Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) faces a difficult conference, as does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and their colleagues. I am here simply to express my fervent hope that in conference they will take a look at the President's proposal on food stamps for legal immigrants. We are talking about in no way undoing welfare reform. I worked for and voted for the ultimate product. This is about hungry kids and this is about hungry elderly people, many of them refugees. The cuts in food stamps were very, very large and no one is suggesting at this point the restoration of most of them. But the President's proposal focuses on those most vulnerable, kids, most of them citizens themselves. Their parents are not yet. And the elderly, many of them, as I said, refugees and asylees. So I am here simply to say as they deal with the complexities, please do not forget these very vulnerable people who are here in our midst legally.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on H. Con. Res. 202, my colleague Mr. Goodling said that he wanted ``just again to remind everyone'' that the Republicans had ``provided $4 billion more than the President asked for'' to fund child care. This was part of the effort to demonstrate a Republican commitment to child care. I feel compelled to correct the record. The additional $4 billion being spent on child care is not more than the President asked for. Rather, it is more than was provided under previous law. Indeed, the main reason for the additional money for child care beyond previous law is that the President insisted upon it, and when the Republicans resisted providing adequate funding for child care as part of the program to move people from welfare to work, the President was forced to veto that version. After the veto, the Republicans agreed to join with Democrats to increase the funds provided for child care, and the President signed the improved legislation into law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mary Zander, Sterling Heights City Clerk, on the occasion of her retirement from the City of Sterling Heights, Michigan. Ms. Zander served her City for twenty years as the City Clerk. During her two decades of dedicated service, the City of Sterling Heights has grown from a population of 61,000 in 1967 to 123,000 in 1997, now the sixth largest city in the state. Ms. Zander's leadership was critical during this period of both incredible population growth and technological advancements which have revolutionized the local clerk's office. Ms. Zander was the Director for the International Institute of Municipal Clerks, a distinguished position that only one other clerk in the world has served in for two terms. She also received special recognition as ``Clerk of the Year'' from the Michigan Municipal League. As President of the Michigan Municipal League's Clerks Association, First Vice-President of the Michigan Association of Clerks and a lifetime member of the Academy of Advanced Education, Ms. Zander was a leader in her field. Mr. Speaker, in an era of valuing efficient, customer-oriented government, Mary Zander's work for the City of Sterling Heights deserves our recognition. I am pleased to join with the residents of Sterling Heights, as well as local government officials, in thanking Mary Zander, my friend and the friend of so many others, for her years of dedicated and personal service and in extending best wishes for a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mrs. Elizabeth Heflin-McCloud, a Royal Oak Township Trustee. Mrs. McCloud died in her home on January 6, 1998. Born in Talladega, Alabama in 1918 to Oscar and Littie Ywyman, Mrs. McCloud later moved to Michigan. Here, through her association with many community and civic organizations, Mrs. McCloud made a difference in the lives of so many people. She served on the Library Board, Oakdale Activity Committee, New Mount Vernon Church, Business and Professional Women, AFL-CIO, Community Development Block Grant, Township Beautification Committee, and the Democratic Club of Ferndale and Royal Oak Township. After working 38 years at Chrysler Corporation, Mrs. McCloud decided to enter public service, and served as a Royal Oak Township Trustee from 1992 to the present. She was a friend of so many people and of so many causes. I ask my colleagues to join me as we extend our sincere sympathy to the friends and relatives of Mrs. McCloud who will always be remembered for her outstanding contributions to the world around her.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution draws our attention to an important need. Unfortunately, it could divide instead of uniting us. Our purpose should be to ensure that all children should have the best care, whatever the economic and family situations of these children are. The administration has shown its commitment to quality care for children. In 1996, early versions of welfare reform bills were vetoed in part because of inadequate attention to child care. This year, the administration has proposed a series of child-care initiatives. It has signaled its willingness to work together on a bipartisan basis to address the issue of stay-at-home parents. Indeed, a number of us are working on ways to provide further assistance to families that would make it easier for a parent to stay at home with a young child. Perhaps because the Democrats' report on the importance of family care for children is clear, the real purpose of this resolution may be to protect a weak political flank of the majority. One example of this vulnerability occurred when we battled over the long-standing program of SSI for families with severely disabled children. All of us agreed that we needed to get rid of abuse in the program, but there were some in the majority who tried to end a modest cash payment to families with a truly handicapped child, even when the clear effect of that modest help allowed one parent to stay at home with the child. Let us not create an artificial wedge that pits working parents against those who stay at home with their children. I urge Democrats to vote for this resolution, but I also urge Republicans to join us in trying to improve child care wherever it is needed. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact meaningful, comprehensive child-care legislation that addresses the needs of both working and stay-at-home parents and their children. This is not an either/or proposition. In this respect, America should be one family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. William Russell Kelly, founder of Russell Kelly Office Service, and founder of this modern temporary help industry. Mr. Kelly died Saturday, January 3 at his home in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He was 92. In 1946, single-handedly, Russ Kelly founded a new industry in a Detroit storefront. It began as an accommodation to employers to fill in for vacationing or sick employees, and also to supplement regular staff during short-term workloads. In the early days most of the temporary employees were women secretaries, hence the name ``Kelly Girls'' soon became a trademark around the world. Society has moved far beyond this confined role for women and so has the company; today, tens of thousands of professional and technical women and men have joined others in Kelly Services. Beginning as a fledgling company totaling $848.00 in sales in its first year, Kelly Services has grown today to a Fortune 500 and a Forbes 500 company, with annual sales approaching $4 billion. Annually, this Troy, Michigan-based company provides the services of more than 750,000 of its employees through more than 1500 company offices in 50 states and 16 countries. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the ingenuity and the memory of this entrepreneurial pioneer. Indeed, when Russ Kelly was asked how he wanted to be remembered, he said, ``Only as a pioneer.'' I extend my sincere sympathy to Russell Kelly's wife, Margaret, his son, Terence E. Adderley, who joined the company in 1958 and became its President in 1967 and who has now succeeded Mr. Kelly as Chairman of the Board of the Company, his daughter-in-law, Mary Beth and his six grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. William Russell Kelly, founder of Russell Kelly Office Service, and founder of this modern temporary help industry. Mr. Kelly died Saturday, January 3 at his home in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He was 92. In 1946, single-handedly, Russ Kelly founded a new industry in a Detroit storefront. It began as an accommodation to employers to fill in for vacationing or sick employees, and also to supplement regular staff during short-term workloads. In the early days most of the temporary employees were women secretaries, hence the name ``Kelly Girls'' soon became a trademark around the world. Society has moved far beyond this confined role for women and so has the company; today, tens of thousands of professional and technical women and men have joined others in Kelly Services. Beginning as a fledgling company totaling $848.00 in sales in its first year, Kelly Services has grown today to a Fortune 500 and a Forbes 500 company, with annual sales approaching $4 billion. Annually, this Troy, Michigan-based company provides the services of more than 750,000 of its employees through more than 1,500 company offices in 50 states and 16 countries. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the ingenuity and the memory of this entrepreneurial pioneer. Indeed, when Russ Kelly was asked how he wanted to be remembered, he said, ``Only as a pioneer.'' I extend my sincere sympathy to Russell Kelly's wife, Margaret, his son, Terence E. Adderley, who joined the company in 1958 and became its President in 1967 and who has now succeeded Mr. Kelly as Chairman of the Board of the Company, his daughter-in-law, Mary Beth and his six grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I offer congratulations to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. David Camp, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, the chairman of the subcommittee. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] will some day in the next year or so be leaving this institution, I hope for another one. But it is interesting how her energy has been unflagging, as has that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp]. Without their enterprise, this bill would not be in the process of enactment. I have enjoyed, again, working with the chairman of the committee on this important measure. I would also like to pay tribute to the administration for all of its dedication and its energy, as well as to our staff, to all of the staff who worked so hard on this. The big winners today are obviously the tens of thousands of children who are in the foster care system who need to move on into a permanent setting. I want to, though, say just a word about other implications of this legislation. I think it reflects the fact that, indeed, in certain vital areas it is critical that there be a constructive partnership between the Federal Government and State and local government. We often here get hung up in theoretical battles about who should do what. Often the answer is working together on the Federal, State, and local levels. We have in this bill certain roles