Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before the House, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. It's time for Congress to face the facts and begin to break our nation's dangerous addiction to oil. The industry tax breaks and royalty holidays that we seek to eliminate today no doubt serve the interests of the big oil companies, but they do not serve the interests of our nation's long-term energy security, or, for that matter, the interests of taxpayers, consumers and the environment. We import more than 60 percent of the oil we consume every day in this country. We are increasingly dependent on oil imports from volatile regions of the world and from countries that are not necessarily our friends. If we do nothing, our dependence on imported oil will only grow. Some will say that the answer is to provide more subsidies and tax breaks to encourage oil drilling in the United States. Well, we've tried that, and it hasn't worked. We're more dependent on foreign oil than ever. All the industry subsidies in the world won't change the fact that the U.S. has just 3 percent of the global oil reserves. We can't drill our way out of this problem. Rather than continue business as usual, today we are beginning to chart a new course to energy security. The legislation before the House repeals $13 billion in egregious tax subsidies and royalty holidays that have been given to the oil companies in recent years. Instead, we will invest these funds in clean, renewable energy that is made here in the United States, including solar, wind, biomass, and biofuels. We will also invest in new energy technologies and develop policies to stimulate investment and deployment of energy efficient products and services. Investing in alternative fuels and new energy technologies is also an investment in jobs here in America. I want to make it clear that this legislation eliminates only the most egregious energy industry subsidies. First of all, we target the flawed deepwater oil and gas leases that were awarded in 1998 and 1999. Contrary to longstanding practice, these leases did not provide for royalty payments--no matter how high oil prices rise. In this legislation, we require that these leases be renegotiated. The American people deserve a fair royalty for publicly-owned resources. I also want to respond to some of the statements made today by opponents of this legislation. Some have suggested that our legislation unfairly singles out the oil and gas industry by repealing their ability to take advantage of a tax provision intended to encourage domestic manufacturing. This is not the case. Many of my colleagues will recall that several years ago our trading partners in the European Union successfully challenged a tax benefit that the Federal Government provided to U.S. exporters. Let's be clear that the oil and gas industry did not qualify for the old FSC-ETI tax benefit, and neither did any number of other U.S. industries, including financial services, hospitals, and real estate, to name only a few. When Congress repealed the FSC-ETI in 2004, we provided a replacement benefit to U.S. exporters in the form of tax benefit for domestic manufacturers. But for some reason, this manufacturing tax break was extended to include the oil and gas industry, even though they were never eligible for the old FSC-ETI benefit. If there is a problem with unfairly singling out an industry, it is not in the bill before the House today. The problem lies in the loophole in the 2004 bill that singled out the oil and gas industry to receive a domestic manufacturing benefit that was not justified. I hope this clears up this matter and that all my colleagues will join me in voting for this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of the New Direction for America was a promise to make higher education more affordable and accessible so that more Americans can advance their education and enhance their economic future in an increasingly competitive global economy. Today we are taking a first step towards achieving this goal. For a country whose economic success relies on the very best colleges and universities in the world, we are at an important crossroads. Today's college students are graduating with increasing levels of student loan debt--$17,500 on average. In many cases, this debt is simply too substantial to manageably repay. For many young people, the mere thought of putting themselves in such enormous debt could lead them to delay or forgo college. Indeed, according to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million high school graduates from attending any college at all. At a time when college tuition is skyrocketing--increasing by 35% at four-year public institutions over the past five years--it is clear that Congress needs to act and act now to make college more affordable. The College Student Relief Act cuts the interest rates for undergraduate students with subsidized student loans in half over the next five years at no cost to the taxpayer. This commonsense legislation will help 5.5 million students across the country. In Michigan, for about 144,000 student borrowers who will graduate from Michigan colleges and universities, this bill would generate savings of over $4,200 on average over the life of their loans. For example, these savings will benefit close to 1,200 students at Lawrence Tech and 3,500 students at Oakland University. For Michigan, the benefits of this loan relief couldn't be clearer. A report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth spelled out how Michigan's economic future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the completion of degrees of higher education. Two-thirds of the jobs created in the next decade will require post-secondary education and training. By making a higher education more affordable for thousands of Michiganders we are not only helping them realize their dreams, but we are also helping ensure the future of our state. I urge all of my colleagues to stand today with our students and support the College Student Relief Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, last Friday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcalls 22 and 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 22, the motion to recommit H.R. 4 with instructions. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 23, final passage of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Embryonic stem cell research holds potential for some of the most far-reaching breakthroughs seen in modem medicine. This is a field filled with promise, with the potential to cure the incurable and to heal that which was once thought impossible to mend. We're bringing this bill up again with the hope that the President will hear the scientists and researchers and hear the voices of the American people that he do the right thing and sign this vital measure into law. We need to take action now so that this crucial research can go forward for the sake of the millions of people dealing with incurable or debilitating diseases--diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we guarantee there can be no results. The President's current stem cell policy is not working. Research is practically at a standstill in this country. Of the 78 existing stem cell lines permitted for use in Federally funded research, only 21 of these lines are currently used for research, and many of the available stem cell lines are contaminated, making their therapeutic use for humans questionable. