Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the United States Trade Representative has just announced tariffs, 100-percent tariffs on 13 luxury automobiles made in Japan. One of them is the Infinity Q45. This chart shows what our problem is. That car sells for $85,000 in Japan, $54,000 in the United States. It is the same car. They have to ship it here, insure it in its shipping. How does that happen? Mr. Speaker, the reason is the Japanese shelter, they protect their home market. They do not let competition in, so they can charge their consumers anything they want, and then sell the care lower in the United States, taking the profits in Japan to try to get market share in the United States. They are keeping auto parts out made in the United States that sell for one-third or one-fourth. We say to Japan ``Open your markets. That is the issue. Open your markets. Compete. The United States is ready to compete. Won't you let us? It is about time.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961. This bill does not deserve the title its authors have given it. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 is no Clean Water Act. It is a cornucopia of special interest loopholes, waivers, and exemptions that weaken the Clean Water Act at a time when we should be strengthening it. We should be building on the two decades of progress we have made cleaning up our Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams. Instead of making the Clean Water Act work better for the American people, H.R. 961 makes it easier for polluters to pollute. The Clean Water Act is not a perfect law. Any statute of this scope and complexity will never be immune from shortcomings. As we had the experience of implementing the Clean Water Act, certain problems have come to the surface. Even if action on these problems is overdue, this cannot be an excuse for steps that threaten to undermine our Nation's commitment to clean water. Where there are problems, we should correct them. For example, most of us agree that existing wetlands regulation are needlessly burdensome and in need of reform. But H.R. 961 is not about reform. Instead of fixing the wetlands provisions, H.R. 961 redefines most wetlands out of existence. I am particularly concerned about the effect this bill would have on the Great Lakes. My State of Michigan has the toughest pollution standards in the region. For 6 years, the States in our region have been working on a bipartisan basis with the Environmental Protection Agency on the Great Lakes Initiative [GLI]. The GLI is a program established in 1990 to ensure that all States within the Great Lakes basin have uniform water quality standards. The Great Lakes Initiative is a carefully balanced compromise that has been subjected to extensive scientific scrutiny and rigorous cost-benefit analysis. It incorporates significant State flexibility. Wide consultation with effected industries and the public led to significant revisions and lower costs. H.R. 961 undermines the fundamental purpose of the Great Lakes Initiative by giving States more discretion to ignore the Federal requirement for strong, uniform standards. Without uniform rules, Great Lakes States, like Michigan, with strong environmental standards will continue to lose jobs to neighbors with looser standards. We should not water down this critical program. The Clean Water Act has the strong support of the American people. Today we are debating an extreme bill that would turn back the clock on two decades of environmental progress. H.R. 961 deserves to be defeated.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a problem that we face with Medicare, but here is what this bill says: We Republicans will be general; you Democrats be specific. The Republicans are saying we will supply the sugar deficit reduction, you provide the medicine. That is bad politics and bad policy. I say to the Republicans, say what you mean. All you talk about is generalities, setting up a commission. Are higher part B premiums likely under your proposal, a deductible increase, a coinsurance for home health, a coinsurance for skilled nursing, et cetera? This document that you have brought here is nothing but a smokescreen. It is an effort to try to avoid the responsibility that you have to be specific. I urge that we vote against this because you are trying to default in your obligations and shift it to somebody else, and that will not work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, at this moment the U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor is announcing the action by the United States on autos and auto parts under section 301 of our trade laws and the World Trade Organization. The issue here is clear, opening up the Japanese markets to United States autos and auto parts. We are the free marketeers. The Japanese are the protectionists in this area. Yesterday the Senate passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis support for the administration position and last night the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I introduced the same resolution in the House. It says, The House strongly supports the decision by the President to impose trade sanctions on Japanese products in accordance with section 301, unless an acceptable accord with Japan is reached in the interim that renders such action unnecessary. Let us, as the Senate did, support this effort on a bipartisan basis. For the first time the industry is united. Let us be united and let us negotiate this out with the Japanese so we open up their markets to our goods as our markets are open to their goods.