Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the bill. At a time when studies are showing an increase in drug abuse among young people, we can ill afford to freeze funding for drug prevention programs on the local level at an already grossly inadequate level. Unfortunately that is exactly what this bill does by maintaining funding for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention at essentially the FY 96 level. The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention provides grants to local community-based organizations to develop strategies to prevent drug and substance abuse problems on the mainstreets of America. This agency is the only one on the federal level whose sole purpose and mandate is drug abuse prevention. In 1996, the Center took a 62 percent cut in funding. This caused the Center to provide only partial funding to many projects and send out notices to 76 grant programs stating that funding was going to be cut off at the end of fiscal year. This will result in the loss of many vital ongoing projects covering pregnant women, children of alcoholics, children of drug abusers, and children who live in areas of high crime--totaling over 6 million people nationwide. Years of valuable research will be lost and already expended federal resources will be wasted. By doing this, we will be undermining an important weapon to fight drug abuse--community involvement. This is not only foolish, it's poor policy. By funding the Center at over $80 million below the Administration's request, Congress will undermine the new anti-drug strategy developed by General Barry McCaffrey, the nation's new Drug Czar, which focuses not only on eliminating the supply of drugs at the source but on reducing the demand for drugs at the local level.This too is unwise and counterproductive to our nation's interests. In the war to prevent drug abuse, talk is cheap and knowledge is power. Sadly this bill has too little of the latter and too much of the former. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill so that we can send it back to Committee and get back one that helps local communities fight the drug war where it matters most--in our schools, in our homes, at our places of work, and on the mainstreams of America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. speaker, there are deeply felt reasons to vote for this disapproval resolution. Issues of human rights, issues, for example, and important ones of trade. China presents vital questions on how America competes with a low-wage economy. But I have asked myself, where would a vote for disapproval lead? First of all, it would be vetoed. Second, even more importantly, even if it were to become law, what would we do next? What issues would we negotiate with the Chinese? What would our demands on each of these issues be? What would we settle for? In a word, I have concluded we need a policy, not a protest. We need to go beyond an annual skirmish over an action we are unlikely to take. We need to do the difficult work of hammering out a year-round policy, and Congress needs to participate. We have to engage ourselves, which we have not done, year round. We have to engage our legislative counterparts in Asia and in Europe. We need to have an active role in the question of China's accession to the World Trade Organization, and we in this country need to develop allies in Europe and Asia so we simply do not go it alone on all of these issues. The administration deserves credit for its recent success in the issue of intellectual property piracy, and I favor the use of sanctions against China. But it is time for all of us in both the Government and the private sector to put these endeavors in the context of a larger long-range blueprint. I want not a message but a program. I am going to vote against disapproval.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we could debate the technical issues, and I enjoy doing that on antidumping. This provision that the Kolbe amendment is attacking may not be perfectly drawn, but let me say I think the amendment is a very imperfect solution. There is a real problem here. In the past, industries in this country have been targeted. In the 1980's it was semiconductors, machine tools, televisions, VCR's; almost you name it, and a major industry was targeted. Now there is considerable evidence that supercomputers are being targeted, and what is happening is that profits from a sanctuary market in Japan are being used to drive out the remaining U.S. companies. Most of them are out of business. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss all the intricacies of our antidumping laws and the role of this agency or another agency. There is a problem here. The bill has an honest effort to address it. If there are some technical problems with it, it can be handled later on, but do not try to cure that by ignoring what is a real problem in an important industry, as the L.A. Times said, one of the industries of the future, really of the present, a corner of American competitiveness. It has been said we are getting way ahead of ourselves. To the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], I would say in the past the problem has been we have been way behind when American industries have been targeted and have been lost. Let us not lose this one. Defeat the Kolbe amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Police Chief Joe Sullivan of Ferndale, MI will retire on June 30, 1996 after almost 27 years with the Ferndale Police Department. Joe Sullivan has been an exceptional law enforcement officer. From his early days as a patrolman, as the youngest captain in the history of the Ferndale Police Department and finally to his service as chief of police, he has had a distinguished and rewarding career. His approach toward law enforcement is rooted in his family, his commitment to community and respect for his colleagues. Joe Sullivan's career in law enforcement has spanned three decades--an era of major change in the nature of law enforcement. The problems experienced in our communities have intensified and have become more complex. They have required new techniques. Joe Sullivan has been successful because he has been a leader in combining sophisticated new methods with some old-fashion, community-based methods. It has been my pleasure to know Joe Sullivan and to work closely with him on a variety of efforts. 