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan approach. Let me be clear that the bill only allows the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The legislation contains strict ethical guidelines, including the requirement that embryos can be used only if the donors give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange. There has been recent news regarding ongoing research using non- embryonic stem cells. While I believe it is necessary to support study on all stem cell types, this research alone is in no way a substitute for embryonic stem cell research, whose potential is different from that of other stem cell types. We need to pass this bill today on a strong, bipartisan vote. I truly hope the President will reconsider and do the right thing and sign this bill into law. This legislation is so important to millions of Americans, and we stand with them as we vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act today. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in Strong support of House Resolution 15. It is fitting and right that the House remember this highly distinguished citizen of the State of Michigan, and honor his service to the people of the United States. Gerald Ford's life and legacy define the term ``public servant.'' He served with distinction in World War II aboard the U.S.S. Monterrey. In 1948, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served with integrity for 25 years. In 1974, during one of the darkest moments in U.S. history, Gerald Ford served as our Nation's 38th President, and restored integrity to the Presidency. As the Nation has honored President Ford over the course of the last week, I have been struck by how many have made mention of his honesty, trustworthiness and essential decency. As the first President Bush said of his one-time colleague in the House of Representatives at the memorial service at Washington Cathedral last week, ``to political ally and adversary alike, Jerry Ford's word was always good.'' President Ford will also be remembered for believing that America is strongest when we work together and work with others. President Ford has left us a rich legacy. As we begin this new Congress, I hope all of us here will honor him by taking to heart that legacy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, which provides for the implementation of remaining recommendations by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations is long overdue. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission submitted 41 recommendations to the Bush Administration and Congress to fill critical gaps in our nation's homeland security. More than two years later, many of these recommendations have only been partially implemented and others not at all. Troubling gaps in our homeland security still exist. As the Co- Chairmen of the Commission stated last August, ``we are not as safe as we should be.'' As just one example, the 9/11 Commission found that the inability of first responders to communicate with each other and their commanders resulted in a loss of life after the planes hit the World Trade Center towers five years ago. In an emergency situation, first responders in a unit--and across departments--must be able to talk to each other. In response, one of the Commission's recommendations stated that establishing and funding interoperable communications for first responders had to be given a high priority. This hasn't happened; indeed, after Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans last year, the communications network in that city simply collapsed. Securing funding for interoperable radios is the number one homeland security priority for my district, but the high cost of establishing the required infrastructure and acquiring the necessary equipment has greatly slowed this vital effort. For smaller communities, the tens of thousands of dollars needed to upgrade their systems is simply too great. The stand-alone interoperability grant program included in this legislation is a great step forward, and I look forward to working to secure appropriations for this critical effort in the future. The Commission also criticized the current funding system for federal first responder funding--which guarantees States a large portion of baseline funding with some additional funding distributed on the basis of population--arguing that homeland security assistance should be based ``strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' One result of the current funding formula is that States at low risk of terrorist attack receive far more money per capita than states at much higher risk from terrorism. For example, under the current formula, Wyoming received $18.06 per capita in Department of Homeland Security grants in 2006 while Michigan, whose border crossings are the busiest on the northern border and conduct about $450 million in trade every day, received $5.13 per capita. The legislation before the House significantly increases that share of state homeland security grants provided on the basis of risk. Under the bill, most States would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.25 percent of Homeland Security grant money, down from 0.75 percent. Eighteen states that have international borders, including Michigan, would get a higher guaranteed amount of 0.45 percent of the total. The rest of the money would be distributed based on the Homeland Security Department's assessment of risk and need. I agree with this approach. We must focus our resources on high-threat areas where the risk from terrorist attack are greatest. The most basic job of government is to be ready to respond in the event of a disaster, whether natural or man-made. We can't afford another response like the one following Hurricane Katrina. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Honest Leadership and Open Government rules package currently before the House. Reform of the way this House conducts its business is not an option. It is an absolute necessity. A recent poll found that only 37 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job. Does anyone here doubt that the ethical scandals and procedural abuses of recent years are a major factor for this low public approval rating? In 2006 alone, four Members of the House resigned their seats under a cloud. Two of these former Members have already been convicted for unethical and illegal ties to lobbyists. I do not believe that these specific abuses represent the majority of Members, but I do believe it is the responsibility of the Majority party to set out strong rules that can begin to regain the trust of the American people in their institution of Congress. For many years now, our constituents have been bombarded by media reports of cozy relationships between Congress and special interests lobbyists. They are incensed by news reports of Members accepting all- expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland, the flagrant abuse of House rules to hold I5-minute votes open for hours for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome, the widening Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and the lack of accountability and transparency in how congressional earmarks are awarded. I mentioned that our constituents learned about these abuses from the media, in their morning newspapers and on the nightly news. Too often in recent years, it is also from the media that rank-and-file Members of Congress have learned about special interest