Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. This is a stealth approach, this so-called Stealth Tax Relief Act, to a real problem. The two gentlemen who have spoken had a choice in the committee. You had a choice. You had a choice between helping out with a tax cut a few years from now with more than 50 percent going to 1 percent of the population, or voting to help those 15\1/2\ million Americans who would otherwise have a tax increase. You voted for the 1 percent. You had a choice in committee between helping out some years from now people making a million dollars a year, or helping next year millions of families making 75,000 to $100,000. You chose the millionaires. So now you are coming here and saying, well, we must do something. You had a chance to do that in committee. You did the wrong thing then, and now you are trying to cover your tracks. You do not pay for it. There is little chance the Senate will act, and so essentially this is an effort to cover your tracks. But let me just suggest, you can try to hide from what you did in committee and what is in the reconciliation tax bill, but you cannot run on it next year. So now you are trying to put up something that gives you cover for next year's election. Look, when you say we could have done something in the majority, I think we have been in the minority now for 11 years. Where have you been? No, instead, you have adopted tax policies that, by and large, surely in the provision in the tax bill, the reconciliation bill, help the very wealthy instead of helping the families, millions who will be caught up by the increased coverage of the alternative minimum tax. And I do not have to go through with this. You have described these families. But essentially it is crocodile tears for them instead of real action. You made your choice. Tomorrow, you are going to have a chance to make the choice again when we put up a substitute, or if you do not allow that, a motion to recommit. So essentially what you are going to do is to vote ``yes'' today; and when we bring up the substitute or the motion to recommit, you are going to vote ``no.'' So ``yes'' today and ``no'' tomorrow. That is not even a fig leaf. That is total inconsistency. We proposed in the committee, we proposed dealing with the minimum tax now. You passed a bill that said no, you want to give the majority of tax relief that was not paid for, the 20 billion, to people making over a million dollars a year. That is undeniable. My suggestion is that you, instead of passing the reconciliation bill that helps the millionaires and ignores the millions of families making 75,000 bucks or more a year who will be affected by the minimum tax, that you go back and do it the right way and not hope that somehow this stealth bill will cover your tracks.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Putnam, I will read you the facts from the Congressional Budget Office estimate, that this action will result in a reduction over the next 10 years of $24 billion in child support. That is the Congressional Budget estimate, and that takes into account adjustments the States might make in providing more money for administration. This is the most callous, callous reflection of your fiscal irresponsibility. You have driven yourselves and this country into so much debt, now you are reaching into the homes of this country. This is antifamily. This is antikids. There is no defense of it. This money is for administrative purposes. We have been paying two- thirds. The result of it, and it was part of welfare reform, is that child support has gone up and up. The kids have benefited. And now what you are going to do is to reduce those benefits. And we will hear from your side, oh, child support is going to go up, anyway. This is a fact and I close with this. CBO says if anyone votes for this, they are going to reduce child support payments over 10 years by $24 billion. I say to you, you go home, you face the kids in your district, you face the parents in your district, and you tell them you voted for this. If you won't tell them, we will.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against House Resolution 547 today, but I want to clearly state my reasons for doing so. In particular, I want the record to show that I strongly disagree with the highly misguided decision of the Palmdale School District in California to administer a questionnaire to young children that included totally inappropriate questions concerning sex. If there was a law that blocked elected school boards from making boneheaded decisions, the action of the Palmdale School District would fall squarely within its purview. But that is not what the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has brought before us today. Instead, the resolution condemns the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for not finding a law or constitutional principle to override the decisions of democratically-elected school board members. My friends on the other side of the aisle often rail against ``activist judges'' and complain when, in their opinion, judges make law from the bench. As has been noted by others, it appears that in this case the Majority objects to the fact that the 9th Circuit judges were not activist enough. There are many avenues for parents who disagree with any decision made by their local school board. In this particular case, the public outcry against the Palmdale School District questionnaire resulted in the survey being promptly discontinued. If parents wish further redress, they may also vote the school board out of office. For these reasons, I will vote against this resolution today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I first of all would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the chairman and ranking member of the committee, for their mutual interest and work on this and also to the chair of the subcommittee, Chairman Pearce, and also to Ranking Member Christensen. I also would like to thank cochairs of the Ukrainian American Caucus, Members Kaptur, Weldon and Bartlett, for their support and also to my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who is a cosponsor and who is on the committee; and also to thank the leadership for moving this along. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 562, to authorize the government of Ukraine to donate a memorial in the District of Columbia honoring the victims of the manmade famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33. I am proud to have introduced this legislation that this body is considering it today. This legislation is important for all of humanity. It is very important to the 1.5 million Ukrainian-Americans throughout our country, many of them my constituents. It has special meaning to the people of Ukraine, as the gentleman from West Virginia has mentioned, who have embarked on a courageous effort to build a free, democratic, open society, and indeed to all of us who value freedom. During the famine genocide of 1932-33, between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians were deliberately and systematically starved to death. The memorial authorized by this bill will not only honor their memory, but serve as a tangible reminder to all of us that we must work together to prevent such tragedies in the future. We are familiar with the terrible suffering caused by famine that is the result of natural forces. But this famine is all the more tragic because it resulted from criminal acts and deliberate decisions by political officials. Yet, it is also one of the least known of human tragedies. Despite efforts by the then-Soviet Government at the time and afterwards to hide the planned and systematic nature of this famine genocide, it is clear that the Soviet Union used food as a weapon. By introducing unrealistically high quotas on grain and other agricultural products which were strictly enforced by Red Army troops, the Soviet Government deliberately starved 7 to 10 million Ukrainians. The harvest of 1932 was only 12 percent below 1926 to 1930 averages, but millions of Ukrainians died a slow agonizing death of hunger. In his book, ``The Harvest of Sorrow,'' British historian Robert Conquest provided a vivid picture of the devastating effects of the famine genocide in Ukraine: ``A quarter of the rural population, men, women and children, lay dead or dying, the rest in various stages of debilitation with no strength to bury their families or neighbors.'' Materials now being found in KGB archives have shown the premeditated political nature of the famine. We in our beloved country must persist in standing with those living under oppressive and tyrannical regimes as they struggle for their freedom. Part of the struggle is to remember the brutal acts of these regimes and their victims. Preventing the recurrence of crimes against humanity, such as the Ukrainian famine genocide, begins with remembering the tragedies of the past. That is why I believe it is so important for there to be this monument, remembering the millions of innocent victims. I urge my colleagues to join together in honoring their memories and ensuring they are never forgotten by supporting this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I am glad we are doing so. My colleague has described what the major problem is. We have a predicament. Early detection of ovarian cancers most often leads to treatment and successful treatment, while late diagnosis makes treatment exceptionally difficult. We have today 80,000 women who are diagnosed with gynecological cancers and about a third or a little more with ovarian cancer; and every year about 27,000 women die from the gynecological cancers, and about half of those, a little more, from ovarian cancer. We need very much to step up to the plate on this vital, vital need; and this resolution is important because it helps to call attention to this need. I do want to point out the need also for us to go further than this. A number of us have been working for a number of years to provide some Federal resources behind our good intentions. The bill, which is called Johanna's Law, would set aside some Federal moneys for a national public awareness campaign and also would provide grants to local entities and to national groups to help educate women, physicians, insurance companies, and everybody else about the need, the importance, and the feasibility of early detection of ovarian cancer. I hope today will be another step towards not only recognition but also action. I congratulate the sponsors of this resolution and all who are talking in favor of it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today is a good example of a legislative cure that is worse than the underlying disease. I want to say at the outset that there have been some very questionable uses of eminent domain. The fifth amendment to the Constitution clearly states that private property may not be taken except for public use, and then only after just compensation has been paid to the property owner. In many cases, the use of eminent domain is justified, but it is invariably controversial. I remember the controversy that attended the construction of the Walter Reuther Freeway in my home State during the 1960s and 1970s. Some communities were furious over the project, but there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the road served a clear public use. Other uses of eminent domain are much more questionable. In Washington, as in so many other cities, a decision has been made to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to build a new stadium for the benefit of Major League Baseball and the future owner of the Washington Nationals. Indeed, the District Government filed court papers the other day to seize $84 million worth of property from its current owners. Are stadium deals like this a legitimate public use? Evidently, they must be since the legislation before the House contains an exception that would seem to allow the use of eminent domain to build such facilities. While lucrative stadium deals apparently enjoy protection under this bill, there is a blanket prohibition placed on the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. States and localities that take land for private, for-profit projects or those designed to increase the tax base or employment stand to lose all their Federal economic development funding for 2 years. The penalty would extend to all economic development funds, even those going to meritorious projects that do not use eminent domain. The language of this legislation is so broadly written, and