1994, Joe Sullivan spent time helping to provide me the hands of knowledge I needed to make the anti-crime bill more effective for local communities. We worked together, with other chiefs of police in the 12th District and with Attorney General Janet Reno to strengthen the community policing provisions of the bill by allowing communities to work together in multijurisdictional tasks forces. It was an idea sparked by Joe Sullivan and his colleagues and because of them it is law. I was honored to have Joe Sullivan join me for the White House ceremony where President Clinton signed the legislation into law. Joe Sullivan is a person who combines a direct, no-nonsense approach with a sensitivity to others. He will tell you what's on his mind, while listening to the views of others. And he speaks passionately about what local law enforcement needs to be successful. Joe Sullivan has won 17 commendations during his career on the Ferndale Police Force. One such distinction emanated from his work as commander of a SWAT intervention that terminated a dangerous hostage situation in 1984. Joe Sullivan was born and raised in Ferndale. He is a husband of 30 years, a father of two and a grandfather of four. His strong family values are rooted in his Irish heritage. Joe Sullivan has given his adult career to the safety and security of the citizens of Ferndale. I join them in paying tribute to Joe Sullivan and wishing him health and happiness in his much deserved retirement. Many thanks, Joe, for all of your efforts on our behalf.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the Department of Interior funding bill before the House today. Once again, the Republican majority has brought a bill to the floor that shortchanges our nation's Natural resources and attacks the environment. The priorities of the majority party never cease to amaze me. Just last week, the House approved a defense appropriation bill that provides $11 billion more for military spending than even the Pentagon requested. At the same time, critical nondefense programs such as our national parks are underfunded. The Interior bill before us today cuts $285 million from the President's request for the National Park Service. Years of lean budgets have forced the park system to defer maintenance and cut staff. As a result, our parks are increasingly falling into disrepair. Ironically, resources for the park system continue to decline at a time when more and more Americans are visiting our national parks. This year, the number of visits to national parks will rise to 270 million. One national park superintendent put it this way: ``Visitors [to the nation's national parks] will notice a major difference in park operations this year. I the years ahead . . . protecting resources and providing for visitor use will be increasingly compromised.'' I likewise am concerned that this bill reduces funding for energy conservation programs $235 million below the administration's request. Such a reduction is short-sighted given our Nation's dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy. These energy conservation programs not only work to improve our country's energy efficiency; they also provide a successful means of reducing pollution. Because of these and other deficiences in the bill, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the current status of United States-India relations. Over the past decade the relationship between our countries has been increasingly positive. United States trade and business investments in India have grown to an all-time high. This growth should continue, for India recently reaffirmed its commitment to democracy by conducting the largest democratic election in history. Over 65 percent of India's 640 million eligible voters participated in the election. At such a time, with so many positive developments, it is a serious misreading of history for us to even consider freezing aid to India, as some are now proposing. I urge those who are so inclined to listen to the warnings of Ambassador Frank Wisner, senior career ambassador to India, who recently said India would view such an attempt by Congress to be ``a very negative message.'' Undeniably, there have been human rights abuses in India in years past. But progress in this area is being made, as reflected most dramatically by the election results in Punjab Province. There, the ruling party which allegedly committed abuses against Muslims was thrown out by a Muslim-leaning party. Another reflection of progress was the decision by both the State Department and the United Nations to commend India for its recent resolution of human rights problems. These are trends to be encouraged, not discouraged by denying additional assistance. In fact, a cutoff of United States developmental assistance would hurt the very people who most need help, hampering the intentions of newly elected Prime Minister Deve Gowda to improve the living conditions of the poorest citizens of India. Finally, India's geographic position continues to be of great strategic importance in light of recent transactions between China and Pakistan. For these reasons, and more, I believe those who want to send a symbolic message are jeopardizing our relationship with India and putting at peril United States national security interests in and around that region of the world.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and to the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a couple of words on this bill in favor of it and against the proposed amendment. This is not a perfect solution, but I think it is clear it is the best we are going to be able to do under these circumstances, and the alternatives, really, are quite a bit worse, unraveling this entire structure. I mainly want to focus on a provision that has received very little attention and it relates to what is called injurious pricing mechanisms. We have fought long and hard in international agreements to make sure that there are some strong antidumping provisions. These provisions are most beneficial to companies in the United States and their workers because it is the United States which has been the place where other countries have tried to dump. We have had open markets, and other countries have tried to take advantage of that. This bill incorporates, in essence, the work that we have been doing all these years to try to have a strong antidumping regimen. And as I said, in this case, it is framed somewhat differently because we are talking about ships, but the thrust of it is the same under the terminology ``injurious pricing mechanism.'' So this is a step forward. It is the best we can do, and it is surrounded by provisions that will try to prevent other countries injuring our shipbuilding by essentially dumping or undercutting through unfair price mechanisms. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill and opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk for my 1 minute about my Republican colleagues' mind-boggling inconsistencies. They say they invented deficit reduction; they come here with a budget that increases the deficit. They are suffering from amnesia or arrogance. Who was President when these deficits exploded? And in 1993, many of us had the courage to vote for deficit reduction and every Republican voted ``no.'' And one of them comes forth now and says under Democrats, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But what are they suggesting? Increasing taxes on poor working families. Now, Mr. Speaker, their message does not ring. There is economic prosperity under Democrats. We have to do better. We cannot trust the party that will make it worse.