provisions that were secretly inserted into legislation in the dead of night and brought up for a vote before Members had an opportunity to read what they were being asked to vote on. This form of secret legislating has got to stop, and it will stop under this reform package. The reform package before the House will also curb a large number of the other abuses that have come to light. These reforms will ban gifts from lobbyists, expand and tighten the restrictions on congressional travel paid for by outside groups, prohibit travel on corporate jets, and require greater public disclosure of targeted special interest legislation. The reforms will also prohibit the practice of holding votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome. There are many other needed reforms contained here, but the one I want to single out is the provision that restores pay-as-you-go budgeting. Pay-as-you-go budgeting simply means that Congress will not consider any legislation to boost entitlement spending or cut taxes unless it is fully paid for. Before they were abandoned in 2002, the pay-as-you-go rules helped to turn record deficits into record surpluses in the 1990s. Since abandoning pay-as-you-go, the cumulative deficit for the past four years has totaled over $1.36 trillion. We simply cannot continue to pile up more and more debt and pass it along to our children and grandchildren. For all these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the House rules reform package before the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1245, ``Johanna's Law,'' which earlier today passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It was more than 4 years ago that Sheryl Silver first told me about her sister, Johanna, who died of ovarian cancer in 2000 after a fierce, hard-fought battle. This legislation, in honor of Johanna Silver and her valiant fight, is emblematic of the fight undertaken by so many women across the country battling gynecological cancer and their determination to help other women be treated sooner. Like so many women, Johanna had experienced symptoms, which were not identified initially. By the time she was properly diagnosed, her cancer had advanced significantly, to a point where treatment is considerably more complicated. Because gynecological cancers are highly treatable at early stages, public education for women and their primary care physicians is all the more important. Johanna's Law does just this, creating a national public information campaign to educate women and health care providers about the risk factors and early warning signs of gynecologic cancers, but goes a step further, requiring HHS to quickly develop a national strategy to get this information to women at the highest risk and their health care providers. After 3 years since this legislation was first introduced, it is finally coming to fruition. Its passage is a real victory for everyone who has been fighting to get the facts out about gynecologic cancers. I want to thank all the people whose determined efforts have gotten us to where we are today, including Sheryl Silver, who worked tirelessly from the conception of this legislation through to the organization of the advocacy done by many organizations and individuals to assure its passage, as well as cancer survivors and families across the country, physicians, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially Darrell Issa, Rosa DeLauro, and Kay Granger, and our counterparts in the Senate for getting the bill back to us in such short order. I urge all of my colleagues to support Johanna's Law and strike a blow against gynecologic cancers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in congratulating the three mentioned Members for their service. I also want to try to give this bill some perspective. It is going to be a bit different than expressed before this. I just want to assure everybody in terms of process that as far as I am concerned, and I know Mr. Rangel joins me and I think many others, we are not going to bring legislation to the floor the way this has been brought to this floor tonight. Some of these bills have not had any hearings. This is a last-minute effort and we are under the gun because there is a need to extend or at least consider the extension of some of the provisions. Otherwise, they go out of operation, and that would be unfortunate. So in terms of process, I want to assure everybody there is going to be a more open procedure, and, indeed, I think that can lead to a more bipartisan procedure on key trade issues. There is also going to be a very clear approach by the majority to these trade issues. I want to talk about a few of the details because we haven't had much discussion of them on the floor. Three of these components involve extension of present programs. The GSP program has a 2-year extension. If we don't act, it goes out of existence. It has been in existence for decades. It has worked to our mutual benefit. There are within the GSP structures a core labor standard provision and it has been invoked in petitions by various people. So we are going to extend it. By the way, there is a waiver provision here and it is very possible that the administration will decide to no longer grant the waiver. But this legislation doesn't affect that, really. It simply expresses the opinion here that they should. They don't have to, and our committee, I am sure, is going to look into the merits of this, including as it might affect India. The second is AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. We are extending it. I think most people believe it has worked on both sides, for African countries and by and large for us, not that there are no problems, but as a result of the fabric provision, Africa can now compete more than anything else with China. And if we don't give Africa that chance because of the end of the system that regulated fabrics, the Chinese would continue and increase their role in terms of that. There is a cap on the apparel provision. Everybody should understand that. There is some increase in it, not very large over it historically, and Africa has not met the cap. So when you balance these provisions relating to this extension, I think it makes sense to extend the AGOA act, and it passed the last time it was up by voice vote. Thirdly, the Andean preference, also under GSP. What this legislation does is to create a kind of a linkage that we will not allow as a majority. I think I can say that safely. It links it to the enactment, to the putting together and the passage of an FTA with four Andean countries. Many of us don't agree with what was put together for Peru and for Colombia, and I want that very clear. We don't agree with the Peruvian and Colombia-U.S. FTA as it was negotiated. It cannot pass in my judgment and in the judgment of many others as it was negotiated. It is going to have to be renegotiated. So this effort to put a little leverage on this Congress and the other countries under this new majority is simply not going to work. So I urge support of this bill because I think the three preferences, if you want to call it, the three provisions, need to be extended, the GSP, the African and also the Andean. Let me spend just a couple of minutes, because we need to talk about details, about Haiti and about Vietnam. Briefly about Vietnam. They are going into the WTO without Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the U.S. We can't stop that as I understand it, and I think that is true. So