for the Federal Government, not only funding, but a scorecard. And this indicates that we need to do this together. Second, I think this bill shows that the wild swings of the pendulum in this area are really unfortunate. In my years on the committee, we have been arguing which is better, family preservation or reunification or adoption. I think what this bill says is kind of, get on with it. Let us do what is right for the child, and what is right for the child will depend on each particular case. But do not tarry. We should make a decision. One last point. The funding for this comes from a slight deviation from the contingency fund, or diversion. And we have discussed this. And as I have indicated to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], it is my hope that next year we will be able to look at the contingency fund in welfare reform to be sure there is adequate funding. It was critical, though, that we move ahead this year. I am pleased to have been a small part of it. Again, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] and to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for all of their work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as we on the Federal legislative level finish our work on the floor for this year, I want to pay tribute to Lawrence Pernick, an outstanding legislator on the local level for 27 years. Until his untimely and sudden death on November 6, Larry Pernick embodied the best in public service. While the Oakland County Board was supposed to be an avocation, Larry Pernick viewed his service as a county commissioner to be a vital part of his role in life. It was manifested in his hard work, his sense of camaraderie beyond party lines, and his sense of human about his work. There was little publicity about his valuable public efforts, but that never bothered Larry Pernick. He valued the respect of his colleagues and the integrity of his labors more than the beam of publicity. Good work was its own reward, not the limelight. So he will be sorely missed, by colleagues, also by his long-time friends, and most of all by his loved and loving family, his wife of 48 years, Anne, his children, and his grandchildren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2631 to disapprove the President's line-item veto of 38 military construction projects. Despite the recent action by Congress to set the budget on a glide path to balance, we must remain vigilant against wasteful spending. Nothing undermines confidence in Congress so much as when our constituents pick up the morning newspaper and read about how some well-positioned Member of Congress inserted some favored pork barrel project into an appropriation bill in the dead of night. Clearly, this is not the case with the 38 military construction projects we are considering today. The White House admits that many of these projects were canceled in error on the basis of inaccurate information. Further, nearly all the projects were included in the Pentagon's long-term defense plan. These projects are not examples of the type of wasteful and excessive spending that the line-item veto was intended to address. I have long supported giving the President the tools necessary to root out wasteful spending projects. In previous years I voted to grant the President a form of the line-item veto to rescind unnecessary spending; under this version, it would take a majority of the House and Senate to disapprove the President's veto. I continue to believe that it is inadvisable to give any President a line-item veto that requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to override. The requirement for a supermajority to override unwisely shifts too much power to the executive branch. Despite this concern, I intend to fully support the President's veto of truly wasteful spending projects. As I have indicated, the 38 military construction projects before us today do not meet that test. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2631.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an educator, and an exceptional community activist, Marilyn Donlin of Warren, MI. I have known Marilyn Donlin and her husband Bert for many, many years. We first became acquainted through democratic Party activities in Metropolitan Detroit. I have since had the good fortune and pleasure of renewing our friendship and working relationship beginning in 1992, when I was first elected to represent the city of Warren in the new 12th congressional district. After graduating from Cass Technical High School in Detroit, Marilyn Donlin received a bachelor of philosophy from the University of Detroit and a masters of arts from Saginaw Valley State University. In addition to her involvement in high school and college with the concert and marching bands, no one would be surprised to learn that Marilyn chose the debate team and national forensic league as her other extracurricular activities. While Marilyn Donlin taught school for Warren's Fitzgerald Public Schools from 1957 to 1955, her pioneering spirit and strong personality assured that Marilyn would be a leader in her community. While serving as president of the Fitzgerald Education Association, [MEA-NEA] from 1984 to 1995, when she spoke of her work, her focus was on the children she taught, their individual lives and struggles. Marilyn Donlin's institutional knowledge of community politics and activities is unparalleled. Her participation in Democratic Party activities are too numerous to name, spanning decades in the Metro Detroit community. Yet, even a chronological list of her involvement wouldn't do justice to the role Marilyn has played over the years. She is a leader. She is an