Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the changes in the House ethics rules that the Republican majority is seeking to adopt today. The proposed Republican rule changes would cripple the ethics process in the House and dramatically lower the bar for standards of official conduct. Late yesterday, the Republican majority in the House released the details of its rules package for the 109th Congress. Some of the newspapers reported this morning that the majority had abandoned its efforts to loosen rules governing Members' ethical conduct, but this is not the case. While the majority backed away from some of its rule changes, the most egregious ethics change remains. This provision would make it much more difficult for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Members of the House. Under current rules, if the Ethics Committee deadlocks on whether or not to pursue an ethics complaint against a Member of the House, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. Under the proposed change, a complaint against a Member would be tabled unless a majority votes to take action on it within 45 days. Since the committee is evenly split with five Republicans and five Democrats, either political party could simply block an ethics complaint by stonewalling and running out the clock. There is no doubt that if the proposed rule change had been in effect during the last Congress, no action would have been taken against the Members of the House who were reprimanded as a result of the Ethics Committee's investigation of bribery allegations raised in connection with the vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. The committee would have deadlocked and the entire matter swept under the rug 45 days after the complaint was made. I was listening to the debate on this earlier. The chairman of the Ethics Committee said that he does not favor this change. He said he would like it removed. Why then is the majority leadership pursuing this change, when it is opposed by the ranking Republican on the Ethics Committee? At a time when public confidence in Congress is so low and the Nation faces so many challenges, it is inexplicable that the first order of business in the new session is to water down the ethics rules in the House and make it even more difficult to discipline lawmakers who abuse their office. This should not be a partisan matter. The proposed rule change harms the integrity and credibility of the House as an institution, and that reflects badly on all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike. I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this assault on ethics enforcement in the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to that but I must say I loved sitting next to Bob Matsui. When I came here Monday morning, having heard the news a few hours before, here is what I said to myself: This place is truly a different place without Bob Matsui. There is for us a large hole in our ranks and in our hearts. He added so much to this institution that he loved. He added his exceptional vitality to the notion we often say, this is the people's House. Bob underlined, this was the House of all the people. He identified with the underdog, with those trying to climb up the ladder of life more than those who were already at the top. Opportunity meant everything to Bob. Tax policy, his interest in EITC, to help those working lift themselves up, his interest in child care and health care for those who were leaving welfare for work. He fought also, we know, for the seniors of this Nation. And how hard he was fighting as illness overtook them, trying to make sure that there was opportunity for elder citizens and not deprivation. In trade policy, as has been mentioned, my brother the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is here, I think I would describe it this way about Bob. He saw opportunities in expansion of trade, but more and more he came to believe that as globalization expanded it was critical that expanded trade leveled up and not leveled down. Where all of his ardor came from, I am not sure. Some no doubt from his family's life experience and some of my colleagues knew more about that than I did. From him, he did not talk very much about it. I read in some of the reports that Bob was described as low-key and quiet and I see some of my colleagues shaking their heads. Those press reports did not quite capture Bob Matsui. He was gentle, that is true. And he was very dignified and in a way quiet. But he was a gentle person, focused, dedicated, tenacious, and tough. He did not claim to know all of the answers; but when witnesses came before the committee, he was insistent that they give straight answers to his questions. And the mightier they were, the witness, the mightier was Bob Matsui's determination. I will not mention the members of administrations who learned that firsthand. There has been reference to this Christmas card and I wish everybody who may be viewing this could see this picture, how it moved us. And let me close by reading just the last paragraph of this card: ``As we look at this special season through Anna's eyes,'' the granddaughter, ``we feel a renewal of our family's traditions. Let us cherish these special moments and be thankful for what is most important in our lives, our family, our friends, and the blessings of everyday life. Bob, Doris, Brian, Amy, and Anna Matsui.'' Our condolences to the family, to Doris, Brian, Amy, and Anna. Bob Matsui was always looking to the future. Now it is up to us to look to the future on behalf of Bob Matsui. Bob, we love you.