Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of the 6th anniversary of Ukrainian independence. On August 24, 1991, the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet declared Ukraine's independence from the then Soviet Union. The declaration was confirmed several months later through a public referendum in which 90 percent of Ukraine's citizens voted in favor of independence. At the same time, Ukraine elected its first president. Since then, Ukraine has labored hard to transform itself from a Communist controlled republic to a democratic and free market country. This has not been an easy task. Unemployment and inflation have run rampant throughout Ukraine. Shortages of food and other essentials are common. And in many cases wages often go unpaid for months. However, throughout this long ordeal Ukrainians have remained committed to reforming their country. Ukraine is one of only a few of the former Communist dominated countries to have a peaceful transition of power. In 1991 and 1994, Ukraine held successful elections for both president and parliament without violence or bloodshed. Furthermore, Ukraine's Parliament, the Rada, adopted its first post-Communist constitution last year guaranteeing future free and fair democratic elections. Ukraine has also shown a strong commitment to peace and regional stability. For instance, Ukraine is in full compliance of all reductions in force under the Conventional Forces in Europe Agreement. Early this year, NATO and Ukraine entered into a charter that will ensure cooperation between the alliance and Ukraine on all regional security issues including peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. However, most importantly, Ukraine agreed unilaterally to dismantle its entire nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, and sign as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Under the leadership of President Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine has instituted a rigorous economic reform plan. Already this plan has helped to lower the inflation from an overwhelming rate of 10,000 percent in 1993 to an anticipated level of 25 percent this year. It has also led to the privatization of nearly 50,000 state-run small and medium sized industries. This progress has not come without controversy. Like many former Communist countries Ukraine has had a difficult time dealing with graft and corruption among government officials. This has caused a great deal of concern among United States and other foreign investors who have had great difficulties doing business in Ukraine because of the lack of firm laws and regulations guarding against abuse of power. The government of Ukraine realizes the seriousness of this problem and has taken steps to correct the problems expressed by foreign investors and clean up corruption within the government. For example, President Kuchma announced a clean hands anti-corruption campaign which has resulted in a large shakeup at the highest levels of government within Ukraine. In addition, Ukraine's president has also established an advisory committee made up of Ukrainians, foreign investors, and President Kuchma to deal with investor complaints in an efficient and timely manner. I view these as steps in the right direction, but clearly more needs to be done. Specifically, I encourage the Ukrainian Rada to adopt comprehensive legal reforms that will protect investors from unscrupulous officials seeking individual profit. The United States has been a major partner in Ukraine's success and should continue to play a major role. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to support aid to Ukraine so that we may continue to celebrate the occasion of a free and democratic Ukraine for years to come.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 19, the Sterling Heights Firefighters Union will host their annual dinner-dance honoring their 1997 retirees. It is my distinct privilege to recognize the five retiring firefighters for their outstanding contributions to humanity: Advanced Life Support Coordinator Gregory B. Dobkin, Fire Inspector Michael T. LeBeau, Chief of Operations Kenneth R. Podolski, Battalion Chief Dale A. Vergauwen, and Battalion Chief John Edward Werkman. These gentlemen have demonstrated acts of heroism and actions above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed, the people of Sterling Heights have been well-served by the untiring care and concern each of these men has given without limitations to their community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these gentlemen for their dedication, accomplishments, and years of service. I wish them good health and happiness as they move forward in their lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. Clearly, India's human rights record has been less than perfect, but we must recognize that it is improving, even in the face of some very extraordinary circumstances. In the Indian States of Kashmir and Punjab, terrorist violence has cost the lives of more than 20,000 people. Violence has become a way of life for many who live in this region of the country. International press reports confirm that India's security forces and civilians live under the constant threat of terrorist attack. Just last week, 33 people were killed and 67 injured in a bomb blast on a train in Punjab. In recognition of international concern, India has taken steps to address these problems. For instance, India has established the National Human Rights Commission, an independent office established to investigate claims of abuse. The commission's work resulted in the prosecution and punishment of over 200 security force personnel last year. In testimony before Congress, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael, stated that the watch dog agency ``has real teeth.'' In addition, India has abolished its highly controversial Terrorist and Disruptive Prevention Act [TADA]. Our own State Department, in its annual report on human rights, stated that India has made progress in ``resolving human rights problems.'' The