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of smoke screening going on here. The issue is not malpractice insurance. I think the Republicans are ready to drop that. The issue is MSA's and whether they will be included. There is a good reason. The reason it was held up, the whole conference on the other side, was because the majority leader, as I understand it, wanted to stack the conference with Members who are in favor of MSA's. Let me just indicate the problems with MSA's, as they came through the House. First of all, there is a health policy issue. That is, if you allow people to go into these, the healthier people, they are likely to raise the premiums for everybody else. That is the problem. There is a second problem and that relates to tax policy. As they passed the House, here is what people could do, and I understand the gist of this remains in the agreement that none of us have seen. That is, people, especially wealthier people who would benefit, could put moneys into MSA's, they could accumulate income from those investments; they would not be taxed. At a certain age they could withdraw that without penalty. I think it was 59 here. Maybe it has been raised. If they kept the moneys until death, it would not be subject to taxation upon death. So essentially what we have is an incentive for wealthier people. It is kind of an IRA for wealthy people. By the way, they could take the money, they could keep it in there and spend other income on health care. That is why we say, just as my colleague tied Medicare to tax breaks for very wealthy people, we are tying what is needed here, and that is portability and protection against preexisting conditions to a proposal that is mainly going to be a tax benefit for wealthier people. It is not a choice issue. It is that issue. And my colleague has never faced up to it. That is why we are questioning MSA's in addition to the health policy. We need to respond to this. Otherwise we are going to have our opposition and a veto from the President.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bonior amendment. It presents a practical approach for Turkey to finally come to terms with a terrible chapter in the Armenian genocide. Eighty-one years is far far too long to deny the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians. And yet to this day, the Government of Turkey has remained silent--a silence that is deafening. The Bonior amendment provides a proper incentive for Turkey to finally end the silence. It also sends a message throughout the world that despots cannot and will not get away with crimes against humanity. History shows that we cannot forget the past lest we be doomed to repeat it. Only through remembering and acknowledging the past can we stop such horrible crimes against humanity from happening again. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act was created to ensure that U.S. aid reaches refugees in the quickest way possible regardless of geopolitical concerns. This amendment notifies countries such as Turkey, which refuses to allow humanitarian aid destined for Armenia to cross its borders, that they will lose United States economic assistance unless the aid blockade is lifted. Breaking aid blockades is provided for by existing law, but unfortunately, a Presidential waiver is allowed under certain circumstances. This amendment will put teeth into the law by requiring a cutoff of economic support funds to offending countries regardless of a Presidential waiver. The amendment will not affect military aid nor other forms of noneconomic aid, such as humanitarian assistance, to offending countries. With this amendment, we will be able to protect national security interests while sending a clear message to countries to act in accord with internationally accepted human rights standards. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, when HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros leads U.S. representatives to HABITAT II--the Second U.N. Conference on Human Settlement--in Istanbul, Turkey, the official delegation will include a Michigan high school student whose essay won first place in the 1996 National High School Contest on the United Nations. In his essay, John Hart, a junior at Kimball High School in Royal Oak, MI, describes the impact of migration, trade policies, and international economics on urban centers throughout the world, and argues for a ``new set of priorities,'' based primarily on free trade and multilateral investment, to promote global prosperity. Hart's essay, ``Impoverished Metropolises,'' won a $1,000 first prize and a trip to HABITAT II for both Hart and his history and international relations teacher at Kimball High School, Patricia Estep. The conference focuses on building links among national urban development programs, environmental studies and social service networks. I compliment John Hart for his accomplishment, and commend his work to the attention of my colleagues. Impoverished Metropolises (By John Hart) The fate of the world is entwined with the fate of its cities. Social critic Lewis Mumford remarked that ``the city is a place for multiplying happy chances and making the most of unplanned opportunities.'' At the turn of the century, roughly five percent of the world's people lived in cities with populations over 100,000. Today, an estimated forty-five percent, slightly more than 2.5 billion people, live in urban centers. Every year, millions migrate to metropolitan areas in search of prosperity. However, bright hopes have been clouded by dim prospects, as rapid population growth has strained resources and ignited economic turmoil. These problems plague the growth of the developing world. Millions of citizens face deplorable living conditions, while others struggle to support themselves. Poverty and unemployment form the core of metropolitan crises; economic and social hardships in developing nations are one of the world's most prevalent ills. The influx of billions of people into metropolitan areas strains the resources, leadership, and infrastructure of dozens of nations. Migration is a continuous trend. Citizens from the poor interior of sub-Saharan Africa travel to Kinshasa, Zaire, despite the collapse of its economy and services. Rapid population growth has pushed Kinshasa to the edge of anarchy. Between 1950 and 1995 the number of cities worldwide with a population of over one million increased fourfold, from 83 to 315. Cities, first and third world alike, are coping with waves of poor newcomers while affluent citizens move out, driven away by crime and a deteriorating quality of life. Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Mexico City, Cairo, Delhi, and Beijing face similar situations. The United Nations estimates that by the year 2025 more than five billion people, or sixty-one percent of humanity, will be living in cities. Poverty and disease are rampant in hundreds of the world's metropolises. Unsanitary conditions breed infectious diseases, infecting millions chronically. In Poland, the land and water have been so poisoned by toxic waste that ten percent of babies are born with birth defects. Virulent insects thrive in contaminated areas. Urbanization has produced an ideal environment for the spread of disease. Carolyn Stevens, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, notes that poverty is the root cause of such epidemics. Disproportionate numbers of poor people living in cities die from both infectious diseases and chronic illnesses. As migrants flood cities, resulting urban growth outruns the installation of sanitation. Hopeful citizens view metropolitan life as one of opportunity; however, resources are drained quickly and the standard of living falls exponentially. As time progresses, crowded, unsanitary slums will continue to harbor disease, perpetuating massive poverty. Massive migration also strains rural economies. Millions move toward the cities, abandoning suburban life in hope of metropolitan prosperity. Many of those who migrate in the developing world are farmers. The world's largest nations, including India and China, depend upon massive production of grain to feed their millions. As rural populations dwindle, grain output also dwindles commensurably. Burgeoning city populations, on the other hand, demand widespread resources. Agricultural output fails to fulfill the demand of large metropolises. As a result, much of the third world must import billions of pounds of grain. Although such attempts are successful, many are still left in poverty. Urban growth creates an unprecedented strain on the worldwide agricultural industry, ensuing economic hardship and widespread poverty. Population growth also strains urban economies. As cities swell from migration and births, workers face crowds of competitors. Economic growth cannot keep up with population expansion. Beijing is home to an estimated one million floating workers in search of jobs. Unemployment rates in scores of African cities top twenty percent and are unlikely to drop anytime soon. Newcomers have fled to Kinshasa, yet recent violence has scared away affluent businessmen and foreign workers. As a result, over the last three years, Kinshasa has seen its economy shrink by forty percent. Thousands of government jobs have disappeared, and the city's infrastructure has crumbled. In Beijing, the banking system is on the brink of collapse, as inflation is rapidly outpacing income growth. Hundreds of cities face similar situations; growing demand outpaces economic supply, harboring unemployment and depression. Metropolitan economics can't keep up with increased pressure. More and more, the fate of cities determines the fate of nations and regions. In dozens of countries, a single major city accounts for half of the government's revenues and a large portion of GDP. Karachi is Pakistan's financial center, only major port, and has the highest concentration of literate people. Large cities such as these are not only fundamental to the economy of their nation but are also catalysts for political movements. Depression and widespread poverty often spur ethnic or religious conflict. Overcrowded cities harbor violence and civil strife; passions incubate among disgusted peasants. In Pakistan, if factional violence intensifies, unrest could engulf the rest of the populace, leading to international conflicts and large movements of people. Cities are fundamental to economic and social stability. The problems of the world's major cities demand the attention of policy makers. The international community must work toward creating a new agenda for dealing with rapid urbanization. First, aid must not be prioritized to the world's few largest metropolises. Most international attention is directed toward the most gigantic cities, although smaller urban centers often face more severe hardships. Future programs must concentrate on assisting cities with the deepest problems, not those with the largest populations. Moreover, international organizations, such as the United Nations, must support community-based initiatives. These projects, pioneered by the World Bank, focus on small, yet fundamental problems. One of these initiatives, the Kampung Improvement Program in Jakarta, Indonesia, gave citizens an incentive to clean up their community. This method of foreign aid concentrates expertise of foreign workers, yet also gives cities a certain degree of autonomy in the self-improvement process. After the Jakarta program was implemented, Josef Leitmann, a World Bank urban planner, indicated that the ``poor began to look at their community as their home. A simple change in psychology produced a change in physical surroundings.'' By impressing the process of social and economic development, rather than blanketing certain areas with massive amounts of aid, international organizations can improve the welfare of cities dramatically. The international community must also promote multilateral free trade. Developing countries, such as China and Russia, must be included in the World Trade Organization. Increasing economic relations between all nations helps narrow the North-South gap, the economic and political barrier between first and third world countries. The United States and other major global powers can no longer concentrate trade with a select few large partners; they must open their doors to small, indigenous nations. Such an initiative would boost the economies of struggling cities, as increased exposure to world markets would boost standards of living and calm protectionist unrest. Current United States policies, such as the Export Enhancement Program (EEP), are contributing to third world city poverty. The program, known as the EEP, allows China to purchase grain from the United States at a substantially reduced price. Although China is the world's largest importer of grain, programs like the EEP, essentially subsidize foreign agricultural industries, killing their ability to complete. Nations such as China are, thus, able to purchase grain from the United States at a cheaper price than from their own farmers. This system pressures the individual farmers, causing millions to move to cities. Mass migration, in turn, strains resources in urban areas, perpetuating poverty and unemployment. Corporate investment also plays a fundamental role in reaching out to swelling metropolises. Abolishment of protectionist trade barriers must be accompanied by increased investment in fledgling economies. Multinational corporations, or MNCs, must be encouraged to develop new initiatives to boost the infrastructures of struggling cities. Hands-on investment, as opposed to large monetary grants, will pave the way for worldwide metropolitan prosperity. Cities form the cornerstone of civilization. Recent population growth has dulled the luster of shining metropolises. Migration has strained the developing world, creating millions of unemployed workers, pushing even more into poverty. Industrialized nations must form a new set of priorities, hinging chief objectives upon free trade and multilateral investment. Although the world cannot rectify all urban problems, it must act quickly and decisively in order to promote global prosperity. If positive steps are taken, present-day slums may become, as Lewis Mumford put it, ``symbols of the possible.