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 71st anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 to 1933. The horrors of famine are often brought about by droughts, floods or other natural occurrences, but the deaths of more than 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children during this period were the direct result of deliberate policy decisions by a repressive government. Seeking to suppress Ukrainian aspirations for independence, the government of the former Soviet Union ruthlessly imposed forced collectivization and grain seizures. Survivors have spoken of eating bark and weeds to subsist, of the desolation of entire villages, and of Red Army soldiers going door-to-door throughout villages confiscating food and livestock. Witnesses testified that the harvests of the early 1930s were bountiful, and while innocents starved in the streets, Soviet soldiers guarded storehouses full of grain. For decades after these. events, the deaths were covered up and this man-made tragedy was denied by Joseph Stalin and the government of the Soviet Union. Even today, with first-hand testimony and overwhelming evidence, including the final report of the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, there are still those who seek to deny the truth. Each year, we in Congress join with Ukrainians around the world to remember and honor the victims of this atrocity. Through public recognition of the Ukrainian Famine, we work to ensure this senseless cruelty against humankind is not forgotten, and that its remembrance may help to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) asked us to be bipartisan. Why were the Republicans not bipartisan when you put your budget together? You want us to be bipartisan now. What about the past? You want us to be fiscally responsible for your fiscal irresponsibility. We will not do that. You mentioned the Medicare bill. We paid for ours. You hid the facts about what you were proposing. You hid them from us, and you continue to do so. It has been said here let everybody understand the impact on the families of America. The gross interest on the national debt this year: three-quarters of all nondefense discretionary spending. And when projected over 10 years, it is going to be even larger than nondefense discretionary spending. This action of yours today is the bitter fruit of your fiscal irresponsibility. You give every reason for this problem except your own actions, your own default. It is time that you stood up to the bitter fruits of your policies. Do not stonewall. Do not give us the hollow excuses. This country's families are now being asked by you for a tax increase on every family of America. You can vote for that; I am not going to do so.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate an excellent educational institution in Michigan, Macomb Community College, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. ``Community'' is central to the vision of Macomb Community College (MCC), and over its fifty years of service I am confident it has touched nearly every home in Macomb County in one way or another. MCC was founded as part of a K-14 system and was known as ``South Macomb Community.'' Approximately 84 students attended classes, $2.00 per credit hour, in seventeen basic course areas at night in space borrowed at Lincoln High School. Today its reach extends to six campus sites and outreach centers and it enjoys an annual enrollment of 44,000 students with 1100 courses offered in the day, night, and online. Every decade has seen expansion and distinction at MCC. In the 1960s their service area was expanded to include the entire county, and its two main campuses, South and Central, became realities so it could serve both, urban and rural areas. Enrollment continued to climb in the 1970s and, at one point in the 1980s, MCC was the third largest college in the state behind the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. They also added a world-class facility, the Macomb Center for Performing Arts, which now holds nearly 700 events annually, enjoyed by some 260,000 individuals. It was also in the 1980s that a third campus site was added to house police and fire academies, workforce development and training, and continuing education programs. In the 1990s, the College partnered with nine universities and upper division public and private colleges to launch the University Center where approximately 2500 students could pursue bachelors and masters degrees closer to home. Also in this decade, its fourth campus, the Emergency Services Training Center was constructed as a state-of-the- art training facility for police, fire, first responder, emergency medical and municipal services. In 2002, MCC partnered with the State of Michigan on the site of the former Army Tank Plant, after the property was transferred from military to public use, to build its most recent addition, ``The Michigan Technical Education Center'' (M-TEC) to house the College's comprehensive Workforce Development Institute. Mr. Speaker, one might say that fifty years ago South Community College planted seeds in borrowed space. Today, those seeds have sprouted throughout the entire County. The residents of Macomb County have indeed been fortunate to have such a progressive institution committed to the educational needs of everyone in the area. The College has been forward-thinking in their approach to the needs of the County and they have been committed to the vision of a ``better future for those growing up in the community as well as the community itself.'' It has been my pleasure to work closely with MCC in so many important areas, like school-to-work and re-training programs, and to spend time with the students there. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking all those who have helped build this remarkable institution, and to extend our best wishes for their important endeavors in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today is intelligence reform more in name than in reality. In fact, the Republican Leadership's bill, H.R. 10, ignores most of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. Of the 41 recommendations made by the Commission, H.R. 10 fully implements only 11 of them. On October 2, the Family Steering Committee, which is made up of the families of 9/11 victims, issued a statement that said, ``House of Representatives bill H.R. 10, drafted in response to the 9/11 Commission recommendations, is flawed because it does not provide for a strong National Intelligence Director. It also contains controversial, divisive provisions which may have merit but warrant separate debate.'' The Family Steering Committee's statement called on the House to adopt