report goes further to state that the ``National Human Rights Commission has continued to enlarge its useful role in addressing patterns of abuse, as well as specific abuses.'' India has also made great strides in reforming its economy and improving conditions for foreign investment. Since 1990, foreign investment has grown from $90 million to a record $10 billion in 1995 with the United States leading the way. The United States is now India's largest overseas investor. From 1991 to 1996, United States investment in India was 29.5 percent of all foreign investment. United States investment in India totaled more than $5 billion last year--a 40 percent increase in 1996 alone. The U.S. Department of Commerce has designated India as one of the ten most important ``Big Emerging Markets'' for American business. A virtual ``Who's Who'' of American companies is doing business successfully in India today including: Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Chrysler Corporation, IBM, AT&T, Coca Cola, Levi Strauss, Kellogg Company, Motorola, and Northwest Airlines. The prospects for continued growth continue. The ruling coalition in India, brought to power last year in the world's largest democratic election in history, has remained committed to the path of economic reform laid by the previous government. In April of this year, India's Prime Minister I.K. Gujral stated, ``India can look forward to the continuation of the reform program, and to its deepening, and widening.'' Not only has India's Prime Minister made continued economic reform a priority, he is also committed to reducing tensions between his country and Pakistan. Just last month, Mr. Gujral met with Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to begin a dialog by which the two countries might be able to resolve their differences. While the two could only agree on incremental steps, the meeting was a positive step toward resolving the differences between these neighbors. In light of these developments and others, I firmly believe that cutting aid to India is both unwise and unwarranted. Not only would it be a slap in the face to India and the many accomplishments it has achieved, it would have a severe impact on our relationship with the world's largest democracy. Many of the improvements that have been made in the areas of human rights, economic reform and regional stability could be lost. These would be contrary to both our national and economic security interests. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It sends the wrong signal at a time of great opportunity for our two countries. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to proceed out of order for 1 minute.) Legislative Program

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I was in India during the winter, and I just wanted to comment briefly on the Burton amendment. It misses what is happening in the Indian subcontinent. I was in the Punjab. The Indian record on human rights is not a perfect one, but as the State Department has mentioned in its annual report, India is clearly moving in the right direction and is making substantial progress. Mr. Chairman, the atmosphere in the Punjab was not one basically of repression, but one of democracy growing under difficult circumstances. We had a chance to read about and to view the work of the Human Rights Commission of India. It, again, is performing a function that is a valuable one and a real one in a democratic society, what is basically a democratic society. On this 50th anniversary of Indian independence, our country needs to be taking constructive, not destructive, steps in terms of our relationship. And what the Burton amendment does, in my judgment, is to move in a destructive rather than a constructive fashion. We need to, with India and other democracies where there are problems, work with those countries as they need to work with us when we have problems here in America. That should be the spirit between our two great nations, the two great democracies; not the negative import and context of the Burton amendment. So I very much oppose it. India, on its 50th anniversary, has a record much more to be proud of than ashamed of. It has a history the last 50 years that much moves in the right direction more than in the wrong direction. Are there blemishes? There are. Is there perfection? There is not. Is there movement in the right direction? Clearly so. And what this amendment does is essentially refuse to recognize the movement in the right direction and instead distort the record of accomplishment. So, in addition to all of the importance of the economic relationships between our two countries, I think we ought to remember supremely the linkage of the United States and India as two democracies each with its own set of problems, but each moving surely in the right direction when it comes to human rights. This country is a beacon for India in terms of human rights. It is moving, I think, to meet the test of that beacon, and we should not indicate otherwise through actions like the Burton amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I heard the discussion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I would like to quickly respond, to put this in perspective. When I was Assistant Administrator of AID in the late 1970's, we faced this very issue of fungibility, so we set up methods to make sure that American dollars were insulated from any expenditure for abortion- related activities. We faithfully carried out the Helms amendment. It mostly related to IPPF. It does not spend any substantial amount of its own funds, its central funds, on abortion-related activities. It has affiliates that spend its funds. These are essentially semiautonomous or autonomous affiliates who raise their moneys in countries where abortion is legal. The result of the Mexico City policy is, we could not give any funds to any organization that had any affiliate that spent the funds it raised for anything relating to abortion. That meant we would prevent an organization from being in family planning because, in a third degree, some affiliate spent some money it raised in its local country for something that was legal in this country. That is why this effort really strikes at family planning throughout the world, and why we should turn it down.