Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Let me just finish. Look, another point, we have voted, we Democrats, two or three times on the AMT. We voted two or three times. You are Johnnie-Come-Latelys. So now what you say is, vote for a bill that has that in it, but has these provisions on dividend and capital gains. As Mr. Stark said, essentially you are bringing a tax bill here that has caviar for the very wealthy and mostly crumbs for most everybody else. That is what you are doing, and the chart shows it: a household, 50- to 75,000, $110; a household from $500,000 to $1 million, $5,500; and more than $1 million, $41,000. I read in an editorial a few days ago in the Post, ``While the income of the families in the middle fifth of society has grown 12 percent since 1980, the income of the top 10 percent has grown 67 percent, and the income of the top 1 percent has more than doubled. In short, the rich have grown a whole lot richer.'' So what you are doing here is giving this immense tax break to a relatively few very wealthy people, and you are combining it tomorrow with a budget bill, according to your own language, and I quote, ``the debt limit will be increased from $8.965 trillion to $9.618 trillion in an increase of $653 billion'' under your proposal. So you are saying give the very wealthy, making $1 million or more, 45 percent of this tax bill, while you are increasing tomorrow the national debt by over $653 billion. If your great tax policies have brought such great economic growth, why is the debt limit being raised $653 billion?

Mr. LEVIN. Right, and they continue to pay all kinds of taxes, and indeed they are paying taxes compared to what very wealthy people are not overall paying.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1499. This bill is actively supported by my Democratic colleagues. On May 23, 2005, this bill passed the House under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The bill was referred to the Senate and was approved with an amendment to change the effective date. Because of the later effective date as passed by the Senate, the bill is before us again today merely to incorporate a technical change. This change would indeed ensure that our service men and women can make eligible contributions for previous tax years, 2004 and 2005, for which the deadline has passed, but years for which they were eligible to make these contributions. We acknowledge fully the work of our military personnel who continue to perform so ably for our Nation. We honor their bravery and their sacrifice. Therefore, it goes without saying that we endorse this effort by the Congress to make it possible for these men and women to take advantage of every tax benefit that is available to them, including saving for their retirement. H.R. 1499, as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Johnson, has said, would allow our service men and women to treat their compensation received while serving in combat as taxable income in order to help them meet the income eligibility requirement for making contributions to an individual retirement account. At a recent hearing of our committee, two of our five witnesses highlighted the large shortfall in retirement savings many of our workers in this country face. I am sure that many members of the military fall within this group. This bill is a small step in the right direction of closing that gap. Other larger steps need to be taken. For example, Democratic Members of this Congress are hopeful that we can work with our Republican colleagues to preserve another tax benefit that may be of even greater help to many military families. A provision in current law would permit military families to treat combat pay as taxable compensation for purposes of claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. This provision, though, is set to expire at the end of this year. The EITC is a refundable credit many low- and middle-income taxpayers can claim when they file their Federal tax returns. Eligible families may claim a portion of their credit ratably during the year. The EITC helps to relieve the Federal tax burden on many families who are working full-time, yet find themselves at or below the poverty level. We had hoped that this provision could be included as part of the bill before us today to further help military families. However, we were assured that this provision will be taken up later in the year, and we will continue to press for the extension of this provision before it expires. Also let me finish by expressing my hope and the hope of so many on my side of the aisle that this Congress and the administration will meet their responsibilities to our veterans on health, on re- employment, and on so many other major needs of those in the military and the veterans of this country. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, Mr. Johnson, therefore anticipating your remarks, and your remarks indeed reflect your service to this country, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday evening, I was honored to join Southeast Michigan's Ukrainian American Community in remembrance of a terrible tragedy: the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on April 26th, 1986. Here in Washington, the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus organized a number of events last week to ensure that Congress adequately remembered this solemn anniversary. Through all of these events, and at the commemoration I attended in Michigan, there was a consensus that as we remember those victims of Chernobyl who lost their lives, we must continue, and indeed strengthen, our efforts to help those who are still living with its consequences. To that end, I ask that a statement from the Ukrainian American Community in Michigan be placed in the Record. It calls on us all to do our part in standing with the Ukrainian people to address the consequences of this disaster that so many still struggle with 20 years later. Appeal: to the Members of the Michigan Delegation to the U.S. Congress on the Occasion of the Solemn 20th Anniversary of the Nuclear Disaster at Chernobyl, Ukraine The Ukrainian American community, gathered at St. Josaphat's Ukrainian Catholic Church in Warren, Michigan, on Friday, April 28, 2006 in solemn commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Nuclear Disaster at Chernobyl, Ukraine, recommends to the Michigan Delegation to the United States Congress the Testimony of H.E. Oleh Shamshur, Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States, before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and urges the members of the Delegation to assist in addressing the urgent problems noted in Ambassador Shamshur's testimony, excerpted below: ``Chernobyl was not only a ``maximum credible accident'' and the greatest man-made technological disaster. There is much more about Chernobyl catastrophe: this has become a frightening reminder of the awesome human cost--measured in lives and life-threatening health problems--of the lack of freedom, democratic procedures, civic control and transparency. The plain and awful fact is that the biggest nuclear catastrophe in human history was kept secret from ordinary citizens, who were massively exposed to radiation exceeding the maximum acceptable level by hundred times. During the critical period after explosion, while evacuating the local population from direct neighborhood of the nuclear power station, the Soviet government let millions of people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia conduct their daily life as usual--unaware, unwarned, unprotected. On May 1st, four days after the disaster, people in Kyiv and dozens of other cities were urged to go outdoors to celebrate May Day, an official holiday in the Soviet Union. In those moments when radioactive cloud was reaching Sweden, when West Europeans were called to restrain from buying fruit and letting children play outside, in Ukraine parents carried their kids to the festivities. It was only days later, that people of Ukraine came to know the full extent of what had happened to them, their families, their land. By early May millions of people, including children, received unthinkable amounts of radiation as the volume of radioactive materials released into atmosphere exceeded Hiroshima by 400 times. Experts and humankind are yet to comprehend and assess the full scope of the hazardous consequences of the nuclear devastation, including continuous exposure to radiation of such magnitude. About 5 million people were directly affected by explosion. As of January 2006, 2.6 million Ukrainians have had the status of those affected by consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Over 570 thousand children officially registered as affected by the disaster continue to live in Ukraine. 6,769 children died of horrible diseases caused by the calamity including thyroid and other cancers. Tens thousand square kilometers of once fertile and flourishing land remain radiation-polluted, as well as 2,218 Ukrainian townships and settlements. The international community should be aware that the period of so-called half-life of radioactive strontium released into atmosphere in 1986 is 90 years. Therefore however scaring it might sound, the full story has not been told yet. The gravest implications of the catastrophe might be still ahead for Ukraine and other nations. We should be well prepared to face this eventuality. The price Ukraine has paid for the lies, hypocrisy and greed of the Soviet regime epitomized by Chornobyl and its aftermath has been enormous. What we need now is assistance in addressing two very concrete and urgent problems. Building a new reliable Shelter. Taking this opportunity I am asking the distinguished members of the Commission to weigh in their political authority to call upon all G8 members and other countries concerned to follow the example of the U.S. Government and to make adequate financial contributions making possible the erection of the Shelter-2. The construction costs are estimated at slightly over 1 billion USD representing rather modest amount of money compared to the damages which 200 tons of highly radioactive waste still glowing underneath the corroded Shelter-1 might incur. We also urge all the signatories of the Ottawa Memorandum to honor their obligations concerning compensation of the losses suffered by Ukraine due to the decommissioning of the Chernobyl NPS. Meeting the health needs of the innocent children, suffering from hazardous effects of Chornobyl. We deeply appreciate the work done in this respect by the members of the U.S. Congress, such as Co-Chairman Chris Smith and Representative Lincoln Diaz-Ballard. It was largely due to Mr. Diaz-Ballard's efforts that on April 20th one of the biggest humanitarian airlifts organized by the Children of Chornobyl Fund arrived in Ukraine for the benefit of Chornobyl-affected children. I know that more projects are in preparation and I'm deeply thankful for them to our American partners.'' Ambassador Shamshur concludes with the following words, words which the Ukrainian American community in Michigan and, we trust, our elected officials, fully share and support. `` I strongly believe that our two countries--Ukraine and the United States--will stand united in facing the challenges and preventing any new human tragedies that might be caused by the consequences of the disaster that happened twenty years ago, but remains so present in our lives.