the penalties are so severe, that it will tie our cities and States in knots. Any use of eminent domain could conceivably trigger the overly broad penalties contained in this legislation. The potential liability facing cities and States that use eminent domain is open-ended and could extend for years or even decades into the future. Land use planning is primarily a State and local function. Members of Congress frequently pay lip service to States' rights and local control, but this bill would overrule the limitations that many States have placed on eminent domain and land transfers to private entities for economic development purposes. In the case of my own State, in 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court limited the use of eminent domain by narrowly interpreting the State constitution's takings clause in County of Wayne v. Hathcock. There is a lot of room for improvement in the use of eminent domain. Unfortunately, the legislation before the House is an unreasonable and unworkable solution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Mayor Gerald Alsip on his retirement from the City of Roseville, Michigan. Mayor Alsip's exceptional career in public service spans 28 years. He has served the City of Roseville as a city council person for 16 years and Mayor for 12 years. Mayor Alsip's tenure has seen fiscal stability at the city and numerous local projects which have brought vitality and a sense of pride to the community. The new Recreation Center, renovations of the Library/City Hall and Police/Court complex, the opening of the Senior Center, and a variety of new businesses along the Gratiot corridor are highlights of an established community moving forward to serve its residents. Mayor Alsip's record of accomplishment demonstrates his leadership abilities and his dedication to the City of Roseville and its residents. Jerry Alsip attended and graduated from Roseville Community Schools. He and his wife, Sharon are parents of 3 daughters, Sandra, Shannon and Amanda and proud grandparents of Hunter and Payton with a third grandchild due in November. Jerry Alsip has also been employed for 33 years at the Macomb County Circuit Court-Juvenile Division, currently serving as the Juvenile Division Administrator. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Mayor Jerry Alsip for his years of effective service to the City of Roseville and for his tireless commitment to the well-being of its citizens. With our Congressional offices now located in Roseville, I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Mayor Alsip and I extend my heartiest congratulations and warmest wishes as he starts this new chapter in his life.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the all-time world's record for a vote was 3 hours for the prescription drug Medicare bill. Do we anticipate beating that today?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I might, illustrate the problem that is faced by unemployed workers in these three States, so that everybody understands that while this bill helps the States, it is unlikely to help any of the unemployed; and that is too bad. About 400,000 people became unemployed after Katrina, 6,000 already have exhausted their benefits in these three States since Katrina; and about 20,000 more are likely to exhaust their benefits. Next, the amounts that are paid in these three States would leave a family of four way below the poverty level, way below the poverty level. So what we Democrats suggested was to provide moneys to the States so that they could cover all of the additional costs. This bill only will provide perhaps half. There should be an extension of unemployment compensation benefits for those people and also we should elevate the amount of money going to people. These are people without fault, who lose unemployment through no fault of their own, a hurricane. It befuddles me why we have to settle on this floor for such an inadequate response to Katrina. And it is not the fault of the gentleman from Louisiana who spoke. I am sure of that because I think he wanted more. But as I understand it, talks broke down, and the hopes for a bipartisan bill that would indeed meet the needs of the unemployed, those hopes were essentially shelved. Why? Partly because of this terrible budget crunch that the majority really has brought into operation. I would also guess because they have always opposed in recent times the extension of benefits, and they do not want to do anything to elevate the benefit structure even though it is way below the normal. I say, in a word, we are adding something tragic to tragedy, and we should not be doing that. The gentleman from Louisiana said it is a first step. When would the second step be? I think there is no plan for a second step. So, essentially, in real terms, we are saying to the unemployed, it is a half a loaf, and it is hard to feed a family on a half a loaf.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Sheriff Mark Hackel, who is the recipient of the 2005 Alexander Macomb Man of the Year Award from the March of Dimes. Mark Hackel has dedicated his professional life to serving and protecting Macomb County. He began his career in 1981 as a dispatcher with the Macomb County Sheriff's Department and since then he has held every rank within the Department. Through hard work and determination, Mark was elected as Macomb County Sheriff in November of 2000. Sheriff Hackel graduated from Sterling Heights High School in 1980. He received an Associate Degree from Macomb Community College in 1983, a Bachelor of Art Degree in Criminal Justice from Wayne State University in 1991, and a Master Degree in Public Administration from Central Michigan University in 1996. To ensure excellence professionally, Sheriff Hackel has attended in 1994 the F.B.I. National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, and the United States Secret Service Dignitary Protection School in Washington D.C. He also has international training which includes Project Harmony Educational Exchange in Lviv, Ukraine and the Police Instructor Exchange Program in London, England. In addition to being the Sheriff of the third largest county in Michigan, Sheriff Hackel serves his community in a number of other important capacities. He teaches young adults