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Warren, MI whose citizens are celebrating its 40th anniversary. Evolving from wilderness territory 180 years ago the largest city in the 12th Congressional District and third largest in the State of Michigan, the city of Warren is now known as the City of Progress. While sparsely populated early this century, Warren's growth began in the 1940's with the onset of World War II. Utilizing the nearby steel mills and automotive base in the city of Detroit, Warren became the home of the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant. Employing thousands of people, the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' produced Sherman tanks for the war effort and provided an economic base to encourage tremendous growth after the war, continuing through the 1950's and 1960's. In 1952, General Motors Corporation began construction on the General Motors Tech Center, occupying over 1,000 acres in the city. It is the nucleus of GM's technical, creative, and innovative operations. GM continues to serve as the largest employer in Warren with over 23,000 employees. Prompted by the presence of a world class facility in their midst, the township of Warren incorporated as a city on October 27, 1956, and began operating as such on January 1, 1957. The citizens of Warren enjoy a rich ethnic heritage which continues to be celebrated today. Joining German immigrants already established, Polish families moved in large numbers from the east side of Detroit and Hamtramck to the city of Warren. They were followed by Italian, Ukrainian and Irish, and more recently, Albanian, Lebanese, and Chaldean families. Warren's history, steeped in technology, innovation, and industry, has generated support for six public school districts and three colleges. Macomb Community College, Detroit College of Business, and an extension of Central Michigan University serve over 25,000 students seeking advanced degrees. Mr. Speaker, ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Warren's 40th anniversary. On this occasion, I extend my sincere wishes for continued progress, growth and prosperity to the citizens and leadership of the city of Warren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party has stood for economic growth with equity. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act worked in both respects, promoting the dramatic deficit reduction that has been a major source of our sustained economic growth and providing a tax cut for low- and middle-income families through expansion of the ITC, and the predictions of economic doom from those who opposed the 1993 act came from many of the same people who voted for the 1981 legislation that led to the deep deficits of the 1980's. Time has proved them as wrong as to 1993 as it did for 1981. The tax bill now before us shows that today it does indeed take two to tango, but that does not mean the two partners have always been dancing in the same direction. Democrats have focused on responding to the pressures on middle- and low-income families whose income stagnated amidst the general boom of the last 5 years, while many of the majority have been dancing too often to the tune of the very wealthy, and Democrats have been resisting proposals that would bust budget in later years while the majority has been pushing some of the same approaches that engendered the deficits of the 1980's. So we Democrats worked with President Clinton to target the child tax credit to middle-income families, to provide help for families with escalating costs to educate their kids after high school and to provide the child credit for hard-working families making $18 to $15,000 as well as those making $25 to $100,000. In this strenuous effort on the tax bill we have lost some battles, but we have also won some vital ones. As a result, today I am voting for this tax bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I heard the colloquy between the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Missouri, and I just want the record to be clear. They are attempting to write a bill through a colloquy and you cannot do that. The reference to 1988 is very mistaken. It was a very different bill. It was not a broad welfare-to- work bill as we are now implementing. I worked hard on the 1993 legislation, and no one can get up here and simply give their gloss on it and expect that to become law. But most importantly, the effort in this House by the majority to exclude people who would be classified as employees under FLSA and other Federal laws from those protections was specifically rejected in the conference committee. It is not in this bill. No colloquy can erase that. People who move from welfare to work have the dignity of the protection of Federal law if they are employees.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of the Democratic Party has been economic growth with equity. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act was instrumental in promoting economic growth. Despite the overall growth, there were pressures on middle-income families, so this bill includes a child credit and also an educational tax credit and deduction. I support both bills. Let me say a word about the piece that I worked most on, the human resource piece. I supported the Welfare Reform Act. People on welfare should move from welfare to work. But when the President signed the bill he pointed out several inequities. One related to legal immigrants. He promised to work to provide benefits to elderly and disabled legal immigrants who should not have been penalized in the first place. I joined in that promise. Today we are keeping that promise. It is a much better bill in that respect than when it left the House. The President also promised to work for a welfare to work provision. We have kept that promise. There