Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The compromise before us clearly requires painful choices. These choices relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth? And does it promote fairness? For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth? Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the administration. This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit, and full expensing of business investment for 1 year. Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers. In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting $23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three- tenths of 1 percent of all estates. I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on. I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks, obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican leader that their main priority is the failure of our President. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the passage of H.R. 2941, to renew ``Johanna's Law'' to increase public awareness and knowledge of gynecological cancers. I am pleased to have introduced this important bill with Representatives DeLauro, Issa, and Burton. Johanna's Law established a national public information campaign to educate women and health care providers about the risk factors and early warning signs of gynecologic cancers. This bill before the House carries on that important life-saving work by extending funding of Johanna's Law from 2012 to 2014. The law was named after Michigan resident Johanna Silver Gordon, a loving mother and dedicated public school teacher, who, despite visiting her doctor regularly, was blindsided by a diagnosis of late- stage ovarian cancer, learning only after her diagnosis that the symptoms she had been experiencing were common symptoms of that disease. Despite the best efforts of her physicians, tragically, Johanna lost her life to ovarian cancer 3\1/2\ years after being diagnosed. Johanna's story is far too common. Although it has been 10 years since she died of ovarian cancer, and 4 years since Congress first passed this important legislation, each year over 71,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer and over 26,000 women are lost to one of these serious cancers. Many of those deaths could be prevented if more women knew and recognized the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers and received prompt treatment. Today we continue to build on the work we began with the passage of the first Johanna's Law 4 years ago. Our best weapon against gynecological cancers is early detection. A woman's chance of survival is dramatically improved when the gynecological cancer is diagnosed early. Ovarian cancer causes more deaths in women than any other gynecological cancer; however, it has a 93 percent survival rate if detected in Stage One, but only a 20 percent survival rate if detected in Stage Three or Four. Right now, awareness, education, early diagnosis, and treatment are the most effective weapons we have in our war against gynecological cancers. I urge my colleagues to support Johanna's Law so we can prevail in our battle against these terrible cancers that cut short the lives of our mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, partners and friends. I urge passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the chair of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6517) to extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is really a vital bill. I bring it to the floor in a bipartisan spirit to move and to make sure that all of the important pieces of this vital legislation, all of them, become law. This bill continues the essential trade adjustment assistance program that we expanded in 2009. Importantly, these reforms were authored on a bipartisan, bicameral basis by Mr. Rangel and myself, Mr. Camp, Senators Baucus and Grassley. So let me say just a few words about TAA. Since the reforms were implemented in 2009, more than 155,000 additional trade-impacted workers who might not have been certified under the former TAA program became eligible for TAA worker benefits and training opportunities. More than 155,000. In total, more than 367,000 workers were certified as eligible for TAA support in that timeframe. In 2010 alone, and I also want to emphasize this number, 227,882 workers took advantage of TAA and participated in the program, receiving case management, training and/or income support. You know, I wish in a way 227,882 people could come here and line up from here. I'm not quite sure how far the line would extend. It would be a very long way. We have a solemn obligation to continue this expanded program. This legislation also supports U.S. businesses that need inputs or components not produced here in the U.S. in order to manufacture, and I underline that, downstream products here in the United States of America. Miscellaneous tariff bills like this one have been a part of U.S. policy for 27 years. But in recent years, we have made the process more transparent than ever before, and if I might, I want to pay tribute to all of those who have worked together here in the House and in the Senate in terms of the transparency of this process. Based on these improvements, the Sunlight Foundation has phrased the MTB as ``transparency done right.'' The last MTB was signed into law in August after passing the House by a bipartisan vote of 378-43. Taken together, according to one study, these two MTBs are expected to increase U.S. production by at least $4.6 billion over 3 years and to support 90,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs. Next, the bill also includes an 18-month extension for two preference programs--GSP, the Generalized System of Preferences; and the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA--that are set to expire at the end of the year. That means in 2 weeks. Last year, this legislation was passed by voice vote. Preferences are important tools in U.S. trade policy. They help developing nations capture the opportunities and meet the challenges of trade and globalization, while at the same time, and this is critical to emphasize, providing significant benefits here in the United States. For example, ATPA has helped develop an important market for U.S.