at Macomb Community College, is a Police Academy Instructor and an Advanced Police Training Instructor at the Macomb Criminal Justice Training Center. Sheriff Hackel also participates in many community based organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, American Cancer Society, and Traffic Safety Association of Macomb. He has been a mentor through Winning Futures Mentoring Program and serves as a Fitness Council Advisory Board Member for Creating a Healthier Macomb. Sheriff Hackel understands that many factors influence the law enforcement environment he is elected to lead and he seeks to bring about a better and safer community through all of his many endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to work with Sheriff Mark Hackel and to see first hand his many effective endeavors. I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing Sheriff Mark Hackel for his commitment to excellence, and his professional and personal devotion to his community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Aggeler Family, the proud recipients of the 2005 Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award from the March of Dimes. Following in the tradition of those families who are past recipients of this distinguished award, the Aggeler Family has a strong and passionate enthusiasm for family and devotion to community. Mr. and Mrs. Aggeler moved from Missouri to Michigan in 1944. Soon after, they founded a lumber company, John's Lumber, in Mount Clemens. The business has been in the family for over 58 years. John Aggeler believed if you treat people well they would continue to come back. This ideology is the foundation for the company's commitment to its community, family, and employees. Currently, the family's third generation is working for the company and continues to reside in Macomb County. The Aggeler children have continued his legacy of commitment and outstanding service. The thread of service to others runs through their family. Michael Aggeler is one of many Aggeler children who continues to work for the family business and is extremely active in the community. For 31 years, Michael has been a member of St Mary's S.M.A.S.H. outing. He also served for 6 years as a board member of the Michigan Lumber and Building Materials Association and is a member of the Mount Clemens Lions Club. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing the Aggeler Family for their commitment to their family and employees, along with the extraordinary legacy of the service to their community. They are well deserving of the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Commissioner Nancy White, who is the recipient of the 2005 Alexander Macomb Woman of the Year Award from the March of Dimes. Nancy White has dedicated her life to educating and improving her community. After Mrs. White received her Bachelor's degree from Michigan State University and her Master's degree from Wayne State University, she began her 22-year career in the Fraser Public School District. She served as a teacher, counselor, and coach. In 1992, Mrs. White was elected by the people of Fraser and southern Clinton Township as their representative on the Macomb County Board of Commissioners. Since then, she has dedicated the last seven years to the County Board. Her strong leadership was recognized by her fellow board members and she was elected in January 2005 to serve a two-year term as chair of the Macomb County Board of Commissioners. Mrs. White is committed to efficient and responsive County government. She lives out this commitment by creating a Strategic Visioning Task Force, a forum for Mayors throughout the County and endeavoring to work on a bipartisan basis. She was the Co-Chair of a County-wide effort to defend the County's military installations in the recent BRAC process. She has traveled to the Middle East on a trade mission with other government and business leaders from Southeastern Michigan. Mrs. White's excellent leadership skills are not only utilized on the Macomb County Board of Commissioners. She served as chair of the Macomb County Community Mental Health Board and co-chair of the Clinton Township American Red Cross Blood Drive. In 2002, the community acknowledged Mrs. White's leadership and commitment. She was awarded The Woman of Distinction Award from the Girl Scouts of America for her many outstanding contributions as a mentor and community leader. Mr. Speaker, I have been honored to work in collaboration with Mrs. White over a number of years and to see first hand her commitment and devotion to improving communities throughout Macomb County. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Commissioner Nancy M. White as she receives this distinguished award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 30, 2005 the Sterling Heights' Fire Fighters Union will host their Annual Dinner-Dance, honoring their 2005 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 three retiring firefighters. Tom Kropf was appointed as a Sterling Heights firefighter on May 21, 1979. He was licensed as an Emergency Medical Technician in December 1980. Upon his completion of the maiden medic program in December 1991, he was promoted to firefighter ALS (Advanced Life Support) on June 19, 1992. He has been promoted three times: Lieutenant on March 30, 1995, Fire Inspector on January 3, 1996, and Fire Marshal on May 21, 2003. Throughout his tenure, he has received many awards and recognitions. Mr. Kropf was Employee of the Month in February 1987 and Firefighter of the Year in 1999. He received a citation for performing lifesaving efforts on June 2, 1998 and the Fire Chief's Award in March 2002. Bill Kreston earned his Bachelor's degree in math from Eastern Michigan University in 1972. First employed by the Hamtramck Fire Department, Mr. Kreston was hired by the Sterling Heights Fire Department in 1986. He received a Meritorious Unit Citation for freeing a pinned victim from a serious auto accident in 1990. He has also received numerous safe driver awards. On July 27, 1992, Mr. Kreston was promoted to Fire Equipment Operator; on July 2, 1997, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant; and to the rank of Fire Inspector on January 9, 2003. Fred Campau was appointed as a Sterling Heights Firefighter on January 21, 1980. He was a member of the maiden medic course and pioneered the way for future Advanced Life Support students. He has received many distinctions, including 5-year Safe Driver Awards, Perfect Attendance Award and the Fire Chief Award in January 2002. Throughout his career, Mr. Campau has been promoted to Fire Lieutenant on October 17, 1995 and Fire Inspector on August 31, 1998. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these three heros, who have dedicated themselves to the community with valor, commitment and honor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say, listening to this debate, to the gentleman from Georgia; to my friend from Michigan; to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules; and to the Speaker of the House; and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), this is outrageous. You have no excuse. Three million manufacturing jobs lost in the last 4 years or so, another 110,000 the first 8 months, and you will not allow a debate on an amendment that relates to manufacturing, the ATP amendment of Mr. Honda's. This shows two things: number one, an abuse of power. This is no longer the House of the people. This is the House of people who mistake autocracy for democracy. Secondly, do not stand up with your platitudes about caring about manufacturing when you will not even allow us to debate a bill that relates to an instrumentality. What has ATP done? Oh, not industrial policy. It has funded path-finding research in composites, high temperature superconductors, next-generation liquid crystal displays, and low-cost manufacturing for digital mammography which is in the news every day now. And you will not even debate it. It is a shame.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate for our country. I cannot imagine anything more important to the American people than an independent investigation of why the response to Hurricane Katrina fell so short of expectations. We need a full accounting of what went wrong at all levels of government so such failures don't happen again. I support the appointment of a non-partisan, independent commission-- modeled after the successful 9/11 Commission--to investigate the response to Hurricane Katrina. An independent commission is the only way to get to the bottom of this. The commission would look into every aspect of the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina, and let the chips fall where they may. The American people have made it clear this is what they want as well. A new Washington Post/ABC poll found that 76 percent of the public supports the creation of an independent commission. The Leadership of the House badly misreads the public mood when it disregards the clear wishes of the American people for a non- partisan investigation. We need to look at our government's weaknesses and correct them. I oppose the straightjacket procedure under which the House is considering this legislation. The Majority calls this a ``Select Bipartisan Committee,'' but the legislation was drafted behind closed doors with no input from Democrats. This is bipartisanship? The Leadership of the House will not even allow Democrats the opportunity to offer a substitute and have a straight up-or-down vote on it. Is the Majority's position so weak that it cannot withstand a debate? I don't think the American people are going to have much patience for partisanship on this issue. They want answers and a measure of public accountability, not a partisan whitewash. There are hard questions to be asked about the slow, disorganized, and woefully inadequate response to a natural disaster that left a major U.S. city uninhabitable. The proposal before the House calls for a House investigation that would be completely controlled by the Republican party. Republicans would outnumber Democrats on the Committee 11 to 9. There would be no bipartisan subpoena power. With all due respect, this would be an investigation in name only. It would have no credibility with the American people. You can't have a comprehensive and fair investigation when the people controlling that investigation have a vested interest in the outcome. I urge the House to reject this unfair procedure and reject the very partisan investigation it seeks to establish.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the emergency funding bill that the House will consider later today to continue relief and recovery operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We need to approve this measure today with all deliberate speed. I do object to the procedure in which the House will take up this emergency measure, which provides just 40 minutes to debate a $51 billion appropriation, with no amendments allowed. I urge the House to reject this procedure and allow Representative Obey to offer an amendment to strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency and re-establish FEMA as a separate, independent agency whose Director reports directly to the President. The Obey amendment would also require that the Director of FEMA have extensive experience in emergency and disaster-related management. The amendment is very similar to the legislation introduced earlier this week by my colleague, Representative Dingell, which was cosponsored by myself and 64 other members of the House. This is a proposal that should enjoy bipartisan support, since I note that Representative Foley and other Republican members have introduced similar legislation. Let me speak candidly. The response of the federal government to Hurricane Katrina was woefully inadequate. Four years after 9-11, the federal government was not ready to respond to a national catastrophe that has left a major American city uninhabitable. In the weeks and months ahead, we need an investigation of why the federal government's response fell so far short of the mark, and we need accountability. One thing is already clear: the federal agency with lead responsibility for responding to national disasters--FEMA--has lost its way since it was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. This is simply not the same agency that responded so effectively to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Since being transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2001, FEMA's ability to respond