organizer. She is a mentor. She is truly a pioneer and has been an important progressive force in her community. Certainly, the results of her work and activism have benefitted individuals in her community--she cares about people and the issues which impact their lives. However, Marilyn's prominent role in politics and public life have had an impact far beyond policy and government action. She has played a significant part in advancing the role of women in politics and public service. She has done this quietly, yet effectively. I know she realizes the importance of this achievement and I hope she realizes the tremendous impact she has had. It has been my sincere pleasure to work with Marilyn Donlin through the years. I wish her the best as she embarks upon her third retirement. There is no doubt that as she immerses herself in her next endeavor, our communities will continue to reap the benefits of her work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 1997 seeks to improve the medical care of individuals nearing the end of their lives so that they and their families can have confidence that this care respects their own desire for autonomy and dignity. The compassionate care bill builds on the Patient Self-Determination Act enacted in 1990. 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, which enable individuals to 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 an advance directive, but a recent Robert Wood Johnson study found that many people do not understand the importance of discussing their advance directives with family members and their health care provider. For example, while 20 percent of hospitalized patients had an advance directive, less than half of those patients had talked with any of their doctors about having a directive and only about one-third had their wishes documented in their medical record. The compassionate care bill takes another important step in raising public awareness of important end-of-life medical issues and improving the quality of the care individuals receive during this period. The bill improves the type and amount of information available to consumers by making sure that when a person enters a hospital, nursing home, or other health care facility, there is, when requested, a knowledgeable person available to discuss end of life care. This will facilitate good decisionmaking on medical care based on the patient's own needs and values. The bill requires that if a person has an advance directive it must be placed in a prominent part of the medical record where all the doctors and nurses can clearly see it. It also establishes a 24-hour hotline and information clearinghouse to provide consumers with information. The bill also ensures 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 compassionate care bill also focuses on the need to improve end- of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries. This bill will encourage seniors and families to have more open communication with health care providers concerning their preferences for end-of-life care. The bill also addresses the need to develop models of compassionate care and quality measures for medical care during this period. Currently, there are few standards available to assess the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries at the end of their lives. The tremendous geographic variation in medical care that currently exists reinforces the notion that many people do not receive care driven by quality concerns, but rather by the availability of medical resources in the community and other factors not related to quality care. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Health Care Financing Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for Health 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. The only Medicare benefit aimed at improving end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries is hospice care, which only serves a small number of beneficiaries. In 1994, the Medicare hospice benefit was provided to 340,000 patients for the last few weeks of their lives. The hospice benefit is limited to beneficiaries who have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. A review of studies done by an Institute of Medicine panel found that 40 to 80 percent of patients with a terminal illness were inadequately treated for pain ``despite the availability of effective pharmacological and other options for relieving pain.'' The compassionate care bill provides funding for demonstration projects to develop new and innovative approaches to improving end-of- life care provided to Medicare beneficiaries, in particular those individuals who do not qualify for, or select, hospice care. Also, it includes funding to evaluate existing pilot programs that are providing innovative approaches to end-of-life care. With a few exceptions, 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. The pump is covered by Medicare as durable medical equipment, and the drugs associated with that pump are also covered. 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, offer alternatives that are equally effective at controlling pain, more comfortable for the patient, and much less costly than the pump. The bill requires Medicare coverage for self- administered pain medications prescribed for outpatient use for patients with life-threatening disease and chronic pain. Instead of allowing these important end-of-life issues to be eclipsed by the debate over physician-assisted suicide, this legislation seeks to ensure that the medical care of patients at the end of their lives reflects their desires, increases comfort to the extent possible and is of the highest quality.