Hotline for End-of-Life Decision-making HHS, through HCFA, shall establish and operate directly, or by grant, contract, or interagency agreement, a clearinghouse and 24-hour hot-line to provide consumer information about advance directives and end-of-life decision-making. Sec. 7. Evaluation of and Demonstration Projects for Medicare Beneficiaries HHS, through HCFA, will evaluate existing innovative programs and also administer demonstration projects to develop new and innovative approaches to providing end-of- life care to Medicare beneficiaries. Also, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the quality of end-of- life care under the Medicare program, together with any suggestions for legislation to improve the quality of such care under that program. Sec. 8. Medicare Coverage of Self-Administered Medication for Certain Patients with Chronic Pain Medicare will provide coverage for self-administered pain medications prescribed for outpatients with life-threatening disease and chronic pain. (These medications are currently covered by Medicare only when administered by portable pump).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here under somewhat unusual procedure, but it is important that we talk about the substance. First of all, I want to emphasize the facts are clear that there was a surge of steel imports. This first chart shows the imports of hot-rolled steel from all countries. If my colleagues look at 1996 and 1997 and 1998, it becomes clear there was this surge, this is of hot-rolled steel a dramatic increase in imports. Secondly, this chart shows the import of all steel products. Once again, I think it is very clear from this chart there was a very substantial overall increase; indeed, a surge. It was most dramatic with hot-rolled steel, but overall, the same was true. Also it should be clear that there was a serious impact from this surge. Ten thousand workers lost their jobs. Three companies went into bankruptcy. So we are talking about American businesses, American workers who suffer because of this surge after the steel industry and its workers together had taken unusual steps to improve the industry, to downsize it, to make it more effective, indeed to make it the most productive in the world. It is also clear that the government reacted slowly. One reason it did is because our antisurge laws are weak, and I will come back to that. In September of last year, petitions, antidumping petitions were filed. The administration at that point whipped into quick action, and they invoked a provision of the law, a critical circumstances provision, that has rarely been used. As a result, the whole effort to determine whether or not there was dumping of steel, that whole effort was very much accelerated. The result was, in a short order of time, preliminary antidumping margins were announced. I want to show everybody what happened. I will turn it this way so we see it on all sides of the aisle. This is when the surge hit its peak right here, November. We can see the spike up. Red is Russia, Green is Japan, and blue is Brazil. We can see this spike upward. When the antidumping margins became evident, we see the tremendous downturn in imports from those three countries. So our antidumping laws began to work. I want to emphasize to my colleagues that what happened with the surge was not globalization. That is here to stay. But it was manipulation of the market by those countries selling below their cost. It was not competition. It was distortion. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the industry and the steelworkers and others here have done a real service to spotlight what the problem is. But here is the problem, and that is what is proposed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in this bill is not a viable solution. Under WTO, the executive cannot, and we as the Congress cannot, invoke a quota by fiat. We simply cannot do that. Under WTO rules, safeguard measures can be put in place and, as a result of those safeguard procedures, if they are followed, action can be taken, including, in some circumstances, quotas. But it is very clear under our WTO obligations that this cannot be done simply by a bill of this nature or by the executive acting on his own. Now, the bill of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) does focus on the problem that the dumping laws can be circumvented. Countries that are subject to them can substitute other products, or other countries can come into the gap. And so what we need, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said it, we need to do something better, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said the same thing. There is something we can do that is better within the WTO. We need to reform our anti-surge provisions so that they are faster and they are more effective. That option is available to us, and I hope very much, as a result of this debate today, that we will take everybody at their word and move on to see if we can find and implement a solution that is within our WTO obligations. I am convinced that there is. Indeed, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I have been in dialogue with the administration for over a week now. And yesterday, the gentleman from New York, a Republican, and I introduced legislation that would reform our anti-surge laws so that if there is a major circumvention, a major circumvention, of our dumping laws by other countries, or the countries that are subject to them, there will be something that we can utilize and implement quickly. And it will also take