the bipartisan Senate bill, which has been championed in the House by Representatives Shays, Maloney and Menendez. It should come as a surprise to no one that the Republican Leadership, which long opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission, turned a deaf ear to the views of the Commission and the 9/11 families. The more than 50 extraneous provisions that were not recommended by the 9/11 Commission remain in the bill. Some of these provisions are very controversial. To add insult to injury, the House Leadership restricted the opportunity of Members to amend and strengthen the bill. There have been two distinctly different approaches followed in the House and Senate on the critical issue of implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the Senate, there has been an open and bipartisan process used to develop a bill that truly reflects the recommendations of the Commission. The Collins-Lieberman legislation in the Senate has been endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and even the White House. The Senate bill, which was adopted on a vote of 96 to 2, was the product of extensive deliberation and bipartisan cooperation. The Republican Leadership in the House took a different road. They introduced a bill that was developed in secret with no meaningful input from Democrats. This partisan process has produced a weak bill that does not reflect the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. For all these reasons, I voted for the Menendez substitute, which is based on the bipartisan Senate bill and fully implements the reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The Menendez substitute is supported by the 9/11 families. I regret that the House narrowly defeated this proposal last night. By supporting the Menendez substitute, and opposing the flawed and wholly insufficient underlying bill, I hope we can send a clear message that we stand with the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families in supporting genuine, meaningful intelligence reform. I hope this message will be heard by the House and Senate conferees as they work to reconcile the House and Senate bills.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we needed to replace FSC, and the chairman knows that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I introduced a bill over a year ago. It was before it was loaded up by this House with bills that have nothing to do with this issue. And I read from the letter of Secretary Snow of October 4: ``Both the House and Senate-passed bills include a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code.'' That is his letter: special interest tax provisions. We have heard laudatory comments about major provisions, the small business expensing, the ethanol excise tax credit, that is agriculture; the State and local sales tax. I want to ask any Republican who signed the conference report, because these three provisions are sunsetted, will you come to the well and tell the people of this country that you will let the sunset occur. You will not do that. What is really happening here is that these provisions are sunsetted in order to bring down the cost of this bill. In a real sense, it is not revenue-neutral. Do not say it. Those three provisions alone, $35 billion, $5.9 billion, $25 billion, that is $66 billion more are sure to continue. You laud them; you should have included the cost. Let me say a word about another way that you brought down the cost, and that is you deferred the effectiveness of several of these provisions, including the interest allocation and the basket provisions. The effect of deferring them is that companies will keep their profits overseas longer, not bring them back home in order to gain the benefit of those tax provisions. In that respect as well as others, you are creating incentives for companies to invest overseas instead of the United States of America. This is a form of outsourcing. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) said that there are proportionately more monies here for U.S. producers. That is not true. The provision of proportionality was stricken from the Senate bill. Also, when you put together the benefit under the so-called manufacturing provision, $27 billion versus $42 billion for overseas activities, even if that is what you mean by proportionality, there is an incentive here for operations overseas. In a real sense, not only special interest wins, so does outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Mr. Speaker, we need to go back and do this right.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I want to spend just 30 seconds on process. It has been covered well. If I can lift this bill, here it is. No speed reader can read this, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), nobody. On partisanship, this bill was handled in this House without a stitch of effort at bipartisanship. The two of us who were conferees and our Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means never had a chance to participate in the creation of the House bill. I want to talk about the substance. This is a $5 billion problem with a solution that is three times that in terms of the 10 year result. Five times ten is 50. This bill is $150 billion. Who are going to be the main beneficiaries? Not the workers who are going to lose their overtime, because the House Republicans stripped the overtime provision that had been passed by the Senate, stripped it on a partisan basis. Not the kids who are going to end up smoking and the families who will also suffer with them. Why? Because the House Republicans stripped the FDA provision out of this bill that was part of the Senate bill. And not the workers in communities who are going to lose because of jobs going overseas. I want to say a word to the gentleman from New York about some of the provisions he mentioned. Small business, the sales tax provision, these are sunsetted. It is dishonest budgeting, because we know they will not be sunsetted, and when you take all the sunsets out, the bill is really not revenue-neutral; there is an $80 billion deficit. Madam Speaker, this continues to the pattern of