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the strategy of those of us opposing the present fast track proposal is not ``America last,'' but putting people first. This is not mainly about the power of interest groups, but the power of issues. In the last decade, more and more of U.S. trade has been with nations with low wages and tightly controlled labor and other markets, and with lax environmental conditions. Indeed, our imports from these nations like China, India, Brazil, Mexico rose by 25 percent in the last decade, and as an administration official said yesterday, 50 percent of all United States trade will be with these nations in the near future, increasingly changing from footwear to higher-tech ware. Instead of moving forward towards new rules of competition to meet new patterns of expanding trade, the present fast track proposal goes backwards, limiting the President's authority in important areas of labor markets and the environment. There were no such limitations on Presidents Carter, Reagan, or Bush. This fast-track proposal is wrong. Vote ``no'' and let us go back and do it right.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this bill. It is a positive step in the direction of restoring and increasing confidence in a system that relies on taxpayer compliance to be successful. It addresses the responsibility that both the Congress and the administration must play in improving the accountability and customer service of an agency, as said here, that touches the lives of nearly all Americans. The bill contains a number of provisions which will reform the IRS. It will improve the use of technology at the IRS by enhancing the electronic filing of tax returns and other documents. It is unacceptable in this day and age that the IRS does not have the most up-to-date computer technology. It will expand taxpayer relief for the innocent spouse and provide tax refund relief to taxpayers during periods of disability. It will also expand relief to taxpayers through taxpayer assistance orders, grants for low-income clinics, and penalty relief for those who have installment agreements with the IRS. The revised bill also retains the accountability of the administration over the IRS by retaining the President's authority to hire and fire the IRS commissioner. This bill is an important step in addressing critical management and oversight issues at the IRS, but it is not a panacea. There remain some issues in this legislation that we need to continue to work on. I have met with IRS officials in Michigan to discuss problems, and I intend to continue to do so. We do need to look at the Tax Code itself and debate differences of opinion about how to improve it. In doing so, the aim must be to benefit the citizens that we represent, not to jockey for position at the next election.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Walsh College on celebrating 75 years of leadership in exemplary business education. Walsh's history is firmly implanted in the success of Michigan business; from the early years of the auto industry to the development of high-technology businesses today. Walsh College started as a small accounting institute in Detroit and became an upper-division college in 1968. Seizing the opportunity to partner with area community colleges, Walsh developed the successful 2 + 2 program. With just 151 bachelor-degree-seeking students in 1970, Walsh college has expanded to 4 campuses and grown to over 3,300 students currently pursuing bachelor and master degrees in business. It is with pride that Walsh College acknowledges the 11,000 Walsh alumni who have played a vital role in the growth of Michigan's economy. Over 90 percent of their alumni live and work in southeastern Michigan directly contributing to the progress of the region. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the entire college, the president, David Spencer, the administration, faculty, students, and alumni who have each played a vital role in Walsh's success over these past 75 years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner]. Federal control, most of the money for secondary and elementary education that is appropriated here goes for special education and compensatory education that are under the control of local school districts. So that is an effort really to debate by demonization to say that we are trying to defend a Federal bureaucracy when most of the money that is appropriated goes to school districts. Second, the gentleman from Ohio and others say that their bill is an effort to help the working class. Look at the data. According to the Treasury Department analysis, under this bill a family with income $33,000 to $55,000 would get $7 a year help; a family $55,000 to $93,000, $32; and a family $93,000 and up would get $96, three times the family with half the income and 12 times a family with three to five times the income. Now, if the money is already available to the wealthy family, why are we giving them a tax break?

Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to, and I would also tell the gentleman from Iowa that we distributed, in the Committee on Ways and Means, a study by the Federal Reserve that indicated that families $30,000 to $40,000 had nonretirement investment assets of $2,500. In other words, they did not have as much money, most of them, as the amount of money that could be put in by wealthier families. The wealthy family has that income available and those assets. And a family $40,000 to $50,000 has nonretirement investment assets, those under 35, of only $3,400. So we are saying put $2,500 a year in. Who can do that if they have assets of only $3,400 nonretirement assets? Now, this is an effort by the majority, in essence, to cover their weak flank: education. But they are covering it by helping wealthy families and hurting public education. That is a bad idea. The Rangel idea is a much better one. Let us vote for it.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I deeply believe we have to do much better in the antidrug area, much better. I have spent, I think, more time in my district on this issue than any other, working with coalitions. If any issue needs a bipartisan approach, it is this one. This bill violates that, violates it. It extends the office tenure for only a couple of years. General McCaffrey does not support this bill. We should be working with him. Goals are set without relationship to what the office thinks is realistic. Let us not make this into a political football. Let us work together on this issue. Give us a chance to debate this on the floor with amendments, where we can improve it. I urge a no vote, not so that we stop this bill but so that we can amend it, debate it, and pass it with the seriousness this problem deeply deserves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of the 76th Wyland Whaling Wall in the city of Detroit on October 13, 1997. Wyland has chosen his home town to paint the 76th and final wall as part of his Great Lakes Midwest Tour. In the tradition of Jacques Cousteau, by whom he was inspired as a youngster, Wyland has dedicated his career to educating and raising public awareness of the critical importance of our oceans and marine life. He is internationally renowned, with murals in Canada, Japan, Australia, France, and Mexico. His work will continue as he has set a goal of, 100 murals worldwide by the year 2011. While 1998 has been declared the ``International Year of the Ocean,'' the people of Michigan, surrounded by the Great Lakes, have always treasured the unique habitat and wildlife fostered by marine environments. Each of Wyland's whaling walls will serve to heighten awareness and encourage future generations to appreciate and recognize the importance of marine habitats. Mr. speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commanding Wyland, a native Detroiter, for his vision, dedication to our environment, and commitment to educating children and the public at large about our endangered oceans. I extend my gratitude for his donation of time and talent to beautifying our city, and encouragement as he continues to his 100th Whaling Wall Mural in the year 2011.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 12, there will be held the Annual Walk of Focus: HOPE. This year's walk possesses a special significance and poignancy. It will be held without its founder and inspiration Father William Cunningham. His death on May 26 of this year left a void that can never be filled. The riots of 1967 changed life in the metropolitan area and the life of William Cunningham. In turn, his response changed the life of the entire area. He decided to dedicate his service to the community. Combining his deep spirituality with brilliant organizational skills, he started the embryonic organization Focus: HOPE. That seed has grown from its initial food program to a broad-scale attack on the manifestations and causes of poverty. Father Cunningham's dream was that people from all walks of life, races, and creeds could, and would, work together to enhance individual lives and the fabric of society. With each new creative idea and its effective implementation, Focus: HOPE took another step toward fulfillment of his dream. Working with Eleanor Josaitis and an increasing group of volunteers and a diverse, talented staff, Focus: HOPE introduced food and health support for low- income mothers and exceptional job training and specialized production units. The Machine Training Institute and the Center for Advanced Technologies today stand as testimony that education can be for virtually all a ticket out of poverty into a new world of opportunity. The power of his faith, his ideas and his personality assure that Father Bill Cunningham's dreams for Focus: HOPE will continue to be realized. There are too many of us who had the privilege to work with him over the years who will stand for nothing less. Indeed, the strongest challenge is whether the work of Father Bill Cunningham can be replicated in other places. Father Cunningham asked that no monuments be erected to his memory. When thousands of us walk in his memory on October 12, we will be carrying his message and his achievements with us for all the world to see.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not favor late-term abortions and feel none should be allowed, whatever the procedure, unless necessary to preserve the life of the mother or prevent serious consequences to her health. The bill we are considering today, like a similar bill I opposed last year, not only fails to address all late-term abortions, but it does not protect a woman from the severe health consequences which may be associated with tragic pregnancies. For the majority, the repeated consideration of this legislation is not about reducing abortions in America. If that were the goal, the majority would allow for the consideration of a bill which protects a mother's health, as required by the Supreme Court in post-viability abortions, and a bill would be passed by this House and signed into law by the President. We are asking the majority to be sensitive to and protective of the health of mothers who find themselves in medically and personally tragic situations. I am voting against moving the previous question so that we can consider the Hoyer amendment and ban all late-term abortions while ensuring the protection of a woman's life and health.