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The American people are losing their faith in the integrity of Congress. Today we had a real opportunity to curb the influence of the special interests and lobbyists, and to disburse the cloud of corruption hanging over this Congress as a result of the improprieties of a small minority who have disgraced its good name. Yet this watered-down attempt at reform falls far short of what we need to do to restore confidence in the legislative process. This bill is reform in name only. Under this bill companies could continue to fly members in their corporate jets at discount rates. Members could continue to accept lobbying jobs shortly after drafting and advocating for industry- friendly legislation. Members could influence private employment decisions with the threat of taking or withholding official actions. And special interest provisions could continue to be slipped into legislation at the eleventh hour. Instead of developing a real policy to govern gifts and meals, this legislation defers that decision until after the elections in November. This bill also postpones adoption of a clear policy regarding special interest and lobbyist- sponsored private travel. The bill before the House is not going to fool anyone. Across the country, newspapers are blasting the GOP lobbying reform bill for the farce that it is. The Washington Post has called it ``a watered-down sham that would provide little in the way of accountability or transparency.'' ``Congress still doesn't get it,'' said USA Today. The New York Times writes ``It's hard to believe that members of Congress mindful of voters'' diminishing respect would attempt such an election-year con.'' And the Houston Chronicle asks ``How many more members of Congress, their aides and lobbyists have to be convicted of fraud, bribery and abuse of voters' trust before legislators get the message that the public is serious about ethics reform?'' The Democratic reform plan, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which I have cosponsored, would address each of these serious inadequacies, while further strengthening lobbyist disclosure requirements to shine some light into the relationship between campaign donors, lobbyists and Members of Congress. Yet, in what has become a standard abuse of House Rules, Democrats were denied the opportunity to debate a number of substantive amendments seeking to improve and strengthen many components of the bill. Consideration of substitute legislation was blocked as well, denying Members the chance to vote on the actual reforms included in the Democratic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. The American people have seen the impacts resulting from the lax policies of this Republican Congress in many ways. Spiraling prescription drug costs, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline, waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq, are all cases where a more open legislative process with reasonable oversight could have saved consumers thousands. While this Republican Leadership may be perfectly content in perpetuating a clearly flawed status quo, sticking to business as usual regardless of the multiplying and increasingly brazen cases of misconduct, and promising more reform at some indefinite date in the future, I know the American people both demand and deserve a real response. This is simply a smoke screen by Members of the Majority to delay real action right here and right now. Today Member after Member from the Republican Party came to the House floor not to extol the virtues of this legislation but to assure their colleagues that this was just a compromise, and that more would be done in conference and in the future. The American people do not want a compromise. They don't want to hear any more false promises of future action. The continuing cost of inaction has resulted in the loss of the confidence of the American people. I will vote against this legislation today and support the Democratic motion to recommit to send the bill back to Committee with instructions to immediately report the measure back to the House with the text of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion by Representative Larson that calls for rolling back $5.4 billion in unjustified tax subsidies and loopholes for the oil industry. The Senate has voted to close these loopholes, and the House should do the same. We are here to represent the interests of American consumers, not the interests of the oil companies. The average U.S. price for self-serve regular gas is $2.91 a gallon, or nearly 70 cents higher than it was at this time last year. This is the average cost. In many areas, the price of a gallon of gas is much higher. Some of this is due to higher oil prices and strong demand for petroleum, but some of the price hikes we are seeing simply cannot be explained away by supply and demand. At the same time that consumers are facing pain at the pump, the oil companies are raking in record profits. Last week, the world's largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., announced first-quarter profits