to natural disasters has been eroded. I believe we need to restore FEMA's status as an independent agency. In addition, the Director of FEMA should be an experienced professional in areas of emergency management, and not the former head of the International Arabian Horse Association with no previous background in disaster relief. I urge my colleagues to vote to allow Representative Obey the opportunity to offer his amendment. The next natural disaster could happen next week, and we need to restore FEMA's ability to respond to it. I also ask all my colleagues to join me in voting for the underlying bill. The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: At the end of the resolution add the following new sections: Sec. 2. The amendment specified in section 3 shall be in order at any time during the consideration of a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3673. Such amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. All points of order against such amendment are waived. Sec. 3. The amendment by Representative Obey referred to in Section 2 is as follows: Amendment to H.R. ___, as Reported Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin At the end of the bill, insert before the section containing the short title the following:

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed on rollcall No. 456. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Mount Clemens Rotary as they plan a unique local celebration of the 100th anniversary of Rotary International. The Mount Clemens Rotary Club, organized in 1920, is the oldest and largest service club in Macomb County. The Mount Clemens Rotary and many individual rotarians have been at the forefront of activity in their community. A few of the many projects over the years include: assistance through the Cripple Children Society and the Boy Scouts; providing aid to the Clinton River Flood victims; working in the Relief Store during the Great Depression; leading the Urban Renewal Program in the 1950s and 60s; and helping to establish both Rotary Park in Downtown Mount Clemens and the Playscape on the old Wilson School property. To commemorate the 100th anniversary of Rotary International, the Mt. Clemens Rotary is preserving a bit of history in downtown Mt. Clemens. Two cannons, donated by the United States Government in 1901, were originally in front of the old Macomb County Court Building. The cannons were placed on pedestals and remained there until 1942 when at the request of the U.S. Government they were donated as part of the World War II scrap metal effort. For sometime the Macomb County Historical Commission has wanted to replace the missing cannons, but the cost was always a major hurdle. Members of the Mount Clemens Rotary Club decided this worthy project could both commemorate local history and the history of Rotary. The two cannons are accurate representations of a cannon used by General Alexander Macomb in 1812 and a cannon used by Colonel Stockton in the Civil War. General Alexander Macomb was the hero of the battle of Plattsburg and Lake Champlain during the War of 1812. General Macomb with only 3,000 troops was able to rout 13,000 British troops. The other cannon was dedicated to the memory of the Michigan Eight Calvary Regiment and their commander, Colonel John Stockton. The Regiment along with the Battery M of the 1st Michigan Artillery was organized and trained at Camp Stockton in Mount Clemens from the Fall of 1862 to May 1863. Mr. Speaker, on August 27, 2005, the Mount Clemens Rotary, working with the Macomb County Historical Society, will replace and rededicate the two cannons at a grand ceremony during the Bath City Festival. I look forward to joining with them, and ask my Congressional colleagues to join me in saluting a major community asset, the Mount Clemens Rotary, on this important and historic occasion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement on the Energy Policy Act. This day has certainly been a long time coming. The last major energy bill I was able to support was the National Energy Efficiency Act of 1992. Since that time, there has been a clear need for follow-up legislation to address the significant energy challenges facing the country, but Congress and the Bush administration have repeatedly dropped the ball. Over the last 4 years, Congress has twice come close to approving irresponsible energy legislation that would have done significant harm to consumers, the environment, taxpayers, and plain common sense. As others have noted, the bill before us today--is not perfect, but it is much improved. I am especially pleased that the conferees dropped the harmful provisions in the House-passed bill that sought to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling and shield the MTBE industry from liability for the environmental damage their product has caused. There are still a number of provisions in this package that I would change; in particular, I would drop the tax and royalty-relief incentives in the bill for oil and gas drilling. When the price of a barrel of oil is near an all-time high, such public subsidies are unneeded and unjustified. I want to state clearly why this bill is worthy of passage today. Two summers ago, the United States and southern Canada experienced the worst power blackout in history that left more than 50 million people without electricity, including 2.3 million residents of Michigan. Two years later, Congress has done nothing to address the reliability of the electrical transmission system. Voluntary standards won't get the job done. We need clear, mandatory and enforceable rules for ensuring the reliability of the power grid. The bill before the House accomplishes that. I also support the many provisions of this legislation that spur development and use of renewable sources of energy and encourage conservation and energy efficiency. I believe that consumers, the environment, and energy security will be well served by the enhanced tax credit for Americans to purchase hybrids and other alternative power vehicles. Looking to the future, this bill provides significant resources for the development of clean-burning hydrogen. I know that many of my friends in the environmental community disagree with some of the provisions in this bill. In particular, I know