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Randall J. Husk, recently retired from the Troy City Council after 18 years of distinguished service. Known to his friends and family as Randy, he has served most effectively and was honored by his peers with election as Mayor Pro Tem in 3 different years. While a City Councilman, Randy Husk served with distinction representing the city of Troy on the Michigan Municipal League's Workers Compensation Board and on the General Assembly of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments [SEMCOG]. Prior to his first city council term he was appointed to the planning commission for 3 years and was on the zoning Board of Appeals, holding the office of chairman of each. During his tenure in both appointed and elected city government he was known as a strong supporter of the Troy master land use plan. Randy Husk's energy and untiring dedication extend beyond City Hall to other areas of the community. His concern for youth is demonstrated by his contributions to the Troy Boys and Girls Club, the Athens High School Athletic Boosters Club, and his service as a volunteer probation worker for the Oakland County Juvenile Department. And he is a member and past president of the Troy Optimist Club, serving the youth of Troy in that role also. The Troy Code of Ethics Committee recognized his commitment by electing him Vice Chairman. He is a past president of the Apollo Homeowners Association, and a past Trustee of the Troy Inter- Service Club Council. The citizens of Troy were not surprised when in 1977 the Troy Jaycees presented Randy Husk with the Distinguished Service Award. Always outspoken in support of issues he believes in, he has been untiring in his efforts to promote the betterment of the health, safety, and welfare of the Troy community. And so, Mr. Speaker, we take note of the numerous contributions of Randy Husk to the citizens of Troy, and I offer my best wishes for his continued success in future endeavors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rabbi Lane Steinger who is retiring after 20 years of dedicated service as Rabbi of Temple Emanu-El in Oak Park, MI. For the past 20 years, Rabbi Steinger has not only served as a spiritual leader and teacher to his congregation, but he has distinguished himself as a community activist. He has volunteered as a chaplain at William Beaumont Hospital and has served on a myriad of boards including the Christian-Muslim-Jewish Leadership Forum of the Greater Detroit Interfaith Round Table, Interns for Peace Rabbinical Board, the Cranbrook Peace Foundation, Michigan Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, Jewish Resettlement Service, Jewish Federation Apartments, JARC, Jewish Vocational Service, and the Michigan League for Human Services. But most importantly, Rabbi Steinger will be remembered for his warmth, compassion, and caring. He will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Rabbi Steinger's accomplishments and years of service to the congregation of Temple Emanu-El and the greater metropolitan Detroit area. I send Rabbi Steinger and his wife, Linda, and children, Shira, Daina, and Rafi, my very best wishes as they return home to St. Louis, MO, where Rabbi Steinger will assume the position of Director of the Midwest Council of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It has several important bipartisan provisions. I have long supported increases in small business expending and expensing employer-provided education assistance and improving the targeted jobs tax credit and in simplifying pension and subchapter S rules. I am pleased these are in the bill. But there are several provisions in this bill that run counter to its stated purpose to preserve and create small business jobs. I hope these shortcomings are fixed in the Senate. The first provision repeals the tax exclusion for employer-provided graduate education. This provision helps hard-working Americans who, on average, make $30,000 per year. They are small business people, nurses, engineers, scientists, programmers, and teachers of tomorrow. They are precisely the people everyone tells us we need more of in this global, high-technology economy. A majority of our Committee on Ways and Means voted for provision for employer-provided graduate education, but the leadership blocked it. I hope the Senate puts it back in. The second provision repeals the tax exclusion for banks that lend to employee owned companies. The ESOP provision in the bill today would lose jobs, not protect them. And let me just say the issue is not tax breaks. The issue is a Tax Code provision: Does it encourage business expansion and job creation or does it not? And I do not think we ought to throw labels around and call it a break if we do not like it. I am for changes in the alternative minimum tax if it is tailored to help job creation, and I do not understand why this provision, this ESOP provision in this bill, why it would eliminate a part of our present code that helps employees keep their jobs, take control of their companies, improve productivity and make CEO's more accountable. So I hope this provision and the other one I mentioned on graduate education is changed in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. In 1990, in the summit agreement, there was an increase in the gas tax. Half of that went for deficit reduction, not for roads. Who voted for it? A lot of Republicans in this House, and the majority leader in the Senate, or the former majority leader, Mr. Dole. So we hear all of these rhetorical flourishes, when a lot of Republicans did the same thing in 1990. What credibility is there? If there is such a passionate belief, why is it temporary? Why is it temporary? We in the committee suggested it be, at least some of us, on a permanent basis. Almost every Republican, including I think the Member who just spoke, voted ``no.'' You have tried extremism. You gorged yourself on it, it does not work. Now you are trying manipulation, no matter how transparent. Let me say a word about the market. Here is what a very conservative economist said at our hearing. These were his words in the press earlier. ``The Republican-sponsored solution to the current fuel problem is nothing more and nothing less than a refiners' benefit bill. It will transfer upwards of $3 billion from the U.S. treasury to the pockets of refiners and gasoline marketers.'' When we in the committee, Democrats, proposed a solution so it would go directly to the consumer, almost every Republican voted ``no.'' I finish with this: We just debated the budget resolution. There were lots of speeches about the deficit. Now, just a few days later, here we come with a fix, 7 months only, that will increase the deficit and not help the consumer at all, or very much at all. Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy, and the worst kind of politics. We should vote ``no.