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, in this box is a part. It is a universal joint. I bought it on Main Street America yesterday, Main Street, Royal Oak, MI. It costs $11.47. In Japan, this part would cost over $100. What does it mean, this differential? It means fewer jobs here in the United States because our products are locked out in Japan. It means fewer jobs and smaller profits for our industry which could be invested. It also means the Japanese consumers are overcharged, and it also means that Japanese companies use profits from their sheltered markets to gain market share here to invest in the rest of Asia and elsewhere with an unfair advantage. It is long overdue that Japan open up their automotive sector to parts and to cars. Talk has not worked. Action is necessary. We support the administration's efforts.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it was 10 years ago that Marcy Kaptur and I met with Japanese officials about opening their markets to United States auto parts. Imports then had less than 1 percent of Japan's protected market. Today, despite incessant American efforts, that figure is only 2.4 percent. The Japanese sell their automotive products on every United States Main Street, but they make it difficult, often impossible, to sell United States products even on Japanese side streets. The negotiations that begin today in Vancouver are make it or break it for opening the Japanese market. That is why there is broad support on a bipartisan basis here in Congress and in the U.S. business community, from the Business Roundtable and NAM to semiconductors and motion pictures. Japan's protected markets undermine the world trading system. Resolution of this issue with Japan will affect this Nation's economic future, the confidence of Americans in their Nation's trade policy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleagues in Congress and Armenians all over the world to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Once again we call today for recognition of this tragedy because the horrible truth of the Armenian genocide is still not universally acknowledged, even after all these years. We must forever speak out against genocide as a constant reminder of the consequences of silence in the face of oppression. We must call attention to the reality of the Ottoman Empire's systematic persecution of Armenians in part so that such inhumanity is never tolerated again, ever. And we must voice our support for the rights of all people as we demand an end to the extermination of innocent civilians caught in ethnic conflicts today in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Nagorno-Karabagh. Our remembrance of the loss of 1\1/2\ million Armenian lives is our declaration of absolute opposition to such acts of inhumanity and our statement of hope for a world free of genocide. We must not let this atrocity be forgotten. To let this happen would be to condemn future generations to the same fate. Only through remembrance and recognition can we stop such acts of senseless cruelty and violence against humankind from happening again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from New York, in introducing the WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission Act. This is an important piece of legislation designed to ensure that our rights as a nation to defend industries and workers from foreign unfair trade practices are not diminished by the new World Trade Organization dispute settlement system. Last year, Congressman Houghton and I worked together in the Ways and Means Committee and helped secure GATT implementing legislation that preserved the effectiveness of our trade laws against dumping, subsidies, and other unfair trade practices. These laws are a critical last line of defense for American workers and companies facing unfair trade restrictions. These laws have been on the books in one form or another for over 70 years. But writing good laws in the Congress is not enough. Under the new World Trade Organization, the United States will no longer have the ability to veto an international dispute settlement decision against us, even if we think it was wrongly decided. This creates a tremendous temptation for some of our trading partners who have been disciplined by our trade laws to use the new dispute settlement process to undermine the effectiveness of those laws. Many foreign trade negotiators have said they will attempt to use the WTO to invalidate section 301 or to force certain changes in the way the Department of Commerce enforces the antidumping laws. We have a concrete example in our current negotiations with Japan in the Framework talks. The Japanese trade minister has threatened to bring a WTO case against the United States if we impose section 301 sanctions against Japan for its barriers to United States autos and auto parts. In effect, the Japanese want to use the WTO--which is supposed to keep markets open--to keep the Japanese market closed. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this kind of abuse of the WTO. This bill is designed to create a fair and impartial process to review WTO decisions, and to provide the Congress with a mechanism to bring about changes in the WTO if it is misused. The bill establishes a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission composed of five Federal appellate judges, appointed by the President in consultation with the Congress. The Commission will review every decision against the United States by a WTO panel. Where a panel has applied the proper standard of review, and did not exceed or abuse its authority, no further action would be warranted. But if the Commission determines that a panel reached an inappropriate result that amounts to abuse of its mandate, the Commission would so inform the Congress. Any Member of Congress would then have the right to introduce a privileged resolution directing the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate amendments to the WTO dispute settlement rules to fix the situation. And if the Commission determines that WTO panels have abused their mandate on three separate occasions in any 5-year period, Members would have the right to introduce a privileged resolution directing that the United States withdraw from the WTO by a date certain if one last effort to amend it fails. This basic arrangement was agreed to by our U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor during last year's GATT debate. I think Ambassador Kantor deserves credit for recognizing the legitimacy of this issue and working with Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to craft a fair solution. involves Japan and the auto sector. If Japan carries through on its threat to appeal to the WTO rather than open its markets, and if the WTO panel were to rule against us--an occurrence I do not foresee in view of the clearly exclusionary and discriminatory practices presently undertaken or tolerated by the Government of Japan--this would raise a serious question about whether the new WTO dispute settlement process is really in our national interest. I would expect a very careful review of that decision by the Review Commission, with appropriate recommendations to the Congress. But it is my sincere hope that the mere existence of the Commission will encourage appropriate use of the WTO and will discourage WTO panels from acting beyond their authority when such cases are brought. Finally, let me also speak to the final section of the bill, which provides that private parties may participate with the USTR in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. Under our legislation, if a U.S. private party with a direct economic interest in a WTO proceeding supports the U.S. Government's position, then the USTR must permit the party to participate in the WTO panel process. This private party participation is critical to protecting American jobs. Because the dispute settlement decisions will be binding, it is imperative that the interests of American companies and their workers be fully represented. This is not meant as a criticism of USTR in any way. But given the reality of USTR's many obligations in negotiating with countries around the world, they need the help of the private sector. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of bipartisan legislation, and I hope we can move quickly to see it enacted into law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the 1995 Italian-Americans of the Year, as honored by the Italian Study Group of Troy, MI. Ed and Marlene Baker and Frank and Angela Penna are truly deserving of this prestigious honor. Ed and Marlene Baker publish the oldest Italian-American newspaper in Michigan, the Italian Tribune, spanning 86 years and four generations of Italian-Americans. Together, they also publish the County Line, a community newspaper which covers Madison Heights, Troy, Warren, and Sterling Heights, and have a long list of accomplishments and many years of community involvement. Frank and Angela Penna own Penna's of Sterling Banquet Hall, in Sterling Heights, and Penna's Restaurant in Warren. In addition to their business involvement, the Pennas are involved with many charity organizations, including the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the March of Dimes Foundation, and the St. Vincent and Sarah Fisher Center. This honor is just one of many testimonies to Frank and Angela's, and Ed and Marlene's, success and dedication to their community. Again, my congratulations to them and to the Italian Study Group of Troy on this joyous occasion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend congratulations to the Roose-Vanker Post 286, American Legion as it celebrates 75 years of service to the community with a celebration on April 23, 1995. Post 286 was organized on April 20, 1920, received its charter 2 months later, and has been in continuous service to the community assisting veterans' and their families, and helping preserve our American heritage. The Post is named after two men, Roose and Vanker, who were killed defending our Nation in France during World War I. Like them, most past and present members of the Post are of Belgian descent and reside in the metro-Detroit area. Members of the Post have admirably served our Nation in every conflict from World War I to the Persian Gulf. I commend the members of the Roose-Vanker Post 286, American Legion, for 75 years of dedication to their fellow members and their community. I congratulate them on this joyous occasion with best wishes for continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I with to extend my congratulations to the volunteers and staff of the Macomb County Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers as they celebrate their first ever Volunteer Recognition Evening. The Macomb Chapter of the Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers was established in 1993 to serve the older and physically challenged adults living in the community. These adults were struggling daily to maintain their independence. Interfaith discovered that a little extra help could make the difference between staying at home and moving into a nursing facility. Macomb County Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers is an interdenominational network of local religious congregations joined together to respond to basic needs of those needing assistance. The program matches centrally trained volunteers of all ages with older and physically challenged adults to provide such services as housekeeping, home maintenance, shipping, transportation, and friendly visits. Because of the generosity and compassion of the program's 400 volunteers, the skilled management of Program Coordinator Karyn Dombrowski, and the strong commitment of the board of directors, the services are offered completely free of charge. It is clear that faith and community involvement are key elements in the lives of all of the volunteers. Their sense of responsibility and concern for others have made the Macomb County Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers a truly remarkable organization. My best wishes to all of the incredible volunteers on this special evening.