we are not going to help out, in my judgment, on balance by simply saying that they go in without us and we will not get the provisions of their entry into the WTO. It is not two-sided in this respect. Lastly, let me say a word about Haiti. There is some controversy over it. But, look, it has been carefully crafted. A lot of people have worked very hard on this, taking into account the needs of Haiti and the needs of our workers and our companies. There is in there a cap. Right now Haiti, their imports here represent a small part of our apparel industry. It is very small. In order for Haiti to get on its feet, it is going to have to be able to have a larger export industry. The people have worked on this and this has been bipartisan, have tried to balance this, and I want to finish by pointing this out. Under this agreement, the core labor standard provisions that we worked hard to elevate over the years remain. And so if there is exploitation of workers in Haiti, there will be an ability of us to get at that problem, either by petition or, as I remember it, we can initiate that. So it is important in terms of our relationships and our economic development, both Haitian and Americans, on balance that we pass this Haiti bill. We need to move this ball forward, and I close with this assurance. Processwise, it is going to be much more open, much more in advance, and I hope bipartisan. And substantively, there is going to be a new day.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rangel. All due respect to the energies and labors of the chairman of the committee, this is another example of how not to legislate. I favor the extenders bill. Almost everyone else in this place does. Mr. Rangel has been talking about extenders extensively. An extenders bill could pass this House and could pass the Senate today on its own, just like this. Why is that not happening? It is not just because the gentleman from Arizona says politics is the art of the possible. It is also because it should be the art of the rational and the art of the appropriate, and this package is not appropriate. Mr. Markey has spoken so eloquently about the Continental Shelf legislation, and now we are threatened that if his amendment fails the whole bill fails, which I think is a statement of how not to legislate. We do not want to legislate by holding ourselves hostage. That is not the way to legislate. And also there will be some discussion about the health savings account. That proposal could not pass on its own, so essentially it is being packaged with the extenders bill because it is the only way to get it through here. We will do it differently next year; we will serve the people of this country more effectively, more openly. When there is a bill like the extenders bill that can rise on its own, it will do that. The Senate says they need our cooperation. We will cooperate. It would be better to send the extenders bill on its own. So all of us will have this choice, a package of good and bad, and each of us will have to make that decision, a decision we should not be forced to make.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 934, which supports the goals and ideals of Plan Ahead with an Advanced Directive Week and encourages Americans to prepare advance directives to ensure that their wishes and rights with respect to end-of-life care are protected. This is an issue I became involved with back in 1990 when I introduced the Patient Self-Determination Act in the House. Senators John Danforth and Pat Moynihan introduced the companion bill in the Senate. The measure became public law in 1991. Among other things, the Act requires all Medicare and Medicaid provider organizations, including hospitals, nursing facilities, home health agencies, and hospices to provide written information to patients at the time of admission concerning an individual's right under State law to make decisions concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and the right to formulate advance directives. It also required these organizations to provide written information to patients with respect to advance directives. But even with laws like the Patient Self-Determination Act in place, only about 29 percent of Americans have a living will. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. As important as it is to encourage Americans to prepare advance directives, Congress is in a position to do more to help families make these arrangements. Last year I introduced H.R. 2058, the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act. This bipartisan bill would build on current advance directive laws to educate Americans about living wills, give people the opportunity to discuss options with their doctors, and ensure that their wishes are honored. In a word, the purpose of H.R. 2058 is to encourage all Americans to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. It would also ensure that people's advance directives are honored, even if the directive is issued in one state and end-of-life care is given in another. The bill also encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life choices, and directs the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. Let me conclude by again stating my support for the resolution before the House with the hope that we can build on this effort in the next Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very, very much for yielding. This is an important and somewhat emotional day. More than 4 years ago, Sheryl Silver first told me about her sister Johanna, who died of ovarian cancer in 2000 after a brave and hard fought battle. Johanna Silver Gordon was an active, health conscious woman who taught high school at Southfield Lathrup High School in my congressional district. She came from a family of doctors and was conscientious about her health, but when she experienced the first symptoms of ovarian cancer, she thought they were gastrointestinal. By the time she was diagnosed, her cancer was in stage 3. I discovered that Johanna's story was all too common. Each year, 77,000 women are diagnosed with gynecologic cancer, ovarian, cervical, or uterine. Most of them, like Johanna, do not have the information they need to recognize their early symptoms and are unaware that they are at high risk. With these illnesses, lack of information often costs women their lives. Ovarian cancer, the deadliest of gynecologic cancers, is highly treatable and has survival rates of 80 to 90 percent if detected in stage 1 or 2, but has a survival rate of less than 20 percent if diagnosed late, as it most often is. And of these cancers, only cervical cancer today has a reliable screening test that can be used for asymptomatic women, making public education for women and their primary care physicians even more important. This legislation, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, would create a national public information campaign to educate women and health care providers about the risk factors and early warning signs of these cancers. It would also require HHS to quickly develop a national strategy for getting the facts out to women at the highest risk and to health care providers that see them when they first develop these symptoms. We strongly believe that HHS's strategy should include public-private partnerships that leverage all the resources available and all the expertise that exists on this subject. So here we are today, after the tireless work of so many people, and we are voting on Johanna's Law. Tireless work from her family, including her loving sister Sheryl Silver, and her mother, Ann Gonts Silver, who is celebrating her 91st birthday today, and the cancer survivors and family members across the country who rallied to this effort, and the physicians and the organizations that lent invaluable support, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as mentioned, especially Darrell Issa, Rosa DeLauro, Kay Granger, and Dan Burton. And if I might, let me lastly thank Morna Miller. Without her tireless efforts as a member of our staff over the last 3 years in developing this legislation and helping shepherd it to the House today, we would not be here at this moment. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support Johanna's Law and strike a blow against gynecologic cancer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because I believe, on balance, Vietnam's accession to the WTO is a positive step. It is a growing economy with 90 million people. It remains a command economy basically and a one-party state, and that always leads to some concerns and some qualifications. That is true here in terms of some problems, serious ones in the past with human rights, and also some economic issues. However, I think, on balance, it is wise to proceed. Their becoming part of the WTO will mean that the disciplines of international regulations will apply to them. Let me say, however, I have several concerns. One is that this bill is on the suspension calendar. This bill did not go through committee. There was no hearing. I think this is not a wise procedure. In fact, I am sure it is not a wise procedure, and it is not going to be followed in the future. Bills of this nature, I believe, will have hearings before a committee and will not come up on suspension. Secondly, a second concern, there is an important omission here and there is no safeguard mechanism in this accession agreement. When nonmarket economies operate, they usually do not do so through the usual mechanisms of supply and demand or international market dynamics, and so it is easier for there to be surges of imports into this country and more difficulty in dealing with them. The Bush administration did not negotiate a general surge provision here nor a textile surge provision. They were both in the China accession agreement. This is a serious omission, or at least an omission that should not be replicated. For example, there is now negotiation with Russia of an accession agreement. The bilateral has been completed and the multilateral will start. I don't think we should be approving PNTR bills, for example, with Russia, until there is a safeguard mechanism negotiated in the agreement itself. I believe all of us on this side who are speaking today will be dedicated to making sure that there is such a safeguard mechanism, so that if there is that surge of exports to us, we have a mechanism to deal with it. On balance, I think it is important to proceed with this bill, and therefore I urge support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 29, 2006, the Sterling Heights' Fire Fighters Union will host their Annual Dinner-Dance, honoring their 2006 retirees. This yearly event honors Sterling Heights firefighters for their dedication to their community and recognizes their commendable contributions to the city. I am pleased to be associated with this fine organization and to call many of them my friends. I rise today to pay tribute to the careers of four retiring firefighters. Kenneth Hall was appointed as a Sterling Heights firefighter on January 21, 1980. In November of that year, he received his Certificate of Completion for the Extrication and Rescue Training Program. On May 25, 2000, he was presented with the certificate of Special U.S. Senate Recognition to commemorate his 20 years of service. In August of 2002 he added to his list of accomplishments by becoming a HazMat Team Member. Ken has been promoted two times in his career: Lieutenant on March 31, 1995, and Captain on September 17, 2001. He retired on January 30 of this year after 26 years of dedicated service. Tom Lindeman was appointed as a Sterling Heights Firefighter on July 2, 1981. As part of his service, he counseled and taught young aspiring firefighters in the department's Explorer's Program. In 1989 he received a Certificate of Appreciation from Utica Community Schools for his efforts in the community. In 2001 he received an associate's degree in Fire Science. During his career, Tom was promoted four times: FEO on April 20, 1992; Lieutenant on January 4, 1996; Training Instructor on August 22, 1996, and Chief of Training on January 11, 2003. He was honored by his peers, being named Firefighter of the Year twice, in 1999 and in 2004. Tom retired last month on August 19, after 25 years of dedicated service. Dave Poterek was appointed as a Sterling Heights Firefighter on May 21, 1979 after attending Western Michigan University. On May 4, 1981, he received a Police Department Citizen Citation for resuscitating a drowning victim. In 1984 he earned his Associates Degree in Nursing, and in 2004 he obtained his EMS Instructor Coordinator certificate. During his career he was promoted several times: Firefighter-ALS (Advanced Life Support) on April 18, 1992; Fire Lieutenant-ALS on July 5, 1994; Captain in 1996, and Battalion Chief on October 31, 2003. He retired on June 19 of this year, after 27 years of dedicated service. William Riddock was appointed to the position of Probationary Firefighter with the Sterling Heights Fire Department on October 12, 1981. In 1989 he received the Meritorious Unit Citation for assistance at a house fire, rescuing a family from their balcony. He was a member of the Uniform Committee and participated in numerous of the department's Open Houses. In addition to receiving numerous Perfect Attendance Awards throughout his career, Captain Riddock was promoted twice: Lieutenant on July 22, 1996, and Captain on January 11, 2003. Captain Riddock is retiring next month on October 19, after 25 years of dedicated service. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these four heros, who have dedicated themselves to the community with valor, commitment and honor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that once again the Republican Leadership has chosen to stampede far-reaching legislation through the House without adequate debate or any opportunity for Members to offer amendments. It has been 5 years since the 9/11 attacks, and it is only now that Congress is taking up legislation to try and punish terrorist suspects. The 96-page bill before the House was negotiated in secret last weekend and only introduced less than 48 hours ago. After waiting 5 years, can't we take even 5 days to consider a bill of this magnitude? This Nation's security requires that terrorists must be caught, convicted and punished, and we need a process to do this. It is not clear to me how the proponents of this bill can claim that they are being tough on terrorists when it is almost certain that this legislation will not withstand constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The bill before the House bars detainees from filing habeas corpus suits challenging their detention. Under the bill, a person can be labeled an unlawful enemy combatant and detained indefinitely with no judicial view. This will not pass constitutional muster. Habeas corpus isn't about giving special rights to terrorists, as some have claimed; rather, it is