of $8.4 billion, up 7 percent from a year ago. This gave Exxon the fifth- highest quarterly profits ever recorded by a publicly-traded company. Marathon Oil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter to $784 million. ConocoPhillips, the Nation's third-largest oil and gas producer, reported last week that its first quarter profit rose 13 percent. All told, the country's three largest U.S. petroleum companies posted combined first-quarter income of almost $16 billion, an increase of 17 percent from the year before. Further, Exxon Mobil recently was able to give its former CEO one of the most generous retirement packages in history: nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks. The people I represent simply do not understand how the energy companies can keep posting sky-high profits, award $400 million golden parachutes to their executives, and keep raising the price of gasoline. The very least Congress can do is to close some of the unjustified loopholes in the tax code that unfairly benefit big oil companies. Americans are watching what we are doing here. I am sure they noticed a plan floated by Senate Republicans last Friday to give consumers a $100 rebate check, paid for by a tax change on oil company inventory accounting. For most people, that would come out to about two or three tanks of gas. Consumers want us to fix the problem, not buy them off with a $100 check. But what's interesting here is how the proponents of the rebate plan quickly shelved their proposal just a few days later after oil companies waged an intense lobbying effort to block the closure of the inventory accounting loophole. This speaks volumes about who the Republican leaders of Congress listen to. The motion before the House would roll back $5.4 billion over 10 years in tax subsidies and loopholes for the oil industry. That comes out to about $135 million a quarter, which comes out to be about 1.6 percent of Exxon's first-quarter earnings in 2006. So there is a clear choice before the House today. We can stand with consumers who are struggling with these sky-high gas prices, or we can stand with the oil companies that are posting some of the highest profits in the history of the world.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this vote is going to be scored by the American people, and it is going to speak volumes about whether people just talk or whether they act. We know what is happening at the gas pump. The average price is $2.92. A gallon of gas today is 71 cents more than a year ago. There were two announcements today on profits: Conoco, quarterly up 13 percent; Valero Energy Corporation, the Nation's biggest independent oil refiner, said Tuesday its first quarter profit jumped 60 percent as revenues surged from higher product margins and greater refining volume. Exxon, as we know, decided to give a $60 million compensation package and a $98 million pension payout to its former CEO, but can't do anything about these sky-high prices. Well, what is before us? Yesterday the President said, ``Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks.'' That is exactly what these provisions are. Don't obscure and talk about windfall profit taxes. We will talk about that some other day. These are three provisions that passed the Senate that clearly are a tax break, a loophole, and closing it would generate $5 billion. Mr. McDermott has quoted the headline from The Washington Post. ``GOP,'' that means the House GOP, ``blocks measures boosting taxes on oil company profits. Provisions passed by the Senate would raise about $5 billion.'' So there is a clear choice today. I did look at the report on contributions to candidates by the oil and gas industry in this cycle. The top 20 are all Republicans. People are going to have to decide what interests they are going to support. Mr. McCrery, you said ``tie the hands.'' There are 100 provisions. This is three plus one. Tie the hands? No. What we are trying to do is to speak up for the people of this country. I close with this: you always talk about one aspect in terms of capital gains and dividends. What you don't say is that every analysis we have seen indicates that this extension that you are insisting on, about 40 to 50 percent, and some say a little more than 50 percent, would go to people making over $1 million a year. So tomorrow when people vote, they are going to have a clear choice. It is going to be the vast majority of the American people who go to the gas pump and know how much they are paying and are hurting; or people for whom that increase to three bucks a gallon and more doesn't really matter. So, as I said at the beginning, I don't know which interest group is going to score this. I know how the American people are going to score this.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in commemorating the 91st annual observance of the Armenian Genocide. Ninety-one years ago, there began a vast human tragedy with the execution of some 300 Armenian leaders, professionals and intellectuals. Over the next eight years, a brutal campaign of genocide against the Armenian people was carried out in the Ottoman Empire, leading to the deaths of over 1.5 million people and the deporting of another 500,000. Decade after decade there has been a failure to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. Today, while there is increased pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the facts of history, and some new voices have been raised to urge this acknowledgement, there remain efforts to evade this dark chapter in human history, as evidenced by a book recently sent to Congressional offices. So this is the time for all of us who have been joining in the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide to continue to speak out. It is vital and urgent for us to insist that there be a universal participation in remembering the victims. We must say, to those who hesitate, our humanity can settle for nothing less.