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not mainstream. This bill is extreme. This bill will not respond to the dreams of Americans. It is going to turn out to be a nightmare if it were to pass. I was not here in 1981. I came here in 1983. I came here when Michigan was in a deep recession. I came here when unemployment rates were climbing to 17 percent in my State, 17 percent. There has been a lot of partisanship in this debate and a lot of rhetoric. I am not saying the 1981 act was the sole responsible cause of that recession. But it was part and parcel of it. And here we go again. Here we go again. The basic thrust of this proposal is you cut taxes mainly for the privileged few, not only, but mainly, and everybody is going to benefit, and the deficit will disappear. That was the assumption in 1981 and now it is the assumption in 1995. But what happened? The deficit skyrocketed. We know that, despite tax increases while I was here, that President Reagan supported to try to counteract what he did in 1981. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] was here then for that experience. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] I see, and he was here, was forced to vote for tax increases because of the irresponsibility in 1981. Do not say it helped the middle class. This chart shows what happened to incomes from 1973 to 1993, and it was not only because of the mistakes of 1981, but that was an important part of it. What happened? This chart shows it all, it shows it all. Income stagnation for the middle class, income loss for low-income families, and who benefited? In those 20 years, 30 percent increases for the upper fifth percentile. I represent some of the upper fifth percentile. I also represent those who are in the fourth quintile, and the third, and second, and the first. And I am not going to vote to help those in the upper fifth at the sacrifice of those in the lower fifth period, period. It is bad, bad public policy. So why are you doing it? You say the taxes are paid for. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] referred to what was presented in 1982, and I read it. This is what was presented as the budget proposal for the fiscal year 1982. What will the surplus or the deficit be? Just 00.5. When you round it off, zero. That is what was said, and all your bill says is the same pledge has to be made. It is not even a fig leaf, it is nothing. So why are you doing it? I think in part because extremism does not learn by experience. Second, because the moderates in your party on the Republican side have essentially lost their way and there is no such left. This may satisfy the contract, but it sure changes America. This may be this crown jewel, rubies and sapphires for the privileged few. For the rest of America it is costume jewelry at best. Let us reject it. If we do not, I predict it will be dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, but let us do our job here and vote no.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say to the gentleman from Georgia, the reason the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is right is because you are simply wrong.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Then vote with us.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the more I have looked into this, the more outraged I have become. This is not a question of smoke and mirror. The smoke is coming from the majority side that does not want us to see what is behind their opposition to changing the rules so the very wealthiest cannot escape taxation simply by renouncing citizenship. That is where the smoke is coming from. I am for the 30 percent. I would like it to be 80 percent. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has said, we could raise it another 5 percent by keeping this provision in. Why have you taken it out? That is the issue, and all the arguments that have been raised are shams, pure shams, comparing it to the Soviet Union. Nobody believes it. It is a free country here. The question is, can people escape taxation by leaving? Look, I am not in favor of soaking the rich at all. I do not want the very wealthiest to soak the United States of America. That is what the issue is here. Give us a reason. Give us a reason why 12 to 24 families, that is the average that has been happening, get out of taxation by renouncing citizenship, and then they come back here and they can keep $600,000 bucks that is not subject to taxation. They can keep their multimillion-dollar home. All we are saying is on gains other than that they should pay their taxes. I say this to the side of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. Let us get the names of these people. Let the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] request the appropriate authorities to give us the names, and let us do it right now. We have an obligation to low and middle income families, and indeed to high income families, that the very wealthiest not use the artifice of renunciation of citizenship and become jet setters, come back here and live, while the rest of America works hard and they escape legitimate taxation. Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost]. It is eminently reasonable. Let us find out the truth here. Do not cover it up.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock], I do not know where he gets the notion that people who have green cards have a different taxation provision than those who are citizens.