-made textiles in the Andean region, while also helping those nations in their efforts to fight trade in narcotics. Also, the majority of U.S. imports, 75 percent using GSP, were imports used to sustain U.S. manufacturing, including raw materials, parts and components, machinery and equipment. These programs have also, and again I want to emphasize, have been shaped to encourage broad-based economic development, with eligibility criteria regarding worker rights--we have worked on the worker rights provisions over the years--the rule of law, innovation and investment, and policies to fight corruption. Madam Speaker, there has long been, because of the strength of these programs, bipartisan support for all of them. Each of them relates to U.S. jobs. Each of them relates to U.S. jobs, and it is crucial that we act to continue them today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert any extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), someone who has been working on this issue for--I don't know how long--a long time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the bill before us right now makes important changes to the tax law rules that relate, as Mr. Neal and Mr. Tiberi said, to regulated investment companies, more commonly known as mutual funds. They were described 80 years ago in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee as, ``A group of small investors who have banded together for the purpose of obtaining diversity and supervision through the medium of pooling their investments.'' While mutual funds continue to serve this important role, the tax rules that govern mutual funds have not been updated in over 20 years. In June of this year, the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Neal, heard testimony from a variety of industry experts stressing the importance of modifying our Nation's tax laws to ensure that the technical tax rules pertaining to mutual funds would better interact with other tax rules. The Ways and Means Committee and the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our tax rules keep up with the times, so the bill before us would update and simplify the rules that apply to mutual funds to ensure that small investors are not disadvantaged simply because they band their investments together through a mutual fund rather than investing directly. The bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. It passed the House by voice vote earlier this year and just last week was amended to pass the Senate by unanimous consent. I want to thank all of my colleagues on Ways and Means and all others who joined for their contributions to ensure that these important changes to the mutual fund rules can be swiftly signed into law by the President of the United States. Passage today will do just that. So I urge strong support for this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4337) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify certain rules applicable to regulated investment companies, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo is a personal tragedy, a national shame, and an international challenge. The answer is clear: Mr. Liu should be released immediately. For his more than two decades of advocating for freedom of speech, assembly, religion, peaceful democratic reform, transparency and accountability in China, Mr. Liu is serving an eleven-year sentence in a Chinese prison for ``inciting subversion of state power.'' Those in China, like Mr. Liu, who have penned thoughtful essays or signed Charter 08 seek to advance debate, as the Charter states, on ``national governance, citizens' rights, and social development'' consistent with their ``duty as responsible and constructive citizens.'' Their commitment and contribution to their country must be recognized, as the Nobel Committee has done, and as we do today, and their rights must be protected. The Chinese government has said that awarding the Nobel Prize to Liu Xiaobo ``shows a lack of respect for China's judicial system.'' I would like to take a moment to examine this claim. For it seems to me that what truly showed a lack of respect for China's judicial system were the numerous and well-documented violations of Chinese legal protections for criminal defendants that marred Mr. Liu's trial from the outset. I refer here to matters such as the failure of Chinese prosecutors adequately to consult defense lawyers, and the speed with which prosecutors acted in indicting Mr. Liu and bringing him to trial, effectively denying his lawyers sufficient time to review the state's evidence and to prepare for his defense. Chinese officials prevented Mr. Liu's wife from attending his trial, in which she had hoped to testify on behalf of her husband. Mr. Liu's lawyers reportedly were ordered by state justice officials not to grant interviews. It is these abuses committed by Chinese officials in China, not the actions of a committee in Oslo, that demonstrated ``a lack of respect for China's judicial system.'' All nations have the responsibility to ensure fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings. The effective implementation of basic human rights and the ability of all people in China to live under the rule of law depend on careful attention to, and transparent compliance with, procedural norms and safeguards that meet international standards. I serve as Cochairman of the Congressional- Executive Commission on China (CECC). The Commission's Political Prisoner Database, which is available to the public on-line via the Commission's web site, www.cecc.gov, contains information on thousands of political prisoners in China. These are individuals who have been imprisoned by the Chinese government for exercising their civil and political rights under China's Constitution and laws or under China's international human rights obligations. The enhancement of the database that the Commission announced this past summer roughly doubled the types of information available to the public, enabling individuals, organizations, and governments to better report on political imprisonment in China and to more effectively advocate on behalf of Chinese political prisoners. And people around the world have been using the database to do just that. The number of ``hits'' to the database from individual users, NGOs, academic institutions and governments around the world has skyrocketed. The database makes clear that political imprisonment in China is well-documented, it is a practice whereby the Chinese government has shown disrespect for the law not only in Liu Xiaobo's case, but in thousands of other cases, and it must end. Unfortunately, the end to political imprisonment in China does not appear likely at this time. Since the Nobel Committee's announcement, Mr. Liu's wife, Liu Xia, has been harassed relentlessly, and remains confined virtually incommunicado under what appears to be house arrest. In the weeks following the Nobel Committee's announcement, there have been over 100 documented incidents in which Chinese citizens have been harassed, interrogated, subjected to police surveillance, detained or placed under house arrest for their expressions of support for Liu. Articles