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, since January 2001, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. As a result, manufacturing states have seven of the ten highest unemployment rates in the country. But manufacturing affects us all, not just those workers who are directly engaged in manufacturing, because manufacturing has the largest employment ``ripple effect'' of any U.S. industry. During President Clinton's administration, when manufacturing was growing and thriving, private sector job growth was 22 percent. Under the current administration, it's an anemic 2.4 percent. Manufacturing is also responsible for nearly two-thirds of all private sector research and development. Manufacturing in the United States faces serious challenges in the global marketplace, as our manufacturers compete with companies who get the benefit of a healthy workforce without having to shoulder the rising cost of health care, deal with skyrocketing energy costs, and often face an unlevel playing field when they sell their goods. Instead of standing up for manufacturing and the men and women it employs, the Bush administration continues to sit on its hands as the manufacturing jobs crisis worsens. The workers who are harmed by that inaction deserve to be heard. Tonight, I'd like to read testimony several Michigan workers submitted to us about how the manufacturing jobs crisis is affecting them. Sherry Lowell of Grand Blanc, MI writes: ``For the past 27 years, I have worked as a Journeyman Toolmaker for GM/Delphi in Flint, MI. My marvelous experience as a tradesman began when I was 30 years old. At the Flint East site, I was the 7th female to graduate as a tradesman. . . . ``For almost three decades, I believed that I was an integral part of the team with the goal of producing products with first time quality at a profit. The wages that I earned were appreciated and getting dirty and greasy were part and parcel of my job as a toolmaker. I have fulfilled my promise to the corporation for the past 27 years to faithfully come to work, work hard at work despite cold (45 degrees) and hot (103 degrees) and dirty environments, and buy GM/AC products. ``The promise of a defined-benefit pension was very important to me. Furthermore, financial planning for my old age has been threatened by corporate raiders of pension funds and the possibility of Social Security benefits ceasing. I would appreciate Congressional efforts to support the men and women of manufacturing skilled trades and production in protecting the pensions they were promised.'' Patricia Neal of Clinton Township, MI writes: ``I have been a UAW member and a GM employee for 28 years. I live in Clinton Township, MI. At some point in time nearly every UAW represented auto worker in America has had to hear, that we are `over paid and under worked'. Every headline that screams out to the public, pointing a scolding finger at UAW represented auto workers, is not only demoralizing and degrading it is downright deceiving. . . . ``We, UAW workers, make the products put before us, we drive the fork trucks, we stand on the steel plated or concrete floors, we tighten the nuts and bolts, we handle the machines, we breath the toxic fumes but we do not make the decisions. We do the work. We want to see GM make a profit, we want GM healthy.'' Charles McCray of Southgate, MI writes: ``I am a 54 year old retired hourly worker after 30 years of service. I have worked hard for GM and the UAW. I have always purchased GM products over the years. I want GM to keep their promise to me with the contract I signed when I retired. I retired and gave up my position to another worker to pay taxes and make a good wage. ``With the possible problem at GM if I were to lose any pay what-so-ever I'd be in a tight spot. Where does all the money come from to even bury me when the time comes. We have never lived beyond our means at all. We have been able to pay for college for our 2 children, have a small home paid for. There is a small savings for future use after 62 years of age. With our monthly retirement we do OK but most do not. I have already gone out and have taken another job just because I am not sure what is going to happen at GM.'' I hope President Bush and my colleagues in the House will hear these workers and the millions like them, and will begin work on a real agenda to preserve and expand our manufacturing sector and the quality products and jobs it produces.