was an effort, though, in this House to penalize people who move from welfare to work, to treat them as second-class citizens, to withdraw them from the protections of Federal law in terms of wages, in terms of safety on the job. We have today, in this bill, repelled that effort. People who work are to be treated as first-class citizens, without discrimination. We have also repelled the effort to withdraw from mostly elderly women the protections of maintenance of effort under SSI in terms of payments from the State. This is a bill that is a step in the right direction. I urge broad support for it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 75 of which I am an original sponsor. This important legislation commends those States that have already adopted truth-in- sentencing laws and encourages the remaining States to do the same. Most Americans believe that convicted violent offenders serve their full sentences; sadly this is not the case. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, violent criminals-- those who commit murder, rape, assault, or armed robbery--serve only an average of 48 percent of their sentences, and one out of every three offenders admitted to State prisons were either on probation or parole for a previous offense at the time. According to the committee report accompanying this bill, on any given day there are three convicted offenders on probation or paroles for every one convicted felon in prison. To turn this trend around over 25 States, including my home State of Michigan, and the Federal Government have truth-in-sentencing laws on the books. Under this concept, convicted violent offenders are required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. Both the 103d and 104th Congresses passed legislation providing financial incentives in the form of prison construction funds to States if they adopt laws requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their prison terms. Unfortunately, 25 States still have not adopted such laws. Law-abiding citizens have the right to know that those who commit the most hideous of crimes in our society serve the time their sentences require. The resolution before us today is simple. It asks that those who commit violent crimes do the time that the law requires of them. I wish there was not a need for this type of resolution, but until then, I hope all my colleagues vote to encourage States to do the right thing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my esteemed colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis for organizing this special order on the 23d anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. In 1974, Turkey launched an invasion of the island of Cyprus that resulted in thousands of deaths, the displacement of over 200,000 people from their homes, and the occupation of 38 percent of the island of Cyprus by Turkish armed forces. Today, over 35,000 Turkish soldiers and 80,000 Turkish ``colonists'' occupy the northern portions of the island. They are divided from the Greek-Cypriots by a barbed-wire fence referred to as the ``Green Line.'' This buffer zone is patrolled and maintained by a 1,160-strong U.N. peace keeping force. Periodic outbreaks of violence have broken out along this dividing line. Just last year, an unarmed Greek teenager bled to death after being shot by Turkish troops within sight of peacekeepers. The peacekeepers attempted to rescue the youth, but were fired upon from the Turkish side. The United States must work to put a stop to this cycle of violence and separation. I am encouraged by President Clinton's appointment of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as our Nation's Special Emissary to Cyprus. It is my hope that this, along with renewed efforts by the United Nations and the European Union, will help bring an end to the long entrenched disputes that separate the two sides. I am also encouraged by the renewal of talks in New York between Greek Cypriot President Glafcos and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Dentkash. While the two remain far from an agreement, the leaders have at least resumed a dialogue and agreed to additional talks in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, and in Geneva later this year. According to U.N. Special Envoy Diego Cordovez, the two agree that a settlement is necessary for Cyprus to survive, but still disagree over the particulars of what should be included any final agreement. My hope is that the talks will result in a settlement that includes the complete removal of all foreign forces from the island and the establishment of a free and fair democratic government that represents the interests of all the island's citizens. In the absence of such an agreement, I would urge the two parties to again consider the option of demilitarization of the island. This could be used as a first step to build confidence between the two sides and remove negative foreign influences from the equation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers amendment. This amendment would eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and is opposed by the very State art councils it purports to help. In all candor, the Ehlers amendment is something of a smoke screen. We should be having a straight, up-or-down vote on the NEA, and we would have had one if the leadership of the House had not blocked the Yates amendment from even being debated by a procedural slight of hand. Whatever you think about the NEA--whether or not you support Federal funding for the arts--everyone should agree that we should have a fair, up-or-down vote on the issue. The Yates amendment would have given Members the option of restoring funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. It is unfortunate that the House won't have the opportunity to debate it. The spending priorities of this Congress continue to amaze me. Just the other week, this House of Representatives voted to purchase nine additional B-2 bombers that the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have told Congress repeatedly that they