Mr. LEVIN. Here is the point. While they are here, they pay taxes on them. And here is the question. No one is saying do not build up wealth. Build it up. I am in favor of it. Here is the issue. Should someone be able to renounce their citizenship to avoid paying taxes on the realization of gains from that wealth? It is a question not of building wealth, but of paying fair taxes. I will put it this way. You have two people who have made the same amount of money; one stays a citizen and one avoids it by renouncing it. Why should the person of the same wealth who renounced his citizenship pay less taxes than the American who stays here, who stays a citizen and who continues to work here? That is the issue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let the record be clear. The issue is not the deduction of insurance for the self-employed. We are for it. In fact, we want to raise it. Thirty percent is too low. Why not use the proceeds from taxing people who leave, who renounce their citizenship solely to avoid taxes, to boost the 30 percent to 35 percent? That is the issue. Now, we have gotten two kinds of arguments. One is the human rights issue. I do not understand it. People who are trying to leave the Soviet Union, Jews, Christians, and others, were trying to leave to get freedom. The people involved here, the 12 to 24 are renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes. That is what the issue is. They have got all the freedom in the world. They want an extra freedom that other Americans do not have; middle income, low income, and other wealthy people. They want the freedom to avoid paying U.S. taxes. And they come back here, they keep a home here; they keep a boat here. The home is not taxed; their pension is not taxed. They want it both ways. Then the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] says, well, wait a minute, there is a problem here as to the 12 and 24. Well, fix it. Fix it now. This has been around for quite a while. The President proposed something. Why are you resisting? Who are you protecting? I do not understand it. But then I said, all right, well, we do not want class warfare. I do not want class warfare. I want class equity. Class equity, that is all we want. You state a point which is so true. You draw the 100 percent wrong conclusion. Most of the money picked up here will come from people who decide not to renounce their citizenship. That makes it clear they are renouncing their citizenship for one reason, as an artifice to avoid paying U.S. taxes. My suggestion to the majority is be straight with the American people. Do not try to create a smoke screen. When you say there is a defect, fix it. Do not make excuses. The working people of this country want one thing in terms of taxes; fair taxation; everybody pay their fair share. These 12 to 24 families are not paying their fair share. This is a fair share provision. Let us stand by it.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate. I was not at the subcommittee hearing, but I have worked on it since then. And I really am perplexed why the majority is defending the status quo. It feels like you are stonewalling on this issue, and there is no reason to do it. If there are some imperfections in the Senate proposal, they can be looked at and they can be remedied in the conference. Compared to the other technical issues that are considered in a conference committee of the Committee on Ways and Means, this is relatively easy. It is relatively easy. It is not going to take 4 days. I talked to the Treasury just a few hours ago, and they are persuaded that you can work it out. So why not work it out? There is an abuse going on here. People are leaving the country, giving up their citizenship to avoid taxation. We know who they are. It is no mystery. You are talking about a dozen to two dozen people. All we are saying is tax their unrealized gains as they leave. You know where the money is going to come from that will go into the Treasury, as I understand it? It is not from the people who leave and cash in their gains, it is because those people will not renounce their citizenship. That is where the money is going to come from. The abuse is going to end, and we are going to pick up money as a result. What bothers me are some of the arguments. For example, with due respect to my friend whom I am so fond of and much admire, the exit thing, I do not think we should use extreme examples on this floor. To compare this with the Soviet Union, people can leave here if they want, they can renounce their citizenship; just do not let them take unrealized gains with them because they renounce their citizenship so they could take them free of charge and essentially cheat us out of several billions of dollars. That is all we are saying. It is a perfectly free country. But why should they take advantage, kind of use a loophole? And in terms of the tax treaty, there is not going to be any problem, because these people are not going anywhere.