in China's official state-run media have attacked the Nobel committee and painted a harshly negative portrait of Liu. Chinese authorities have attempted to limit the dissemination of information about Liu's receiving the Nobel Prize. Chinese officials have censored unauthorized references to Liu on the Internet and cell phones and blocked access to news about Liu from outside China. Chinese officials have imposed severe travel restrictions on Chinese activists, scholars, and lawyers whom they fear will attempt to attend the Nobel peace prize award ceremony in Norway on December 10. In the last month, Beijing police reportedly have prevented leading scholars and lawyers from boarding flights to attend international conferences for fear they will attend the Nobel peace prize award ceremony. Other public intellectuals physically have been prevented by police from meeting foreign reporters. The Director of the Nobel Institute said China's pressure on other governments to boycott this year's ceremony has been unprecedented in his twenty years as Director. China's G20 negotiator said that countries sending officials to attend the award ceremony honoring Mr. Liu must be ready to ``accept the consequences.'' Diplomats report that the Chinese Embassy in Oslo has sent official letters to foreign embassies in the Norwegian capital asking them not to make statements in support of Liu, and not to attend the Nobel awards ceremony on December 10. This is not the behavior of a strong, responsible government. As Liu Xia said the morning her husband was selected to receive the Nobel Prize, ``China's new status in the world comes with increased responsibility. China should embrace this responsibility, and have pride in his selection and release him from prison.'' As Nobel laureate Vaclav Havel correctly noted, ``intimidation, propaganda, and repression are no substitute for reasoned dialogue. . . .'' And as Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu recently wrote together with Vaclav Havel: We know that many wrongs have been perpetrated against China and its people throughout history. But awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu is not one of them. Nor is the peaceful call for reform from the more than 10,000 Chinese citizens who dared to sign Charter 08. . . . China has a chance to show that it is a forward-looking nation, and can show the world that it has the confidence to face criticism and embrace change. . . . This is a moment for China to open up once again, to give its people the ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas. . . . I take particular note of the words of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who, in a recent interview with CNN, stated: Freedom of speech is indispensable. . . . The people's wishes for, and needs for, democracy and freedom are irresistible.'' Sadly, the Chinese government clearly has shown the world, through its mistreatment of Liu Xiaobo and countless others, that Premier Wen's words are not the basis for government action in China. This Resolution shines a light on the Chinese government's failure to enforce basic human rights, and underlines that China once again is at an important crossroads, and seems to be turning in the wrong direction. This has implications not only for the development of institutions of democratic governance in China, but also for the United States in managing our relations with China. I am pleased to co-sponsor this important Resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I suggest the gentleman reread the bill: $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years; 97 percent of small businesses receive a tax cut. Those are the facts, period. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional half minute. You must go on.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Once again, 97 percent of small businesses will get tax cuts, not tax increases. Those are the facts. Period. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a technical explanation of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. This document expresses the Committee's understanding and intent of the provisions included in this legislation. This document can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation website, www.jct.gov, under document number JCX-52-10. Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4853 the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This bill puts the interests of working families and our nation's fiscal health ahead of millionaires. The legislation allows the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and protects struggling middle class families from a tax increase they cannot afford during these difficult economic times. A vote against this bill is a vote against middle class families in order to protect millionaires and billionaires. Our colleagues across the aisle want to hold middle class tax relief hostage so that they can give yet another massive tax break to the wealthy. The Congressional Budget Office reported what we already know: tax cuts for the rich provide virtually no economic stimulus. Extending the rates for the highest income tax brackets is not a break needed by our small businesses. Individuals with small business income make up fewer than three percent of taxpayers in the top two tax brackets. There is no reason for us to use $700 billion that could be used to create jobs or reduce the deficit so that millionaires can get a tax cut. Earlier this week Congress allowed unemployment insurance to expire for millions of Americans. Two million people will lose their unemployment benefits in December alone, including over 400,000 in my state of California. Last week, nearly every Republican voted against a three month extension of unemployment benefits to help families keep a roof over their heads and food on their dinner table over the holidays. This week, they will gladly justify using $700 billion in borrowed money to make a few thousand millionaires happy. The priorities of the Republicans are dangerous and out of touch with what our economy needs. I support the Middle Class Tax Relief Act because it will protect middle and lower income families. In addition to making the tax cuts permanent for the first $250,000 of income for all married couples, the legislation will extend the $1,000 child tax credit; provide permanent dividend income tax relief; allow more workers to benefit from the EITC; permanently eliminate the ``marriage penalty''; and patch the AMT through 2011. I urge my colleagues to not turn their backs on middle class families and to support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Ms. Berkley.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).