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me sum up the Republican majority budget. They have softened some of the terrible numbers, but many of the terrible, harsh policies remain. For example, Medicare. Balanced billing, seniors will pay more under their provision. And also hospitals in southeast Michigan, the proposal of last year would have cut them $2.3 billion. No one thought that was sustainable. This would probably be even worse. Medicaid, block granting it. Seniors as a result will get less long- term care. EITC, look, there is one clear conclusion under their proposal: When you combine EITC as they have drafted it with their child tax credit, 3 million hard-working families with kids are going to be worse off. Let me say a word about taxes in general, and your $122.4 billion. I have heard a lot of rhetoric on this floor about the 1993 tax increases. You do not touch a single one of them, not a single one that you complain about, except the gas tax, and that you repeal for 7 months as an election year ploy. Why do you not in addition to your rhetoric do something? And then second, the $122.4 billion is not really that. As the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has said, it is $60, $70, $80 billion. The New York Times caught on to you in the article of May 12. It says, ``The $122 billion allotted in the budget for a tax cut is a net figure, and House leaders have said they will eventually cut an additional $60 billion or so in taxes on investors, businesses, and individuals.'' That raises the tax cut to $180 billion. ``The added tax breaks,'' I continue reading, ``were not plugged into the budget that was made public on Wednesday, in part because there is yet no clear way to pay for them and in part no doubt because the lower figure is a less attractive target for Democrats accusing Republicans of giving tax breaks to the rich.'' So last year it was $270 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for $245 billion in tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy. Now you are $168 billion in Medicare, and what are you, $180 billion in tax cuts, $190, $200? You shake your head, Mr. Shays. I said at that budget meeting it was $122 billion, plus an amount you are going to give to the Committee on Ways and Means. You say it is going to be raised by closing loopholes? What loophole did you close last time? Forty billion dollars in pension assets belonging to workers, giving it back to corporations? To raise $10 billion? You call that a loophole? You were out of touch last year, you are out of touch this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the congregation of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Troy on the dedication of their new church Sunday, May 19, 1996. Founded in 1936 by a small group of Greek immigrants in Detroit, this congregation now numbers 700 families drawn from around the metropolitan Detroit area and is one of the leading Greek Orthodox parishes in the United States. The history of this church mirrors the history of many of the ethnic congregations of southeast Michigan. The original parish was known as the Greek Orthodox Church of the north side. They pooled their resources and talents and met in a converted bank building to worship in the faith of their fathers and celebrate the culture of their homeland. As they prospered and grew their facilities became inadequate. In 1953 Archbishop Michael, head of the Greek Orthodox Church in North and South America, consecrated a new facility in Palmer Park during a 3-day observance. An outstanding example of Byzantine architecture, the church was designed in the shape of a cross, and its size and majesty both awed and inspired parishioners and visitors. As the size and vision of the congregation grew there was a need to relocate again, and in 1987 land was purchased in Troy and another ambitious building project was begun. Architect Constantine George Pappas was commissioned to design a modern church which expressed the ancient tradition. Sculptor Michael Kapetan received the commission to design and execute the icon screen; he, too, was challenged to create this essential religious artifact combining new ideas with the form and style of the past. This rotunda facility, already the winner of five State and local honor awards for distinguished architecture, engineering, and masonry, will be consecrated on May 19 by His Grace, Bishop Maximos, bishop of the diocese of Detroit. The congregation, led by Father Nicholas Harbatis, now includes third and fourth generation descendants of the founding members. In addition to religious studies, Greek language studies for children and adults, folk dancing, and classes in other Greek cultural traditions are offered by the parish. The Greek festival, held annually in the summer, is a celebration enjoyed by parishioners and the public. This summer the cultural exhibit will honor the centennial of the modern Olympics, founded on the ancient Greek contest. The new church and cultural center represent completion of phase I and II of a plan which includes a future gymnasium for youth and retirement complex for senior adults. Guided by philosophies and principles which are unchanged over 2,000 years, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is a true representation of the continuing faith of orthodoxy in America and a spiritual fulfillment for the community. The design of the church building, itself, is an icon for the community, just as the symbolic interior decoration is an icon for the faithful. And this complex represents an ethnic tie and a bond with Greek immigrants and their homeland. The consecration of this new house of worship is indeed a tribute to the faith and vitality of the members of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox parish and the Greek American community. I share their joy on this auspicious occasion and wish them well in future years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I first came really to know Sam Gibbons and his wife, Martha, on what is now a rather famous bus trip to Eastern Europe. I think I was just a freshman then; not on the Committee on Ways and Means. Sam was good enough to invite me. No junket was that. We worked 12 hours, sometimes 14 hours a day. We went to Czechoslovakia, to Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and we went to most of those places by bus. Mr. Speaker, I saw firsthand what Sam Gibbons was really like. Hard working, down to earth, good natured, generous. He made sure that each of us had a crack at introducing the delegation to the distinguished, and not so distinguished in some cases, leaders of those countries. Then, Mr. Speaker, I joined the Committee on Ways and Means and since then I have had a chance to work firsthand with Sam Gibbons, to work on trade. He and I have not always agreed, but one thing all of us agree on and that is the caliber of leadership and commitment of Sam Gibbons. He has been compared to some other famous people. Claude Pepper, for example, another favorite son of Florida. But I do not think you can compare Sam with anyone. He is very much his own person. He is very much a real article. Sam, you care so much, you have such a sense of commitment. So, I am not sure why you are leaving. I think maybe it is because his main passion is not for power; it is for public service. I think there is some hint that Sam is going to remain very much a public figure. I close with this, Sam. I think with your streak of modesty you do not really know how much you are going to be missed. The answer is, very deeply.