about giving people who are accused of serious crimes an opportunity to disprove the charges against them. I am also concerned that this legislation gives the President the authority to reinterpret the meaning and application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Especially given the well documented abuses of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, we need to be clear that the United States will rigorously comply with its international obligations under the Geneva Conventions. This is important both to reinforce our Nation's moral standing in the world and to protect the men and women of our Armed Forces. If a U.S. soldier is held prisoner by another nation, we expect that they will enjoy the full protections of the Geneva Conventions, not some watered-down interpretation. It is the job of Congress to pass legislation to try and punish terrorists. That legislation must protect our men and women in uniform from erosion of the Geneva Conventions, and the legislation must be tough, fair and able to withstand constitutional challenge. The bill before the House meets none of these standards, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Rather than rush through such a fundamentally flawed bill, the House should remain in session and do the job right.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two leaders from my district, Diane and Emery Klein. This marvelous couple has teamed to provide an unusual level of commitment to community. They are being honored on September 28th with the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit's most prestigious recognition, the Fred M. Butzel Award. Emery and Diane are passionate advocates for innumerable Jewish causes and organizations and give tirelessly of their time and talents. The presentation of the Fred M. Butzel Award is the latest honor presented to Emery and Diane for their service to the community. Emery is a past chair of the Federation's Annual Campaign, past president of the Hebrew Free Loan Association, and a national board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. His honors include the Yeshiva Beth Yehudah Golden Torah Award, the International Association of Hebrew Free Loans Maimonides G'Millut Chasodim Award, and the Bar Ilan Honorary Fellowship Award. Diane is a native Detroiter and past president of Federation's Women's Department, past vice president of the Federation, past president of the Greater Detroit Chapter of Hadassah and a past vice president of the Fresh Air Society. Diane has also generously contributed her talents to the Jewish Vocational Service, the Jewish Community Council and Israel Bonds Women's Division. Diane is a recipient of the Hadassah National Leadership Award and an Israel Bonds Lion of Judah Honoree. Emery and Diane Klein have carried out with unusual passion their duties as citizens of their beloved country. Born in Czechoslovakia and a survivor of the Holocaust, Emery Klein has devoted himself to assure our Nation's full commitment to the security of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. He is currently a Board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. His deep belief in democratic values, freedom and tolerance has motivated his decades of political activity, including an active role in Presidential campaigns including Bill Clinton's and in many Congressional races. Diane has been an active partner in these efforts. Committed to education, the Kleins have established an Excellence in Education Fund to support professional development of Jewish educators in our community. They are devoted to their children, Jeffrey and Barbara, and grandchildren, Spencer, Griffin, Zoe and Isabel. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Emery and Diane Klein. They have worked tirelessly to make a difference and they indeed have done so. Privileged to witness their devotion and advocacy firsthand, I know I speak for many others in offering congratulations to Emery and Diane Klein as they are honored for their service with the Fred M. Butzel Award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Robert L. Cole upon his retirement as the president of Peoples State Bank located in Madison Heights, Michigan. Bob Cole has served as president of the Peoples State Bank for 10 years during which time this community bank grew from $202 million in assets and 5 branches into a vibrant financial institution with $500 million in assets and 12 branches in the southeast Michigan area. Under Mr. Cole's leadership, the bank has played a major role in the local community. When a fire destroyed the municipal garage of Madison Heights in 2003, the bank donated $5,000 for a portion of the destroyed equipment. The bank extended loans to non-profit organizations in the Detroit area assisting young people to obtain marketable work skills, provided loans to a non-profit community organization for building improvements to its Head Start program as well as donated over $100,000 to various organizations that support affordable housing, low-income health care, food banks, homeless shelters, and small business development centers. Bob Cole's career tracks the development of community banking in Michigan. Born in Howell, Michigan, and raised on a family farm, he graduated from Western Michigan and went to work as a banker in Fenton. In 1974, he became president of the First National Bank of Fenton. In 1987, he became president of the State Bank of Fenton and took it from $62 million in assets to $225 million. In 1996, he joined Peoples State Bank as president and CEO. In that role he modernized the institution, grew the bank into new communities, at the same time deepening the commitment of Peoples to serve the ethnic and small business markets of the Detroit Metropolitan area. Bob Cole was attracted to community banking because of his strong sense of community. His involvement includes: past president of the Fenton Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis, board of governors of the Fenton Community Center, Fenton Community Foundation, Madison Heights and Hazel Park Chambers of Commerce, past president and board member of the Michigan County Bankers, member of the Michigan Association of Community Bankers, and the Michigan Bankers Association. He is a recipient of the City of Fenton ``Man of the Year'' award. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the 12th Congressional District have benefited from the leadership of Bob Cole in the field of community banking and I rise to pay tribute to his career and wish him good health and much happiness in his retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as one of the cosponsors of H.R. 2491, I rise in strong support of this measure. This issue of waste coming into Michigan from Ontario is one of great concern to the people I represent and to others; and I appreciate, Mr. Dingell, your efforts and that of others to move this legislation. Let me just try to put this in perspective. Recently, a breakthrough occurred after years of inaction, years of inaction. It is the agreement announced by our two Senators from Michigan with the Government of Ontario. Under this agreement, there is a phasing out of municipal waste shipments from Canada over the next 4 years. Under the agreement, some 2.78 million metric tons of waste will stay in Canada and not come to Michigan over the first 4 years alone. We for a long time have been asking for action on the bill before us today. A bipartisan group of ten representatives wrote to Speaker Hastert last November to urge expeditious consideration. That bill had been approved by the full Energy and Commerce Committee 14 months ago. We wrote twice to Speaker Hastert to urge him to schedule this legislation. As mentioned, there was a letter November 3, and all but one member of the Michigan delegation signed a second letter to the Speaker on May 16. I will insert these two letters into the Congressional Record. Washington, DC, November 3, 2005. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker. We write today to request that H.R. 2491, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2005, be brought to the floor for consideration as expeditiously as possible before our target adjournment date of November 18. As you know, in June H.R. 2491 passed both the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials and the full Committee by voice vote. The issue of waste coming into Michigan from Ontario, Canada for disposal is one of great concern to the people we represent. Currently, more than 400 trash trucks come across the bridge into the Michigan each day. The goal of H.R. 2491 simply is to implement and enforce an existing bilateral agreement that has been too long ignored and to give states some tools to manage foreign municipal solid waste being disposed of within its borders. As you know, H.R. 2491 is the bipartisan product of hard work and tough negotiations. We made every attempt to provide the people of Michigan, as well as other states, with some relief while not affecting or amending any prior law relating to the need for consistency with international trade agreements. H.R. 2491 is a good bill that meets the needs of all concerned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Sander Levin, Peter Hoekstra, Dave Camp, Bart Stupak, Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Mike Rogers, Dale Kildee, Fred Upton, Joe Schwarz.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand, in view of the importance of this legislation and, indeed, the light workload of the House this year, why this bill was not brought up months and months ago. Now it is being brought up at the 11th hour, with only 14 or 15 legislative days left before Congress adjourns for the elections. Fourteen months were wasted before this bill was brought up. And it is not clear at all that the legislation can move in the Senate. Indeed, in an article just this morning in the Congress Daily, a spokesman for the chairman, the Republican chairman, of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee indicated that the committee has no plans to hold a hearing on this legislation before Congress adjourns or recesses for the election. Here is a consideration in addition regarding H.R. 2491, and I have read it. If it were to be made a law through passage in this Congress, I think it is likely that there would be lengthy litigation and therefore a further delay in meaningful reduction of trash exports to Michigan for years. So this bill says the EPA has 2 years, up to 2 years, and in the meanwhile, States could take action, but I think there is a real probability that there would be litigation in the meanwhile. And so because of what the Senate spokesman has said, with no likely action in the Senate, and other problems, we have before us a bill that I strongly support, but it should not be the basis for an attack on what was done by the two Senators from our State of Michigan. No basis whatsoever. There has also been a mischaracterization of what our two Senators said. They did not say they do not support 2941. They said they support it. They had presented some amendments to the Homeland Security bill, and that helped to instigate action by Ontario to do something. To do something. And now there is an agreement that will lead to a substantial reduction of the trash that is coming in from Ontario. So, look, I would hope that there would be some limitation, some limitation, on partisanship within this House. Apparently there continues to be little, if none. That agreement was a step forward. It was not everything, but after years of inaction in this House, after at least months after action by the committee, something has happened that will bring about a reduction under this agreement. So what we should be doing today, instead of engaging in partisanship, is saying, look, there is an agreement. It is a step forward. Congratulations. We have this bill. It would go beyond it. We hope the Senate will act. We are sorry that the Senate Republican spokesman said they would not take it up. Let us unite to see if we can get action by the Senate. So under those conditions, I very much rise in support of this bill and hope the full picture will be understood, not misrepresented.

Mr. LEVIN. Look, I said the EPA would have up until 2 years, and in the meanwhile, States could act, and I said it is thought by many observers that there would be litigation. I don't favor litigation. But there might well be litigation in terms of the power of the States as delegated from this House. All I am saying, sir, is, look, there was reference to this legislation. There was also reference to the reality that there were amendments in the Senate that were going to put a squeeze on Ontario. I acknowledge the importance of this bill. I am sorry it did not occur earlier, and it comes up at the 11th hour after a number of us wrote to the Speaker saying, bring it up, and most of us, not all of us, signed those letters. And here it is, the 11th hour, and now it is being brought up. Good. It is better late than never. It would also be nice if we could have an agreement from the Senate to act. And the two Senators from Michigan have said, when they announced this agreement with Ontario, they supported this bill. So no one should get up on the floor and say otherwise.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are bringing this bill, rather than a final conference report, for one reason and one reason only--to prevent the inclusion of long-overdue provisions to extend important business tax credits that reward things like research and development and efforts to hire low-wage workers. Those credits expired 7 months ago and are now hostage to the Republican quest to pass tax cuts for a tiny number of incredibly wealthy families. That is an outrage. However much I deplore the process by which this bill was rushed to the floor, and however flawed it may be, it does include some critically important and very time-sensitive provisions, and its worst elements have been significantly improved since the original Bush administration proposal. For that reason, I have decided to vote in favor of this bill. The bill includes provisions which must be enacted quickly if we hope to save pension benefits for large numbers of workers in the airline industry and in the building trades and other industries with multi- employer pension plans. Without a provision in this bill which would give airlines more time to fully fund their pension plans, Northwest Airlines has said it will have to terminate its pension plan and turn it over to the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. That's a bad outcome for everyone. It's a bad outcome for Northwest employees, because many of them will not receive their full earned pensions if that happens. It's a bad outcome for taxpayers, because we will assume Northwest's debt, even though the company is eager to pay it, given time. The bill also includes long-overdue reforms to