Republicans talking one way and acting another. I think you can call it flip-flopping. Let me read the letter from Secretary Snow that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) referred to. This is his letter a couple days ago: ``The administration believes a conference report to replace FSC- ETI should be budget neutral. Both the House and Senate-passed bill include a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code. Legislation taking up more than 1,000 pages of statutory language or even 400 pages goes far beyond the bill's core objective of replacing the FSC-ETI tax provisions with broadbased tax relief that is WTO compliant. The administration will work with the conferees to eliminate these narrowly-crafted provisions.'' Madam Speaker, that has not happened. The administration essentially has flip-flopped, has caved in. So all of these special interest provisions that have been mentioned have stayed in--for railroads, for shipbuilders, for bow-and-arrow manufacturers, for importers of Chinese ceiling fans, for the horse- and dog-racing industries. Madam Speaker, we could have done better. We needed to replace FSC with a bill that the four of us introduced relating to manufacturing. Instead, we have this huge monstrosity of a bill. We should go back to the original purpose. I urge we turn down this provision here of martial law and then turn down the rule and then turn down the conference report, and come back quickly and do the work that is necessary to preserve manufacturing in the United States of America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mr. Bob Milewski, as he receives the 2004 Alexander Macomb ``Man of the Year'' Award from the March of Dimes. Bob Milewski's business card reads: President and CEO, Mount Clemens General Hospital. Yet his influence stretches even further beyond the hospital campus, and his title doesn't capture his devotion to Macomb County and its citizens. For Bob Milewski, his vocation is an opportunity to serve the community he loves. Bob Milewski was born and raised in Center Line, Michigan. He married his high school sweetheart, Nancy, and they have been married for 33 years. All three of their children, Amy, Jeff and Amanda, were born at Mount Clemens General. They are the proud grandparents of Gavin, Garrett, and Grant. Bob Milewski has worked at both Children's Hospital of Michigan and Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak. He came to Mount Clemens General as Chief Operating Office (COO) in September, 1993 and was promoted to Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in September, 1997. Since 1997, Bob Milewski has strongly and enthusiastically led Mount Clemens General, which has seen a 50 percent growth in inpatient admissions and 300 percent growth in outpatient activity during his tenure. Of course, Mr. Milewski would say that those numbers only have meaning if you know the people behind the statistics: his neighbors, church members, professionals, associates, friends and family who have long trusted Mount Clemens General for their healthcare. Community linkage is of the utmost importance to Bob Milewski. Not only does he believe the hospital should offer outstanding healthcare to its residents, but that it should support the community by having its staff involved in community organizations. Mr. Milewski himself is heavily involved in many local organizations, including Leadership Macomb, Mount Clemens Lions Club, Rockpointe Community Church, Selfridge Air National Guard Base Council, Greater Detroit Area Health Council, Michigan Healthcare Executive Group and Associates, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, American College of Healthcare Executives, and the American Osteopathic Association. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a terrific individual, an outstanding leader, and a worthy recipient of this annual Macomb County recognition by the March of Dimes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Moscone family, as they receive the 2004 Donna Greco Issa ``Family of the Year'' Award from the March of Dimes. The Moscone Family continues the distinguished tradition of strong and passionate enthusiasm for family, friends, and community that has been a hallmark of this award. Serafino Moscone was born in 1930; Iolanda Vitelli in 1934, both from the little town of Casalvieri, Italy. The two met as children and were married in 1949. Surrounded by family in Detroit, they began their new life together. Being blessed with two children; Antonio and Onorio, the young couple realized the value of family. Serafino worked three jobs to help provide a better life for his wife and sons. In the 1960s, he started a construction company that helped to instill a strong and devoted work ethic in their children. Today, due largely to the virtues of discipline and hard-work passed along to them by their parents, they have become one of Macomb County's leading developers and builders. Antonio and his wife Iolanda have three children. Sam, 25, graduated from Michigan State University with a Bachelor's degree in Finance. Michelle, 23, graduated from Wayne State with her Bachelor's degree in Science of Dance and Christina, 20, is on the Dean's List at Wayne State with plans of pursuing an Education degree. Onorio and his wife Carla have two children. Nino, 13, has started at De La Salle this fall and Michael, 10, is currently attending St. Lawrence School. The families continually support numerous charities and foundations such as St. Joseph's Mercy of Macomb Hospital, Italian American Delegates, Children's Charities at Adios, and the Italian Chamber of Commerce. The Moscone's devotion to their community has a broad impact on individuals and organizations throughout the County. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Moscone family for their extraordinary commitment to their family, their friends, and their community. They are well deserving of the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Well, my Republican friend from Louisiana talks about the 21st century market and the chairman talks about modernization. So far, under those mantras, what has happened is more poverty in America, stagnant income for families in America under this administration, and millions of fewer jobs, almost 3 million fewer jobs in manufacturing. And if you call modernization their Republican tax bills, or if this is the 21st century market, just reading from the Detroit News, a rather conservative newspaper, summing up material from the CBO, in 2004 the average tax cut for the middle-income family is $1,090 and for the richest 1 percent it is $78,460. I am for a 21st century market, Mr. Speaker, but not for that kind of a market. We are for modernization, but not for that kind of modernization. We cannot go backwards. We need to move forward. And here is what the bill did that came through here and is reflected in the dilemma that we have. We had a $50 billion problem. The WTO ruled FSC inappropriate under WTO rules. What happened was, instead of passing a bill that was a bipartisan bill that addressed the manufacturing sector as FSC did, we ended up with about a $140 billion bill. Three times as large. And it is really larger than that because some of the provisions were to expire when they are unlikely to, and there was a delayed phase-in. So, essentially, once again we are adding to a deficit because so much of this is not paid for. So we had a $50 billion problem. We now have a bill three times as large, and it is going to increase the deficit. Now, let me point out quickly some of the provisions in this motion to instruct, because we need to look at the whole document. It says that we should accede to the Senate amendment so there is a deduction rather than a corporate rate reduction. That is of importance to many manufacturing companies in this country. The Senate bill is preferable. Also, we say that this tax amendment should relate to all the businesses, not simply limited as in the House bill. We also indicate that we should accede to the Senate approach so that the rate reduction really reflects the amount of business done in the United States and not overseas. And then we go on to provide a remedy for corporations that move their businesses in form overseas, called inversions, and say that we should accept the provisions in the Senate amendment. And we also say that we should drop the provision in the House bill that provides for private collection of Federal tax liabilities, a horrendous idea that I do not think most Americans will accept. Now, let me say just a few words about the issue of outsourcing, of moving businesses overseas. The House bill had in it a number of provisions that will stimulate movement of operations overseas. One of them is not in the Senate bill. These are complicated provisions, but they have a simple clear-cut impact. The provision, for example, relating to tax credit baskets, the House would move it from 9 to 2. Essentially, this is going to stimulate the investment of companies in tax havens instead of bringing back the monies to the United States. It cost $8 billion. It is not in the Senate bill. Then there are the so-called look-through provisions that are in both bills. Do not say that this will not stimulate movement of jobs overseas, because essentially, for a multinational, there will be encouragement instead of bringing the profits back here and investing them here to move those profits into a third country, often a tax haven country. That will stimulate the movement of jobs from here overseas. When the Senate voted, they voted for this provision as part of a much larger bill that came to include a provision on overtime. So members of the Senate were faced with the dilemma of how we attack this problem of the elimination of FSC. And we need to do that, but focused on manufacturing. Do we look at the problem of overtime? And because they did not control the proceedings in the Senate, they were faced with a dilemma. So let us be clear. You mentioned furniture. Go to North Carolina. Go there. China has been taking furniture business away from the United States unfairly. Overseas movement is a problem. Outsourcing is a problem. Vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I think we have the right to close, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is not here, and I am not sure he will be here. We would have divided the balance of the time. He is not here because of the memorial service for our distinguished, and if I might say, beloved former colleague Frank Horton. So, therefore, under those circumstances, I reserve the balance of the time and I will close.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly review the history of welfare reform, not to finger point, but to have us understand what this is all about. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said, pointing to 1996, that the third time around, the President agreed to it. What he forgot to say was that there were three bills and that they changed from bill to bill. Many Democrats worked to change those bills so that they would be acceptable. The third time around it was different because it included more adequate health care and also more adequate day care. Neither was taken care of appropriately in the first two times around. That is point one. So it was a bipartisan product. The President, President Clinton, had kicked off the effort years before, and eventually we worked together to produce a product. My next point, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has so clearly pointed out, it has been different this time around in terms of this product that came through the House. It has not been a bipartisan product whatsoever. Instead, what the majority has been trying to do is really to rewrite the 1996 welfare reform bill, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, to turn the clock back on provisions of that bill, and to do so despite the fact that the research that has been undertaken since passage in 1996 indicates that what is in the House-passed bill is wrong in important respects, and that is why the Senate has failed to act. First of all, in terms of people moving up the economic ladder, the evidence is clear that a majority of people who have moved from welfare to work earn less than 42 