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Colorado, we are going to pass the rule, we are going to pass the bill. It reduces spending, but in a way that does not hurt children and their education, does not hurt the environment, does not hurt citizens who want security in their neighborhoods, because it does not adopt the cuts that you voted for. We want to expand this and have a vote on the minimum wage. We will make an agreement. If the Speaker says we will have a vote, we will not oppose the previous question. But if he says we will not have one, do not say go through committee. I want to read something from November 8, 1989. This is a statement by Mr. Dole on the floor: ``We had a White House meeting this morning, and the President asked about minimum wage and the progress it was making. I said we hoped to have it passed as early as noon or 1:00.'' That was Mr. Dole in 1989. In 1996, Mr. Dole has an option: either continue to cater to the radical right of the Republican Party or do what was done in 1989. The minimum wage today is back where it was in 1989. We need to move ahead. You are standing there trying to divert attention. We are going to vote for the rule and the bill, but we should also bring up the minimum wage. It is of importance to the working families of this country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, April 24, 1996 marks the 81st anniversary of one of the world's most tragic events--the genocide of the Armenian people by the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire. The genocidal process which began in the 1890's, came to a peak in 1915 when the Turkish government began a systematic and willful attempt to wipe out the Armenian population of Anatolia, their historic homeland. The process continued in 1918 and 1920 when Turkish armies invaded the Armenian Republic in the Caucasus in a heartless attempt to eradicate the remnant of the Armenian people who had taken refuge in a newly freed homeland. The final act of genocide was committed in Smyrna in 1922 when the Turkish Nationalist armies burnt the beautiful coastal city on the Mediterranean and drove its Armenian and Greek population into the sea in full sight of American and other European warships. In all, over 1.5 million Armenians perished and over 500,000 more were left homeless and driven into exile. While the Sultan's government, that of Damat Ferit Pasha, directly after World War I held war crime trials and condemned to death the chief perpetrators of that heinous crime against humanity, the vast majority of the culpable were set free. From that day to the present, successive Turk governments have denied the Armenian Genocide and have attempted to spread doubt in the world community. However, at the time, the United States had consular and embassy officials stationed in strategic locations in the Ottoman Empire and all these officials, including our Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau, reported the intent, the technique, and the results of Ottoman Turkey policy in detail to our own State Department. The records of these officials, demonstrate what the official records of all the European Powers revealed--including Turkey's allies Germany and Austria--that the genocide was a deliberate act on the part of the government to destroy a native ethnic and religious minority whose only crime was to be different. All victims of man's inhumanity to man have the right to have their fate known and recorded. The survivors have the right to mourn the victims. And the world has the responsibility to see that the crime of genocide does not go unpunished, at the very least to the extent that the perpetrators are held up to universal opprobrium. Genocide cannot be allowed to be a policy of state. A crime unpunished and unrepented is a crime which can and will be repeated. Even today, as I speak, the present Turkish Government is enforcing a blockade of Armenia blocking American humanitarian assistance from reaching that country. This aid, supported by this Congress, is prevented by the present government of Turkey from being transported to Armenia by land. Such a violation of fundamental principles of humane conduct cannot be allowed to continue. This issue is not just an abstraction. Every year a substantial number of my constituents who I have known personally for many years, feel deep pain when April 24 comes about. A pain made worse by the fact that it is ignored by most media and the educated public. This is something that we must not let continue. Take, for example, the Yessaian family, whose story is recorded in the book, ``Out of Turkey,'' which is distributed by Wayne State University Press. Only six members out of a family of 37 survived the Genocide, and of the six, four had left Turkey prior to the onslaught. One of these survivors is alive today and can recall the heart wrenching experience of seeing his mother and his relatives perish before his very eyes. He still experiences nightmares to this very day. Suren Aprahamian, also a survivor, has written his memoirs ``From Van to Detroit: Surviving the Armenian Genocide,'' which were published in Ann Arbor, MI. He was among the few survivors of an extended family of over 40 and was forced to watch as old men, women, and other children died one by one due to hunger, thirst, slaughter, and exposure. Hundreds of other tragic stories of survivors have been preserved on oral history tapes which are on file at the Armenian Research Center of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, directed by another of my constituents, Dr. Dennis R. Papazian. These hundreds of stories, recited by innocent victims, provide a human dimension to the chilling horror of this cataclysm. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are still many living survivors in my district. The memory of their tragedy still haunts them. They participate each year in commemoration ceremonies fighting against hope that the world will not forget their anguish. Fighting against hope that the present-day Turkish Government will show signs of remorse for a crime committed by their ancestors. Fighting against hope that the United States Government will again show signs of sympathy as it did in 1915-1920. To me, Mr. Speaker, the Armenian Genocide is not just a footnote in history. It is something that many of my constituents feel very deeply about. It is an issue above politics and partisanship. It is a question of morality. I am painfully aware of other recent and current acts of genocidal activities being carried on around the world. What began as an exception in the Armenian case, and which then shocked the civilized world, seems to be becoming almost commonplace. It is my belief that when governments are allowed to deny genocide with impunity, and its perpetrators escape punishment, it only encourages this dreadful virus to spread further in the international body politic. Our Nation's strong support for human rights for all people is more important than ever as we witness the systematic extermination of innocent people caught up in ethnic