care of the issue of other products in addition to steel if a surge occurs. Look, the steel surge shows that there is a serious problem, and there remains that. A serious problem needs a viable answer, one within the rule of law governing the trade between nations. I want to close with a personal comment. I have been working with others in this body over these years to try to craft trade laws that are responsive to international rules and responsive to American needs. It goes back many years, in fact more than a decade, when we were able to pass the 1988 trade bill that strengthened our laws. I think that the international rules have to be opened up so that they take into account new problems, problems that are happening because of our evolving trade with these evolving economies. The laws have to and the rules of competition have to take into account the competition from countries with very different capital and labor and environmental structures. I am dedicated to continuing that effort. We need to carry on that battle, and we need to have within our laws a response available to surges like we have seen in steel for the good of this country, its workers and its businesses. But if we move in a way that clearly violates our obligations under WTO, and that is the basis of the administration letter indicating that a veto would be coming, we are going to, I think, undermine these efforts to improve our laws. In a word, because of the way this has evolved, because of the spotlight that has been turned on our anti-surge laws, we now have an ability in this next few weeks, I hope, if not a few weeks no more than a month or two, to put together a bill that will respond to this problem. So I echo what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said; and I echo in a sense what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said at the Ways and Means markup: Let us take this moment, and whatever happens today, and dedicate ourselves in the days ahead to making sure that we have the laws, within the international rules that respond to this kind of a surge problem. I am going to dedicate every moment I have to helping that come about.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CARDIN 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. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our minority whip.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 22\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to allocate time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has the right to close?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was in Bosnia 4 years ago as cochair of a House delegation, and there were three clear lessons from that trip. Number one, there is a U.S. national interest in preventing an outbreak of major conflagration in the Balkans. We should not be the world's policeman, true. We also should not be asleep at the switch. Whether we like it or not, the Balkans is an important crossroads. Secondly, Mr. Milosevic is a major roadblock to peace, and understands only firmness, total firmness. Third, the U.S. has a special credibility there. We have a special credibility, and we need to use it to help bring about peace and to help enforce it. The question now is not whether we are going to go to war, but whether we can negotiate a peace. I urge Members on the majority side to listen to their standardbearer of 1996, Robert Dole, who said just yesterday, I would rather have the vote come after the agreement. Mr. Dole, to his credit, knows the importance of bipartisanship in foreign policy. I close with this. This is a particularly sensitive time in the negotiations for peace in Kosovo. This is not the time to take risks in undermining those efforts. Those who insist on a debate at this particular moment should think again, or they bear the responsibility for the possible consequences of their actions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Marlene Davis, Superintendent of the Southfield Public Schools. Dr. Davis recently was named the 1999 Michigan School Superintendent of the Year. A native of Dearborn, Michigan, Dr. Davis has an extensive educational background. She holds a Bachelors of Arts in Art History, from Michigan State University; a Masters of Arts in Guidance and Counseling, from the University of Michigan; a Masters of Science and a Ph.D. in Education Administration, from Purdue University. Before coming to the Southfield Public Schools in 1991, Dr. Davis was the Superintendent of Novator Unified Schools and Fillmore Unified Schools, in California from 1985 to 1991. She was also a proud member of the United States Peace Corps for three years, serving in Sierra Leone. Dr. Davis was named Michigan's 1999 Superintendent of the Year because of her vision and leadership as exemplified by her initiation of the Southfield Public Schools strategic plan, designing the framework of the high school restructuring plan and the implementation of various diversity programs. Although she has dedicated the last 20 years of her life to make education a priority for the leaders of tomorrow, Dr. Davis is deeply involved in the Southfield community as well. This includes serving on the Boards of the following: Southfield Chamber of Commerce, the Southfield Community Foundation, the Metro Detroit Bureau of School Studies, Gilda's Club and the Southfield Total Living Commission. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Marlene Davis as the recipient of this most prestigious award and wishing her success as she continues to serve the educational community.