percent of the median average wage in their States. And also these studies make clear that the most successful programs focus on getting people better jobs and increasing their earnings. Former welfare recipients with higher starting wages were 40 percent more likely to still be working 2 years later and those with child assistance were twice as likely to work for 2 years. So that is why the National Governors Association, when they canvassed the welfare directors, found that 40 of them said that the fundamental changes in the Republican bill were wrong; or to put it another way, that the Republican bill would force fundamental changes in the successful welfare programs. And the researcher who has done so much of the federally funded research on welfare-to-work strategies said that the House Bush administration plan would force the most successful programs to change substantially. So that is what this is all about. We passed a bill that would, instead of emphasizing people moving off of welfare into work and as they moved, moved up the ladder, would emphasize people on welfare working. The whole point is to help people and get them to move off of welfare and to stay off of welfare. So in our bill the Democrats proposed a very different approach than the Republicans here in the House. In our bill, States would be rewarded for helping recipients move off of welfare and to get into good-paying jobs, and also trying to fix the transitional Medicaid program, to try to get more health care available for people so when they moved off of welfare, they did not lose it, they would instead continue it for 6 months or a year. Also we proposed in our bill full funding to the social services block grant program. Let me finish by saying I support the extension. It is better than a bad bill that passed the House, but on child care, the record should be straight: We proposed $11 billion more, the Senate $7 billion, and the House Republican bill won. If child care is not provided, it is going to be difficult for people to move off of welfare into productive work that will move them and help move up the ladder, and that is the true test of welfare reform, people moving off welfare out of poverty and into work. The gentleman from Maryland has led the effort to emphasize that with the support of Democrats. I am proud to be part of that. We need a bipartisan effort in this House, not ramming or cramming through a bill without ever there being an effort within our subcommittee to produce a bipartisan product. There is hope, but not the Republican bill. Let us vote for the extension and do much better after November 2.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the chairman of the subcommittee, if he persists in distorting the record, he is going to continue to make less likely improvement of welfare reform. I am sorry he is not listening, but I will say this for the record. When welfare reform bills were considered, there were differences. But at important places we proposed alternatives and Democrats voted for them. March 24, 1995, 205 Democrats supported essentially a substitute that was proposed by someone who was then a member of the Democratic Caucus. That was March of 1995. Then if you go over to later on, there was in July 1996 when welfare reform was considered on the floor an alternative proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It received 168 votes. His attempt to really grab the welfare reform flag and deny the involvement of President Clinton who suggested we end welfare as we then knew it, I think he is now suggesting that we change welfare reform backwards. That effort of his I think only diminishes the chances that we can move welfare reform ahead. His trying to make this into a partisan issue instead of a chance for bipartisan working together is really antithetical to the needs of the people of this country for further welfare reform. I hope the next time around, he does not sing the same song.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and congratulate a good friend and fellow public servant, Jacqueline Noonan, as she receives the 2004 Alexander Macomb ``Woman of the Year'' Award from the March of Dimes. Jacqueline Noonan was raised in Avon Township, now Rochester Hills. She graduated from Rochester High School and graduated from Oakland University with a Bachelor's degree in Secondary Education. Jackie began teaching after graduating while continuing to work on her Master's degree at Oakland University. She and her husband, Jerry, became part of Utica, where they thoroughly enjoyed ``small'' town life with their five children: Christopher, Jbrome, Catherine, Melissa and Tracy. In 1968, Jackie and Jerry turned their attention to owning and operating a family business, Noonan's Inc., which they did for 21 years. As their children entered Utica Community Schools, Jackie began her 24-year tenure as a volunteer in the school system and served in almost every imaginable position from Enrollment Advisory Board member to Picture Lady. Jackie Noonan was elected to Utica's City Council in 1981 and was named Businesswoman of the Year by the Utica Business and Professional Women's Club. She also returned to Oakland University and earned a Master's Degree in Public Administration in 1988. Jackie Noonan was elected to the position of Mayor of Utica in 1987. In Utica, a city of some 5000 residents, the Mayor is also the Chief Executive Officer and is ultimately responsible for all services and functions of city government. During her tenure, Ms. Noonan researched and developed the famous 425 agreement; this intergovernmental agreement saved Utica from dissolution and brought about a sharing of resources and services between several communities. In 1989, Ms. Noonan assumed the role of spokesperson for Macomb County Traffic Safety Association's school level ``Don't Drink and Drive'' alcohol education program, and in 1991, she returned to the role of educator with the Utica Community Schools. Certified to teach all levels of French and social studies, she is currently a full time faculty member at Eisenhower High School. Jackie Noonan is currently serving her ninth consecutive term as Mayor of Utica, is the past chair of the Macomb County Mayors' Association, and serves on a variety of boards and commissions locally and statewide. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a terrific public servant, a wonderful community activist, Jackie Noonan, for her devotion to her community and her achievements as a positive and accomplished role model to her family, friends, and neighbors. It has been my pleasure to work with Mayor Noonan on numerous local issues, especially those related to M 59, and call her a friend.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 24, 2004 the Sterling Heights Fire Fighters Union will host their Annual Dinner-Dance, honoring their 2004 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 am proud to rise today to pay tribute to the careers of two retiring firefighters. Inspector Dennis Witulski, discharged from the U.S. Navy in 1973, was appointed as a Sterling Heights firefighter on July 20, 1981. He was promoted to FEO in 1992 and then promoted again to Lieutenant in 1996. Mr. Witulski was deemed Firefighter of the Year in 2001 by the city of Sterling Heights and American Legion Post 151. He twice received Perfect Attendance awards in 1996 and 2002. Mr. Witulski received various merits and awards throughout his tenure with the fire department, and retired on July 20, 2004. Bio-Operations Chief Anthony Maltese was born in Detroit, Michigan, on June 6, 1950. He was appointed to the position of firefighter January 29, 1973. He received commendation for responding to a house fire in 1974 and a Meritorious Unit Citation for a lifesaving incident in 1986. Mr. Maltese was promoted to Lieutenant in July of 1992, and promoted again to Captain in October of 1995. He received his Associates Degree, Cum Laude, in 1994 and was appointed Battalion Chief in 1997. Mr. Maltese retired as Operations Chief on November 19, 2003. Many of us embark on a profession that does not call for us to put our lives in danger each day we go into work. These men chose to dedicate their careers and their lives to helping people in their community stay safe and secure, and putting their lives in harm's way to save a life, a family, a home. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these two heroes, who have dedicated themselves to Sterling Heights and the community at large in a way that few can; with valor, commitment and honor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Tom Violante, founder and owner of Holiday Market in Royal Oak, Michigan in a celebration of the Market's fifty years as a community landmark. When Holiday Market opened in 1954, it was a small store up the street from its present location and in some respects it was like many other small grocers so common in those days. It sold the basics and had a meat counter with a very few employees. But there was from the beginning a major difference: the owner, Tom Violante. He took a personal interest in every customer who walked through the door. He wanted every customer to be satisfied with service, price, and quality. Those who stopped at that small business place can remember Tom at the meat counter, friendly and eager to meet a customer's wishes. In these efforts he was actively joined by his wife Janet. He also possessed a strong business acumen. When opportunities arose to move down the street and expand into much larger quarters, he took the leap. Today Holiday Market provides an adventure in shopping for an imaginative variety of quality products. The next generation of his family has taken an increased interest. They have sustained the Violante touch of warm friendliness and superior service. As busy as Tom Violante was, whether as the cog in a small operation and later as his enterprise grew, and no matter how involved he and his wife Janet were in raising their growing family, Tom and Janet have possessed a strong community and civic involvement. Tom's community interest was exemplified in his service on the Oak Park Board of Education, the Oak Park Citizens School Finance Committee, President of the Frost Elementary School PTA, and the Oak Park Boosters Club. Many have been the beneficiaries of Tom and Janet Violante's civic interest. Their support of local charitable organizations include the Royal Oak Lions Club, the Royal Oak Boys and Girls Club, William Beaumont Hospital's Speech Therapy Program and Leader Dogs for the Blind and Hearing Impaired, among others. Mr. Speaker, as Tom Violante is ``roasted'' at the celebration on September 23, in Royal Oak, Michigan, I add my personal gratitude to a remarkable man who has given so much to make his community a better place for all of us. I ask my colleagues to join in congratulating Holiday Market on its golden anniversary and in wishing Tom Violante, his wife Janet, their five children and fourteen grandchildren good health and happiness, and continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, several colleagues and I introduced legislation that would create a comprehensive plan to address the impending crisis in the U.S. textiles and apparel industry. An explanation of this bill for the Record follows. Summary H.R. 5026, the Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act, creates a comprehensive program to respond to the WTO- mandated expiration of textiles and apparel quotas at the end of 2004. Foreseeing within the expanded trade resulting from China's WTO accession the potential negative impact on the U.S. and world markets from quota expiration, the Clinton Administration negotiated the right for the United States to use a special safeguard against imports of textiles and apparel products from China. Despite 345,000 U.S. jobs lost in the textiles and apparel industry since 2001, and estimates of hundreds of thousands more after quotas expire, the Bush Administration has failed to actively implement the special safeguard or to create a comprehensive approach to the issue. The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act is critical for the U.S. textiles and apparel industry and the 700,000 U.S. jobs it supports. The Act ensures active enforcement of the special safeguard against imports