multi-employer pension plan law. These long-overdue reforms will allow multi-employer pension plans to address what for some plans is a short-term funding crisis, and will give all plans flexibility they didn't have before to advance fund and guard against a future crisis. Republican leaders unfairly dropped multi-employer pension plan reform from the pension reform bill that addressed similar problems for single-employer plans several years ago. This final bill also represents a substantial improvement over the original proposal put forth by the Bush administration, and the bills that passed the House and Senate. Under the improved bill: Companies will be spared the extreme funding unpredictability proposed by the Bush administration, which advocated forcing companies to respond to every short-term fluctuation in interest rates and workforce composition, without any ``smoothing'' of interest rates at all. A provision which would have unfairly classified pension plans as ``at risk'' and subject to penalty if the company had a poor credit rating, even if the plan itself was well-funded, has been removed. That provision might have forced companies like General Motors to divert resources from addressing business challenges and into an already well- funded pension plan. Plans will be allowed to amortize both gains and losses in their pension plans over time, and will be able to use accurate assumptions about early retirement to predict future liabilities so that the plans are properly funded. The flawed Bush administration proposal to deny all workers plant shutdown benefits was mitigated, though not removed, and the conferees adopted provisions from the Senate bill which we hope will prevent employers from using pension plan underfunding as a tactic to cut retirement benefits negotiated in collective bargaining. Despite my decision to support the bill and address immediate needs, I must admit I continue to have deep reservations about this bill's long-term impact on our defined benefit pension system, which provides guaranteed retirement income for millions of Americans. Knowing how committed President Bush and his allies in the House are to Social Security privatization increases my concerns, especially given the way this bill came to the House floor. The final bill includes fundamental changes to the way companies determine their contributions to pension plans. The new ``yield curve'' methodology proposed by the Bush administration is completely untested, and is likely to make required pension obligations much more unpredictable. Many companies have suggested that this new unpredictability may be the final straw that leads them to terminate their guaranteed pension plans. The final bill includes a requirement that companies subtract credit balances they earned by making advance pension contributions before calculating their plan funding level, a change which will provide a strong disincentive to advance fund, since advance contributions will be treated as if they don't exist in the future. Advance funding is critical if companies are to balance the need to fully fund retirement benefits with the need to direct resources to current operations in difficult times. The final bill included provisions which may make workers pay the price when companies don't fund their pensions, including provisions which restrict benefits for workers when plants shut down and a dangerous provision which would allow deeply underfunded multiemployer pension plans to cut benefits that workers have already earned. The bill also misses a real opportunity to enact better protections for workers whose companies declare bankruptcy and terminate their pension plans. I regret that this bill was not crafted in a Congress that genuinely believed in guaranteed retirement benefits and preserving them for the future. There is much bad with the good, and much of the effort that went into this bill was directed toward mitigating problems with the original bill, rather than addressing real problems with retirement security. I hope that in the next Congress, we will be in a position to pass legislation that will strengthen retirement security for all workers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. They say legislation is like making sausages. You have heard that. This legislation is worse, because as far as I know, sausages do not have poison pills in them. This legislation does. It links action to help struggling families, working families with tax breaks for the very wealthy. And why the linkage? It is clear. Because the estate tax provisions can't pass on their own. Secondly, contrary to what has been said here, a clean bill on minimum wages would be passed by the House and Senate; but when you link it, it won't happen. And that is what the majority party in this House wants, no increase in minimum wages. And just let us think about fiscal responsibility. The estate tax change, and these are the estimates. You bring this up at the last minute, it is a little hard to have exact dollar estimates, but here they are. Over 10 years the estate tax change would cost $270 billion, and over a full 10 years, when fully into effect, $700 billion. And, look, what would happen is not only would it be $10 million joint filers would have no estate tax, but a major break for estates between $5 million and $25 million, $10 million and $50 million for joint filers, and those above that; they still get a break. So what this does is eat up hundreds of billions of dollars, and not for family farmers and not for small businesses. Ninety-nine percent of the estates would be exempted under present law. No, this is for the very, very wealthy. But I say this: the desperate Republicans are not going to be saved by these maneuvers. The public, fellow and sister Republicans, will not be fooled by your antics this night.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier and I wasn't going to speak again so others could, but listening to the Republicans here, I felt compelled to come over. In all my years here, this is the height of hypocrisy. You have sat here year after year failing to raise the minimum wage, refusing to come here and sign a discharge petition, doing nothing. And now, because you are worried you are going to lose an election, you are here. And you tie it to a proposal that will give the very, very wealthy many more times than would be benefiting the workers with a rise in the minimum wage. If you really cared, you would have acted long ago. This isn't on your part even an election-year conversion. It is an election-year trick. It won't work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. First of all, there are no worker organizations today. But let me ask you this: Is there any other provision in this agreement that is based on a promise, just a promise, rather than having it in the agreement in the law between the two countries? Is there any other, like the tariff reductions, or anything else? It is not that they promised to do something, it says ``they will be.'' And we could, instead of saying enforce your own laws, say that within a reasonable period of time that these laws shall be in place and enforceable under the agreement. But there is no enforceability, is there? If they do not do this, if the legislature does not act, there is no ability to enforce it except to consultation, and that is it? Is there any other place in the agreement that says enforce your own laws instead of saying what they will be with enforcement?