there is concern over the incentives for nuclear energy. As one who has more often than not voted against nuclear power, I understand these concerns. The fundamental problem with nuclear energy is that we have not yet developed an acceptable way of dealing with nuclear waste. In all likelihood, it won't be sufficient to just bury the waste in a hole in the Nevada desert and hope it stays put for the next 20,000 years. A much better solution is to develop the technologies to safely recycle or permanently isolate the waste. By the same token, I think most everyone now accepts that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The scientific evidence on warming is overwhelming, and we can't just ignore it as the administration has. We know enough now to begin addressing the problem. Unlike coal and petroleum, nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. Like it or not, nuclear power must continue to be part of the mix of solutions to address the global warming problem. There are other steps we need to take, and one essential step is finding a better solution to the waste problem. Last but not least, this energy bill permanently bans new oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Lakes are our State's crown jewels, and the heart of Michigan's multi-billion-dollar tourist industry. They should not be put at risk just so energy companies can extract a few weeks' supply of oil. On balance, this energy package is worthy of support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it. General Leave

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his kind words. What a privilege it has been to work with the gentleman. This agreement as negotiated misses an historic opportunity. It fails a key growing challenge to globalization to expand trade so that its benefits are widely shared. Trade agreements must level up, not level down. And unlike Chile or Singapore or Australia, CAFTA nations have immense poverty, among the worst income inequalities in the world, and a weak middle class. And to change that, to change that, workers must be able to lift themselves up the economic ladder. And to do so, they have to have their basic internationally recognized rights, including the right to bargain and to associate. The fact of the matter is contrary to any of the rhetoric that comes forth here tonight or any of the disclaimers, a majority of workers do not have enforceable rights in their nations' legal structures. Unlike CBI now in effect, CAFTA gives Central American governments a pass on worker rights. All they have to do is to enforce their own laws, no matter how bad they are presently, or no matter how bad they make them in the future. It is a standard used nowhere else: Enforce your own laws in this agreement is a double standard that would stimulate a race to the bottom. That is bad, number one, for millions of Central American workers mired in poverty. Number two, it is bad for the nations desperately needing a growing middle class. Three, it is bad for our workers, who will not compete with nations who suppress their workers. And it is bad for our businesses who need middle classes to buy their products. I want to emphasize this, because the President has talked about security. Denial of worker rights and persistent poverty and inequalities are a source of insecurity, not security. A denial of democracy in the workplace is harmful to the spread of democracy. So not heeding our repeated warnings, the administration negotiated this CAFTA so it shattered the bipartisan foundation many of us have tried to build. CAFTA needs to be defeated so that it can be renegotiated to meet the challenge of globalization. And that challenge is to shape a trade agreement so that it spreads more broadly the benefits of expanded trade, not reinforces an unsustainable status quo. Defeat this CAFTA so we can renegotiate a CAFTA that meets the challenges of globalization.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, quickly on process, we are not asking for an open rule; we are asking for the ability to bring up a substitute and three specific amendments, number one. Number two, as to the connection with CAFTA, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) was not in favor of CAFTA until there was an agreement to bring up his bill, and then he said he was for CAFTA. Number three, what you are doing is limiting debate on this and also on CAFTA. We have major trade issues, and you do not want to discuss them. Here is a reason why we need to have long debate on this issue and on CAFTA. We have been limited to 2 hours on CAFTA. Will all the facts get out? I am afraid not. For example, there was discussion in the media about commitments that were made by this administration regarding pocketings and linings, and that there had been an agreement reached with the CAFTA countries. We need a long time to debate so we can show that things are not true sometimes that are said to be true. I just saw an article from La Nacion in Costa Rica about this alleged agreement on textiles, and here is a quote from the Minister, the Trade Minister of Costa Rica. I am quoting: ``It is not true that those consultations, that negotiation, has occurred, and it is not at all true that we in Costa Rica and the rest of Central America have sat down yet for that process of consultations.'' So we need a full airing of CAFTA and of the China bill. Quickly, on the China bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said that the Rangel substitute calls for unilateral sanctions. That is not true. That is simply not true. There is a provision relating to currency allowing an action under 301. If that action is taken, we go to the WTO. So you get up here and say things that are just not correct. That is why we need more time. The currency thing, I heard another colleague on the Republican side say we need more information. The Treasury report comes out every 6 months. It is loaded with information, data just coming out of the ears of the Treasury Department. The trouble is, there is never any action. We have in our substitute provisions that say, let us have an avenue for action rather than simply more talk. So we should turn down this rule and, really, this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) does not like the word ``fig leaf.'' It is a smoke screen; maybe that is more polite. It is a smoke screen. It is an effort to say we are doing something when we are really not in order to give some people, I guess, an excuse to vote for another bill. That will not work. This is such a weak bill. We can do better. We should turn it down and have time to consider the substitute that was put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and myself and others.