do want or need. These planes will cost $13.6 billion dollars to build and an additional $13.2 billion to operate and maintain. What a difference 2 weeks make. Today the House is considering legislation that eliminates funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Apparently, the House leadership has determined that, after spending billions of dollars for B-2 bombers the Pentagon says it doesn't need, there isn't any money left to support the arts in the United States. For all the extreme and inaccurate rhetoric coming from the other side about the expense and utility of the Arts Endowment, the truth is that the NEA represents just one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. Put another way, the NEA costs each American less than 38 cents a year: That's three dimes, one nickel and three pennies. So what are our constituents getting for their 38 cents? Since the NEA was created 32 years ago, the number of arts organizations has dramatically increased. When the NEA was established, there were only 56 nonprofit theaters in America; today there are over 400. The number of orchestras have quadruped in number to over 200. Opera companies have grown from 27 to nearly 100. Our country's modest investment in the NEA helps support folk festivals, community theater, free lawn concerts, arts exhibitions in public libraries, and chamber music in rural areas. The NEA helps to bring the arts to millions of school children. Just last week, millions of Americans saw the broadcast of the Fourth of July concert on the Mail by the National Symphony. The NEA helped make that possible. The Endowment also serves as a catalyst for private investment in the arts. Every dollar awarded by the NEA attracts $12 from State and local art agencies, corporations and other private sources. Indeed, the non- for-profit arts generate $37 billion in economic activity and support more than a million jobs. On the community level, the art activities supported by the NEA simulate local economies, promote tourism, and make our communities better places to live. Elimination of the NEA would not mean the elimination of the arts in America. What it would mean is that the arts could become inaccessible to many Americans. The arts should not be just for the well-to-do. Opponents of the Arts endowment insist on rehashing old arguments against a few controversial grants awarded by the NEA over the last three decades. The fact of the matter is that only a handful of the more than 112,000 grants awarded since the NEA's founding have proven to be controversial, and most of these grants were awarded years ago before Congress and the NEA took steps to curb funding to objectionable projects. Yet the opponents of the NEA would throw the baby out with the bath water. Had the leadership permitted us to debate it, the Yates amendment would have given Members the choice of restoring the NEA's funding at last year's level. I would point out that the Yates amendment was deficit-neutral since it contained offsetting spending reductions in other programs. Mr. Chairman, the NEA is the country's largest single supporter of the arts in America. Other nations, far less wealthy than the United States, do much more to support the arts in their countries. Let's not eliminate the little the Federal Government does do to make the arts accessible to every American. I urge my colleagues to reject the Ehlers amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Florida, look, there is a reference to health and safety that was put in after we protested. But there is no Federal protection of that right. Why should people be treated as second class citizens as they move from welfare to work? Why should they not have the same protections as other people, the full dignity and integrity of work? In the list he read earlier, there is no protection against sexual harassment or against employment discrimination. So they are trying in a sense to finesse the issue on the majority side. We have been able to move this along but not to the point where people who work are first class citizens whether they are on welfare or not. Our basic premise is this: People who work, surely those who move from welfare to work, as I believe they should, and I supported the welfare bill, should have the same protections as all other employees. If they are employees under FLSA, they are employees. And you have been trying to cut this in pieces. What we are saying is, let us keep it whole. That is what people in this country deserve. That is the intent of the law. This motion to instruct says, follow FLSA as it applies to all employees.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California asked why we wanted a recorded vote. The reason is because there are several parts of this motion to instruct. One of them relates to Medicare and the age parameters, but another part relates to whether people who move from welfare to work should be treated as first-class citizens and should be covered by FLSA. When Members vote, whoever does, for this motion to instruct, they are essentially saying, we reject the House position that takes people who are moving from welfare to work out from under the minimum wage and other protections of FLSA. That is what Members are doing when they vote, if they do, for the motion to instruct. We want everybody on record on this because it is very important. Contrary to what the other gentleman from Missouri said, this is an effort to implement the welfare bill. This is to make sure, as people move from welfare to work, who are workers, that they be treated as workers and not as second-class citizens. The history of this is the following, quickly: The original Committee on Ways and Means proposal in the House would exempt all of the people who are under TANF from protection of minimum wage and other protections, health and safety and others, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We protested. So then what was finally done was to say even if they would be classified as employees, they would still not be considered as protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but let us be sure they have minimum wage and, unlike the original House Republican proposal, we will not allow the State to deduct medical care, child care, or housing assistance. But they still do not have the protections under Federal law if they are not paid the minimum wage. They still do not have protections against sexual harassment. Let me just ask, as someone moves from welfare to work, as they should, why should they not have protection against sexual harassment? No, this is not a question of making welfare less attractive. This is an issue of treating people who move from welfare to work as workers. It is carrying out the basic premise of welfare reform, and that is the dignity and integrity of work. That is what this is all about. We won only part of this fight in the committee. We want to win the rest of this fight today on the floor of the House in the motion to instruct. Let there be no mistake about it, that is our purpose, to implement welfare reform. The excuse was States would not be able to implement the participation requirements if we put people under FLSA. But Members put them, the majority, under some form of minimum wage, which would be the main barrier to States, and everybody acknowledges they are going to be able to meet these participation requirements in the next several years. Then the argument was, well, we are going to create bookwork. My answer to that is, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to create unnecessary bookwork, but I want to make sure that people who move from welfare to work, which I very much favor, are treated, as is the promise of welfare reform, as first-class citizens of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to instruct on this record rollcall. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me. So now, now the answer from the majority is we will not come up with a 10-year analysis because they are not reliable, even though this is a 10-year budget agreement. No, the reason the majority will not come up with a 10-year analysis is because the second 5 years show the maldistribution and show that they blow a hole in the deficit. So I say again to the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Show your bipartisanship, give us a 10-year analysis right away.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me respond to my friend from Louisiana. The way the President has shaped this, this is the question: Should people who are paying income tax and/or payroll tax receive the child credit? And essentially what my colleague is saying is the child credit should not go to people who are paying payroll taxes. Why? Because it is for a specific purpose. I think taxes are for specific purposes, and we are willing to take this issue to the country. It is not welfare to say to somebody who has a couple of kids, who is paying net payroll taxes, we are going to give you a child credit. A lot of these people are middle-income taxpayers. Now let me say a word about this 10-year versus 5-year analysis. The Joint Committee on Taxation has refused to give a 10-year analysis period. Why? For two reasons. A 10-year analysis will change the distribution and will show that increasingly from the fourth, fifth year on, more and more of the tax cut goes to very wealthy families. So they will not show, they do not come up with it. Second, it will show, as the years go on, there is a greater danger of blowing a hole in the deficit. So essentially the refusal of the Joint Committee on Taxation to come up with a 10-year versus a 5-year analysis is kind of a coverup, and it makes the figures of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] essentially half fact at best. This is a 10-year budget agreement. We need a 10-year analysis. Where is it? Mr. Speaker, where is the gentleman's 10-year analysis? He does not have one. So the gentleman can repeat his half fact, and at best it is a half fact, forever, and it is nothing more than a half fact. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and I wrote to Mr. Keys yesterday. He said in an article, we will service Democrats equally with Republicans. We do not have an answer, and now I guess we are told it is going to be a number of weeks away. The CRS has said the Treasury Department analysis is more reliable than that of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Republicans, come up with a 10-year analysis.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman is here who just spoke, the President's proposal would give a child credit only to those who work and pay Federal taxes, income or withholding, Social Security, period. So do not come here and distort the truth. Second, in 1993 I voted for that package. I am proud of it. We have now a deficit that may be disappearing. Why? Because we Democrats had the guts in 1993 to stand up. Third, this 75 percent figure going to those who earn under $71,000, it is a 5-year analysis at best. Give us a 10-year analysis. They do not give it to us because it will show that most of the tax cut would go to very wealthy families, and I would say here to Mr. Kies of the Joint Committee on Taxation, today come up with a 10-year analysis. He does not because he hides the fact who will benefit, and that it would explode the deficit after 5 years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Michigan Apparel Club [MAC] on the occasion of their 80th anniversary. Eighty years ago, this club began as just a social gathering between manufacturers' representatives of men's apparel and the Michigan retailers they serviced. In the 1920's, their informal relationship took on a closer association with the introduction of ``The Sprinkler,'' and trade shows. ``The Sprinkler'' was, and still is today, the publication that informs retailers of the trade shows and provides advertising opportunities for the manufacturers' representatives and their merchandise. With the advent of the Depression, apparel clubs in other States suffered, and only the Michigan club remained. MAC's most successful years came as a result of World War II. Shortages of merchandise resulted in strict allocation of supplies to retailers, and with the return of servicemen the club took on a new spirit and camaraderie that is unmatched even today. Indeed, those were their glory days. The Detroit trade shows were first held in the Statler and Book Cadillac Hotels, and shortly expanded from the two hotels, to three with the addition of the Tuller. Their next move was to Cobo Hall, and later to the Southfield Civic Center. Today the Michigan Apparel Club holds their trade shows at the Burton Manor in Livonia, and serves as the regional show for all the Midwest. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Michigan Apparel Club for its 80 years of dedicated service, and I wish the current members continued success in promoting the goodwill and prosperity in our business community.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, just quickly I want to say again about this 76 percent figure that the Republicans have used. It is at best a 5- year figure. One of the benefits of going to conference would be that the Republicans here will have to face up to the consequences of their bill over 10 years. What it means in terms of exploding the deficit and what it means in terms of fairness, the Democratic alternative is fiscally responsible and fair. The Republican proposal is irresponsible fiscally and unfair both in education and the child credit among others. I urge that we support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] would trade places with me for a moment, I want the American public to see these two charts. This is based on material from the Treasury Department. The Democratic tax cut plan, 71 percent of Democratic tax cuts go to low- and middle-income families. Two-thirds of the Republican tax cuts go to the wealthy based on Treasury material. Here is the 10-year analysis by the Republicans of their plan. It is right here. This is it. There is nothing. There is nothing. The Joint Tax Committee will not supply a 10-year distribution analysis. I will tell my colleagues why. First of all, it puts to a lie, to a falsehood the notion that my colleagues have said 76-percent of the tax relief goes to people making below $75,000. Those are 5-year figures. The other chart, about 90 percent goes to families and education has 10 years on it, but not the 76 percent figure. It is based on 5 years because most of the tax cuts, the second 5 years, go to wealthy families, and my Republican colleagues are trying to hide it. Second, those second 5-year tax cuts explode the deficit, and my Republican colleagues do not want to admit it. They do not want to admit what the effect is. That is it purely and simply. We have begged our Republican colleagues, come forth with a 10-year distribution analysis, and they will not do it. My Republican colleagues challenge the Treasury figures, but they are the same methodology used by Reagan and Bush Treasury Departments, and they come up and nitpick about imputing this or imputing that. The fact of the matter remains that the analysis by Treasury is this: 71 percent of the Democratic plan goes to low-income families, and here it is. Your plan: Treasury Department analysis, two-thirds of the Republicans' plan go to the wealthy. If my Republican colleagues do not like the Treasury Department figures, come up with something better than this. The American public will never believe my Republican colleagues' blank slate. They explode the deficit and they benefit the very wealthy to the detriment of middle-income families. We can do much better than this, and we are going to do that in conference. Americans need a fair tax cut.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I speak as someone who supported the reform of AFDC and I very much continue to support it. Let me address two issues. The Fair Labor Standards Act. I favor moving people off of welfare to work. They should not be treated as second-class citizens, and you do that. You take away the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and then you go back in, the States must pay a minimum wage. They do not have the protection of Federal law. There is no clear enforcement, and you take away the protection against sexual harassment. Why? What do you do that for? People should move from welfare to work. They should not be second- class citizens. Period. In fact, our hope is the opposite, to maintain the dignity and the integrity of work. Legal immigrants; look, we did not offer the President's proposal. We offered something that built on that. It was turned down by one vote, even though there was the money there to pay for it. The gentlewoman from Washington said, well, everybody should play by the same rules. No, you are asking people who were here August of 1996, who became injured after that, to play by different rules. They are out in the cold. That is an irrational, inhumane line. We should not be drawing it. I am going to vote against this bill in part because I am hoping that we will indeed have Mr. Shaw, whom I very much respect, in a bipartisan effort to work out these problems in conference committee. Do not treat anybody in this institution as a second-class citizen and do not renege on the budget agreement regarding legal immigrants. They were here legally. We should not differentiate people according to when they were disabled.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, three points on taxes. I hope the Republicans will listen. The 76 percent for families less than $70,000 is based on 5 years, apparently. We have never seen the analysis. I challenge them, give us a 10-year analysis. They leave out the tax breaks the second 5 years. Give it to us. Second, Treasury, using the same methods used by the Reagan Treasury and the Bush Treasury, say two-thirds of the tax cuts under your bill go to the wealthy, the same method that was used by previous administrations. Third, they bust the budget in the outyears. They bust it. So come here not with phony figures. Come here with the facts and we will debate them.