Mr. LEVIN. I am glad the gentleman raised the question. I was not here at the time. I would have voted for it. I admired the gentleman's efforts. It was a controversial issue. I think Jackson-Vanik did some good. But there is no comparison. People were being kept in the Soviet Union. The whole purpose of the Soviet system was to keep people in, not to let them out. We are not trying to keep people here. If they want to leave, it is a 100-percent free country. Do not let them use the artifice of renouncing citizenship to avoid taxes when they just come back here and live anyway. That is what the issue is. This is a pure artifice that a few very wealthy families are using to avoid legitimate taxation on what they realize, what they gained in the United States of America. I am not trying to go after them because they are wealthy. I am glad they made their wealth here. But do not let them use a technique, a loophole to renounce citizenship to avoid taxes when they end up here anyway. I do not understand what motivates the gentleman. If it is the imperfection of this amendment, look, I will take your instructions of the last 12 years which I have been here. Look, we all know the thrust of these instructions. It is not that we are asking you to take it lock, stock, and barrel. You do not have to do that. What this is, is a statement of the House, it is a statement that we are asking you to work to perfect this and to keep it in the bill. No one is trying to sink the self-employed provision. I am very much for it. If we can expand it from 30 percent to 35 percent or 40 percent with the benefit of this money, let us do it. I am really serious here. I do not know why the gentleman is resisting this. Take the instruction, try to work it out. If you feel you cannot work it out in the end, you will come back without it. But at least accept the thrust from the House that this makes good policy sense and work out the details. I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is on the mark here, and I rise in support of closing this loophole and using the money for good purposes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Deal bill did not receive a majority of the votes yesterday but its basic concepts will survive, indeed prevail. The potentially historic unanimous vote of Democrats on the Deal substitute resulted not only from hard work but mainly from its content. In a word, Deal is mainstream, the House Republican version is extreme. The status quo on welfare is dead; the question is what will replace it. I predict that the version coming out of the Senate will be much closer to Deal than to the House Republican version. As to work--the key to welfare reform--as the CBO has started, Deal will move people from welfare to work; the House Republican version is mainly a hollow promise. Likewise on child and medical care for children of parents who should be required to move off of welfare to work. The Senate also will not adopt the House Republicans' punitive provisions relating to children of teen mothers, second children; hundreds of thousands of seriously handicapped children; kids in foster care or up for adoption, as well as legal taxpaying immigrants. Deal will indeed live another day.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I further say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay], ``Why don't you stop talking labels and start talking substance? It is about time. There is a way to reform welfare, and we must do it, and that is work, work.'' Mr. Chairman, the key to breaking cycles of dependence and poverty is moving people on welfare into productive work, and that is why I support the Deal bill. The Republican bill talks about work, but lets participation goals be met by States without a single person being put to work and without putting a single dollar into a Federal partnership with States to get people off work into welfare. Welfare reform on the cheap will not work. The Deal bill ensures the necessary incentives, including child and medical care, to the person who should move from welfare and additional resources to the States to help make it really happen with reasonable time limits. In a word, Mr. Chairman, the Deal plan is likely to move people off welfare into work. The Republican plan is more likely to move people off welfare to nowhere at all. The Republican plan is not only weak on work, it is harsh on kids from its hit on school lunches and other nutrition programs to its mandates to the States that they cannot provide a cash benefit for a child if it is born to teen mothers or if it is a second child. The Republicans' punitive approach is seen in their treatment of middle and low income families with a seriously handicapped, physically handicapped, kid. It cuts $15 billion from the current program and replaces it with a block grant of only $3.8 billion. The Deal bill gets at abuses without being abusive to handicapped kids. The Republican approach to SSI is a vivid example of the painful fact the Republican bill is extreme. The Deal bill is mainstream. Let us support the Deal bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to check out the figures of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I truly think they are wrong. You are discussing just part of the Deal bill and not all of the pieces that fall in place under the Deal bill. Your approach provides less money when you take into account the whole picture than would be the entitlement provision under Deal. The analysis is that you provide only one-third of what is cut by H.R. 4, and the Deal bill would keep all of it. Those are the facts.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is better than nothing, but it really is not good enough. Real welfare reform is critical. The status quo is indeed dead. The key to welfare reform is work, and important for getting people off of welfare into work is child care. H.R. 4 would gut the child care provisions, and what this does is to try to retrieve some of that. According to one estimate, 32 percent of what is cut out of H.R. 4 would be restored here. So, Mr. Chairman, a third of a loaf is better than none, but it is going to leave many people who are on welfare, who must get to work, without the provision of child care. The Deal bill goes all the way in terms of making work a reality and making day care available, and that is why I support the Deal bill.