from China and creates a comprehensive approach to the impending crisis. The Act has three key elements. Specifically, it would: (1) direct the President to make two changes to the overly restrictive rules issued by the Bush Administration to implement the China safeguard so that the safeguard will be meaningful for the U.S. textiles and apparel industry; (2) direct the President to use the special China safeguard to negotiate a comprehensive agreement by immediately entering into formal consultations with China over textiles and apparel imports that threaten to disrupt the American market; and (3) enforce aggressively U.S. rights under the special China safeguard by imposing restraints on imports if China does not agree on a mutually acceptable solution. Background and Explanation On January 1, 2005, quotas on textiles and apparel products are scheduled to expire for WTO Members. Textiles and apparel industry analysts predict that China will dominate global textiles and apparel production when that happens. In the United States, some analysts expect China to capture over two-thirds of the U.S. market and, according to the World Bank, capture as much as 50 percent of total global production--a dramatic increase from its current 17 percent share. China's dominance in the U.S. market will have serious direct adverse consequences domestically. It will also be devastating for many poorer developing countries that will lose their U.S. market share to China, including U.S. preference partners in Central America and sub-Saharan Africa. The impact on these countries will be another blow to the U.S. industry because many of the U.S. preference partners are heavily integrated with the U.S. industry, including use of significant amounts of U.S. textiles in the apparel they export. The textiles and apparel industry is among the largest U.S. manufacturing industry (in terms of employment, with a total of around 700,0000 workers), yet to date the Bush Administration has failed to take any significant steps to address this major trade event. As part of China's WTO accession package, the Clinton Administration created a special safeguard applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products from China. This special China safeguard gives the United States the right (1) to enter into consultations with China to create a more stable market, (2) to negotiate restraints on textiles and apparel imports with China, and (3) to impose restraints on an annual basis if China does not agree and the imports are causing or threatening market disruption. Changing Overly Restrictive Regulations The Bush Administration issued regulations in May 2003 implementing the special safeguard. Those rules, however, are overly restrictive, severely constraining the safeguard and making it effectively unavailable for large segments of the U.S. industry and its workers. First, the regulations do not clearly provide the right to bring a ``threat'' case. In other words, the U.S. industry and its workers will have to wait until after imports from China have already caused injury--often irreparable injury--before they can bring a successful case. Second, the regulations are written in a way that significantly constrains the U.S. right to respond to market disruption from China. In many cases, Chinese imports cause market disruption not by competing directly with U.S. production, but because they supplant production that would have used inputs made by U.S. industry. In both cases, the injury to the U.S. industry and its workers is the same--lost orders and lost jobs--yet the current regulations do not provide clearly a right to use the safeguard to prevent the second kind of market disruption. The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act directs the President to rescind the restrictive interpretation of the textiles and apparel safeguard implementing regulations and replace them with regulations that: (A) make clear that the U.S. industry and workers will not have to wait until after Chinese textiles and apparel imports have caused injury, but may use a threat case to preempt injury; and (B) make clear that a safeguard may be imposed for market disruption that harms the U.S. industry and workers when Chinese imports displace production that uses inputs made by the U.S. industry. In this way, the Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act will allow the United States to take full advantage of its rights under the special China textiles safeguard and make this safeguard a more useful tool for the U.S. industry and its 700,000 workers. Creating a Comprehensive Approach for Import-Sensitive Products Given the significant adverse impact expected on the U.S. textiles and apparel industry and its workers from immediate and wholesale elimination of textiles and apparel quotas-- some estimates predict hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs will be lost if nothing is done--a more comprehensive approach is needed. The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act provides this comprehensive approach. The Act directs the President, in effect, to negotiate a comprehensive bilateral textiles and apparel agreement with China, as allowed under the terms of China's WTO accession agreement. The special China safeguard allows China and any WTO Member to negotiate bilaterally ways to address market disruption caused by Chinese textiles and apparel. Significantly, the accession agreement does not place any limitations on the content of such settlements. The open- ended nature of the settlement provision in the safeguard provides the basis of negotiating a comprehensive textiles and apparel agreement with China. The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act directs the President to negotiate such a comprehensive agreement on all products still subject to quotas. If China is not willing to come to terms on a comprehensive agreement, the Act directs the President to invoke the import restraints provided for under the safeguard across the board for all products eligible for the safeguard, as the United States has the right to do under the terms of China's WTO accession agreement.