and religious conflict. We cannot let the Armenian Genocide be forgotten. To do so would be to doom future generations to the same curse. Only through remembering the past, and condemning genocide, can we stop such acts of hatred, cruelty and violence from happening again, again, and again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues who come here to sound an alarm on Medicare, even though this alleged shortfall has already been known by CBO and they have taken it into account, although almost every year we have been responding within Ways and Means to make sure the Medicare fund stays solvent. The trouble with the Republican approach is that their cure has been far worse than the ailment, a heavy hit on seniors and providers to fund a tax cut for a very wealthy few. Their proposal gambles with the health of older Americans by excessive expenditure cuts and risky proposals. In contrast, the President has proposed a plan that would extend the solvency of the part A hospital insurance trust fund through the next decade without hurting seniors. What the Republicans are doing, sounding an alarm to put out a fire, they want to tear down the Medicare house The public rejected it last year. They will reject it again this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the outpouring of feeling after Ron Brown's death was unique. It was a tribute to Ron, to his capacity for friendship, to his verve, his zest for life, his intelligence, his caring. It was also a tribute to Ron Brown's America. Ron Brown's life showed that there are almost no limits to opportunity in America. You have to work for it. But we often talk about the limitlessness of opportunity, It is not always quite true. Ron tried so hard to make it true. Like so many other dear friends of Ron Brown, I have mourned his death. I miss of him every day.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an association that has had a significant impact in the advancement of higher education human resource management--the College and University Personnel Association [CUPA], which celebrated its 50th anniversary on April 11, 1996. The association was started by a visionary named Donald E. Dickason, a former director of nonacademic personnel at the University of Illinois at Champaign in 1946. At that time, Dickason invited representatives from more than 50 post-secondary institutions in the Midwest to a forum to discuss problems unique to higher education personnel administration. He envisioned an Association that would provide timely information and support to help foster leadership among personnel administrator. He envisioned an Association that would provide timely information and support to help foster leadership among personnel administrators and growth among institutions. The 44 individuals who attended the meeting agreed and thus CUPA was born. I first became aware of CUPA when I sponsored H.R. 127, the Employer Provided Education Assistance Act to reinstate the exclusion from income for employees who receive compensation for education expenses from their employer. As many colleges and universities use this valuable training and re-training tool to help their personnel keep on the cutting edge of new technology and information in various education fields, CUPA has helped to lead the charge in trying to reinstate this important provision to the tax code. It is in this tradition that CUPA promotes effective management and development of human resources in higher education by providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and providing valuable information and services to its membership on the national, regional, and chapter level. Among the functions CUPA provides is the distribution of information critical to expanding and enhancing the higher education human resource management profession through publications and other actions. CUPA provides such support and assistance to help its membership understand and comply with various federal laws and regulations such as the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and the Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] to name just a few. By providing this valuable information in a timely and professional manner, CUPA helps to ensure their members are living up to both the spirit and the intent of these important worker right and protection laws. CUPA has grown from the original 44 individuals who attended the first meeting in 1946 to 6,100 human resource administrators representing more than 1,800 colleges and universities and other institutions interested in the advancement of the human resource profession nationwide. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the many accomplishments of CUPA, in congratulating them on 50 years of excellence, and in wishing them well in their next 50 years of service.

Mr LEVIN

Mr LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is said that the Republican majority has returned and showed they have not learned a thing during this break. The public has legitimate concerns about taxes, but I think the message from the public, these last months, has been do not play games with these concerns. I wish the Republican majority has gone back, as I did, and read the transcript of proceedings in 1982 over that tax bill. Here is what was said by the Senate manager: The bill would increase revenues of about $99 billion over 3 years. Confronted with the need to raise revenues, our committee sought to emphasize eliminating or cutting back on justified preferences in the Tax Code. And then he went on to say: Some of my colleagues, some of my Republican colleagues, some of the pure supply-siders, though there are not as many as there were, would say why are you raising revenues, and this is what he continues to say on page 6907: As I said earlier, I do not know what choice we had. The bill can help eliminate much taxpayer resentment over the perceived unfairness of our tax system by cutting back on tax shelters that benefit the wealthy, who can afford sophisticated tax planning. Then a month later in the conference that same gentleman from the Senate said this: I would say that those who talk about tax increases where you have not paid taxes at all, but now you have to start paying taxes because of tax compliance. That is not a tax increase. It seems to me, when you properly consider that, then I suggest we have a pretty good bill. Call it a tax bill, call it a tax increase, call it tax reform, call it anything you want, but vote for it. Vote for it because it is good policy. That was Robert Dole in 1982. What is he going to do now with this proposal? That bill in 1982, the conference report carried only 226 to 207 in the House. It would have been defeated under this legislation. Is Robert Dole going to give in to the irresponsibles in the House majority? This proposal will defend tax loopholes. What our colleagues' bill should be called is the Tax Loophole Preservation Act of 1996. I urge its defeat. It is going to die in the Senate. It is clearly playing game with legislative concerns of the American people. They have had enough of that from our colleagues. Too much.