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], and I wish to express my appreciation for the bipartisan spirit with which this important piece of legislation has been developed. I would also like to congratulate the administration, HHS, Secretary Shalala and all of her staff, and I would like to congratulate the staffs of our committee, Dr. Haskins, who is here, Deborah Colton, who is on the floor with us, my own staff, as well as others, because today we are poised to take an important next step in our continuing efforts to assure that every kid in this country is supported by both parents. A job that pays a living wage is one component of self-sufficiency for families, and for single parents, a child support order and a noncustodial parent who supports the family every month can be equally important. Last year we devoted considerable time and attention to one aspect of assuring the financial security of America's children: making work a central element of our Nation's welfare laws. After all, a job paying a living wage is probably the most important component of self- sufficiency for families on welfare. Another essential part of welfare reform is child support. It sends a message of responsibility to both parents and it is a vital part of moving families toward work and self-sufficiency. We have seen some progress since the 1970's when Congress began to insist that States give priority to child support enforcement. Collections have risen from $1 billion a year to more than $11 billion in 1995; and in that same year, more than 5 million parents were located and paternity was established for over 600,000 children. But that is not good enough. Of the 9.9 million female-headed families in 1991 eligible for child support, only 56 percent had child support orders. That means that 4.5 million families did not even have an order to enforce. Those with child support orders were not always much better off. Only about half of those due money from a noncustodial parent actually received 100 percent of their court-ordered child support payments. Well, in the mid-1980's when we designed the current incentive system, we did the best we could with limited information available to us. But now, after nearly a decade of experience, we are in a position to create a more sophisticated system that truly rewards performance. The new system will reward States with incentive funds based on the State's performance in 5 essential areas: establishment of paternity; establishment of child support orders; collection on current child support owed; collection on previously or past due child support owed; and cost-effectiveness. These measures will more accurately reflect the true performance of the States and their success in helping families achieve self-sufficiency. To be sure, a wholesale change of this magnitude may be a bit daunting to States because of the uncertainty of the size of incentive payments coupled with the dramatic changes our entire welfare system is undergoing. But before we conclude that some States may lose Federal funds under this new system, let us remember that it will be several years before the new incentives are fully implemented, and the goal is for all States to continue working and to qualify for the new incentives. In the past decade, we have made progress, but as said, much more remains to be done, and as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], has said so well throughout these proceedings, this bill can help. Our legislation redesigns the financing of the child support program to reward those States that perform best. We fine-tune the incentive payments we make to the States so that those States that operate a balanced and efficient program are rewarded, and we phase in the new system, and that should be emphasized, to minimize any disruptions at the State level. This bill is a bipartisan product. It is truly a consensus proposal, and I am sure that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and all of the Members of our committee, and I think the House today, will join in expressing this hope, that we will not only pass this bill in this House but the Senate will act on it before it adjourns for the year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would sincerely like to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] for their work on this, and all the Members who have worked with them. I think what the gentlemen are doing is meeting the demand of the public, but also what should be our own demands. This House needs a strong ethics structure. The public demands it, but so does our own sense of public service, of self-esteem. We want to serve in this body, proud of our service, and part of that pride requires a system so that when ethics are violated, there is a responsible response. This bipartisan agreement would create a strong ethics structure. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] has addressed, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has, amendments, and there will be further discussion. In my judgment, as has been explained, two of these amendments would erode a strong ethics structure. Indeed, I think it would blow holes right through the fabric. I think it is especially regrettable they would be offered here, because there was agreement to pursue this issue in a bipartisan manner. If any area deserves a bipartisan approach, it is ethics standards of this House. So I urge a ``no'' vote on those two key amendments. I also suggest if they would carry, I would vote against the bill, because I would feel that it had become instead of an adequate response, a very inadequate one.