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has done such a splendid job, I am not sure what more needs to be said. Mr. Cardin, you want me to say it again. You and I have spoken on this earlier, and it is unbelievable the hyperbole that we hear. I mean, if people want to vote for hyperbole, I guess this is a good way to do it. If they want to vote for this as a balance to vote for CAFTA, my suggestion is no one is going to buy that. They are going to see right through it. I mean, you already responded. It has been said that there are tools here. I mean, I have been looking in this bill. You have read it carefully. And you have not been able to find the tool. And I looked at it, and I cannot find anything that resembles a tool to do anything. On piracy, I am not sure what we are talking about. It is an immense problem. This administration has had years to do something about it, years. When I was last in China, I walked out of the hotel for the first time and immediately someone said, I have got a DVD, it is brand new, for $1. And I said, I do not want it. And the gentleman was kind of insulted that I did not want to buy a DVD that was brand new for just a buck. You come here with all of these problems and say this bill is going to do anything about that? Really? On currency, it is mind-boggling. You say you want reports. You want reports. Every 6 months the Treasury Department sends us a report. How thick is it? I forget. They are like this or like this. If we had brought these reports over from the last few years, I would guess they would be maybe a foot and a half high. I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), we do not need reports. We need some serious discussion and then action in this place. And I read the sense of the Congress provisions. The hyperbole we hear is that we are somehow going to impact somebody, I will use that word carefully. I read, for example, subparagraph 12, regarding Japan. This is in section 2, sense of the Congress. It says: In addition the USTR should place particular emphasis on trade barriers imposed by Japan. My word, we need more than words. We have been urging this administration to take action against nontariff barriers put up by Japan from the day they came into office, and nothing has happened. And you think some words here will impact? I close with a comment about the bonds. Look, I remember sitting in the Committee on Ways and Means years ago talking about this problem, and it was only within the last 12 months that once again we asked the majority to take action against this evasion, and you refused to do it. So now you come here with something that is temporary. Why not make it permanent? We have been studying this darn problem for years. This is such a lame bill that it does not really get out of the starting gate. So do not paint this as what it is not. Do not paint this as some turning point. What this is more than anything else is an effort to say to some people, we will give you this vote in return for your vote on CAFTA. Some people have been biting on that apple. Do not do it. If you want to vote for a bill that is so short of what we have introduced, and by the way, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), it does not violate the WTO requirements in any respects, the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). If you want to vote for this thinking it does something, go ahead. Do not vote for it as an excuse to vote for something else.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, in a word, is a smoke screen; and it has so little smoke, let alone any fire, that Members can see straight through it. At its very best, it is feeble; at its worse, it disguises what the real problem is. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) raised the issue why this is on suspension. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I, and others introduced legislation, H.R. 3306. And I want to ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), why not put this bill not on suspension but regular order? Why not sit down with Democrats, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and myself, and try to come up with a truly bipartisan bill? The other side of the aisle has not done that. They say they are adding provisions adding countervailing duties, but then they add other provisions which make it essentially impossible to work. They talk about currency. I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), it is more reports. The Rangel bill talks about more than reports. The Rangel bill has a definition of currency manipulation and the ability under 301 to do something about it. The Rangel bill also recreates super-301 so we will indeed be able to take action and ensures that this administration will take action when China does not meet its commitments. This bill should be voted down so that we can have an honest discussion and debate on this floor about the way to handle this problem. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said something about WTO violation. The bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) introduced is completely consistent with our WTO obligations. So bringing that up is a total dodge. This is an effort, I guess, to give some people some cover to vote for another bill. We should not be handling our relationships with China in that manipulative a way. I urge everybody to vote ``no'' on this bill and give this Congress, this House that is supposed to be the people's House, a chance to discuss this bill with amendments. This is another example of the abuse of power by this majority, stifling debate, trying to stuff things through on suspension, 40 minutes, no amendment. What is going to happen is, I think, that this bill will be voted down so that we can take an honest, serious look at this problem on a bipartisan basis.