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. English, if you are serious about the AMT, you would vote for this motion to instruct. You can join any caucus you want. It is what happens on the floor that matters. You talk about the path to the balanced budget. The Republican path to a balanced budget is more deficits, and your notion is more deficits will help growth and eventually we will grow out of the deficit. The trouble is, it isn't working. When you talk about growth figures, you don't mention that for the typical family in this country, there hasn't been an increase in income. Median income in this country has essentially been flat these last years. You say if you vote for the motion to instruct it leads to a tax increase. That makes no sense at all. The present provision lasts through 2008. What you are doing is extending it several years from now. Why does Mr. Cardin come here again? How many times have we raised this issue? The main reason we bring this is because you distort the facts when you make your arguments. Pure distortion. That was true the last time we debated this. I read the New York Times article of just this last Wednesday that picks up the pure distortions by the Republicans. I think you have repeated them again. Essentially what was said last time in defense of your position was this: ``Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends.'' The New York Times story goes on to say, ``IRS data show that among the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20.'' So you either get your distortions out of thin air or from some other source. You try to say that this is a matter of a tax benefit mostly from the non-wealthy. I just want to read again from the New York Times article, and this traces the 2003 investment income cuts. The investing income cuts. And here is what happened: The average tax cut for people making less than $50,000 was $10. For people making $50 to $100,000, the average tax cut--this is again in investment income-- was $68. For the family $100,000 to $200,000, the average tax cut was $268. For someone making $200,000 to $500,000, $1,489. For those $500,000 to $1 million, $5,491. For those making $1 million to $10 million, $25,450. And, again, in contrast to $10 for less than $50,000 and $68 for $50,000 to 100,000. On those who are making $10 million or more, the average cut is $497,463. The conclusion in this article, I think not refuted, is that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers got 43 percent of the benefit. And you have the gall to come here and talk about these two tax cuts or decreases benefiting the majority of the American people. That is not true. Now, another myth that you perpetuated is that more people will really benefit from this change in investment income taxation than if we act on AMT. Mr. Cardin has talked about this, we have talked about this before, we have heard your mythology in the Ways and Means committee from the very beginning. There are going to be 17 million people or more affected by the AMT if we do not act compared to several million now. And you throw your lot in with the millionaires instead of people who are in middle income situations. That is whom you are benefiting, basically. So that is why we come forth here. You distort the record. We want to tell the truth to the American people. Whose side are the Republicans on? It is the millionaires. I think it is fine if people make a million bucks, but they do not need a tax cut. What is needed is some actual civility and sanity when it comes to the deep deficits here, and also some honesty with the American taxpayer, and not helping a very few and hurting the very many. That is what you are doing. That is why Mr. Cardin is coming forth once again, once again, and we are putting you to the test. If you vote wrong today, expect to hear from the American people tomorrow and tomorrow and in November.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. The people of this troubled region have experienced almost unimaginable suffering. As many as 400,000 people have already lost their lives and two million more have been forced from their homes. The House of Representatives, along with the Senate and the Administration, have long acknowledged that the crimes being committed in Darfur amount to genocide. Last month the House voted to provide $271 million for peacekeeping in Darfur and another $228 million in humanitarian aid as part of the Supplemental Appropriations bill. This funding is a welcome and necessary step in the right direction. Today we take another step with the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This legislation directs the President to take a number of steps to stop the genocide in Darfur. This includes providing assistance to an expanded African Union force in Darfur, advocating a NATO role in stopping the violence, pushing for an additional United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding Darfur, and freezing the assets of those responsible for acts of genocide. I am pleased that this legislation emphasizes a multilateral approach. The entire international community has a responsibility to work together to stop these crimes against humanity, and the bill before us makes clear that we expect the President to work with our allies to stop the killing in Darfur. The United States and the international community must do far more to break the cycle of violence and hunger that grips Darfur. In a word, we must put real resources and diplomacy into solving the problem. This legislation advances these goals, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution marking the 20th Anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation. On April 26th, 1986 the Chernobyl Nuclear Facility's Reactor Number Four exploded, releasing over 100 tons of radioactive material in what remains the world's worst nuclear accident. We may never know the full extent of the damage this accident has done to the health of people living in the surrounding areas or to the environment. It is clear, though, that the deaths attributable to the Chernobyl disaster number in the thousands and that millions of people in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus have been exposed to radioactive contamination. It is important as we remember the victims of Chernobyl that we also recognize the ongoing consequences of the disaster and the work that still needs to be done. We must continue to help those people in the areas affected by radioactive fallout. The populations exposed to this fallout have experienced significant increases in thyroid cancer, still births and birth defects, as well as economic hardship resulting from the impact of the disaster on local economies. The United States must also continue to support the Chernobyl Shelter Fund and the Shelter Implementation Plan. A new shelter for Reactor Number 4 is essential to mitigating further health and environmental consequences from the radioactive materials inside the facility. To date, the U.S. has pledged over $200 million to the Shelter Fund, helping to ensure that this work will be completed. The resolution before us supports these efforts, and recognizes that although this disaster occurred two decades ago, there is still much more we must do to help the Government of Ukraine and the affected populations cope with its consequences. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we stand here today with a historic opportunity to improve higher education in this country. The average tuition and fees for four-year public colleges have risen over 40 percent since 2001. The average student now leaves school with $17,500 in debt. Above anything else, it is absolutely essentially that any legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act help make a college education more affordable, so that we can expand this great opportunity to more young people across the country. I know this issue is immensely important to many of my constituents in Michigan. Unfortunately, the misnamed ``College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005'' does absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of a college education. When Pell Grants were first enacted to help low-income families, it covered 72 percent of the average cost of a four-year public college, today it pays for only 30 percent. This bill would increase the maximum amount a Pell Grant could cover by a pathetic $200 while the President's proposed budget continues to flat fund this vital program. It is now just two months after this Republican Congress voted to cut Federal student aid by $12 billion--the largest cut in the history of the program. Most of the cuts in mandatory spending in that bill were generated by cutting back on excessive lender fees on student loans. Yet instead of investing this additional revenue into scholarships and reductions in student loan fees, Republicans chose to put this money towards tax cuts for the super wealthy. At a time when we are faced with fierce global competition from countries like India and China, it is absolutely essential that we invest in higher education. Last year China graduated more English- speaking engineers than we graduated here the United States. I wonder how it is that the majority would have us believe that an investment in tax cuts for the very rich would help us to remain an economic superpower. A report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth spelled out how Michigan's economic future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the completion of degrees of higher education. Two-thirds of the jobs created in the next decade will require post-secondary education and training. I wonder how it is that the majority believes that cutting student loans will make it easier for the thousands affected by the manufacturing jobs crisis in Michigan. Republicans here in Congress would have us believe that $12 billion in cuts to the student loan program and reauthorizing the Higher Education Act are unrelated. I say they couldn't be more out of touch. Democrats have offered an alternative. This substitute would begin to reverse the damaging cuts made to student aid by cutting interest rates on loans for low and middle income students in half starting in July of 2006. This would lower the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their families. This measure is a down payment on the future of our Nation's students who are, after all, the key to the success of our Nation in the days that come. I will vote against this harmful legislation today, and in favor of the Democratic substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Molly Goodman as she and her family commemorate the tenth anniversary of her victory against ovarian cancer. Mrs. Goodman, like so many women stricken with this disease, never suspected that her abdominal and gastrointestinal pain concealed a Stage 3 ovarian cancer diagnosis. The cancer, which had spread from Mrs. Goodman's ovaries to parts of her abdomen, was discovered during a surgery to remove her gall bladder. We can only imagine the worry that must accompany such a diagnosis. The five-year survival rate for Stage 1 ovarian cancer is approximately ninety percent. This figure drops, drastically and devastatingly, to a fifteen to twenty percent chance of survival once the cancer has elevated to Stage 3. Mrs. Goodman was fortunate not only to receive immediate surgery and chemotherapy to treat the disease, but also to qualify for a limited protocol providing a second round of chemotherapy. No signs or symptoms of the cancer's reoccurrence have since appeared. I commend Phil Goodman, Molly's husband, for using this ten-year milestone, one of joy and reflection, to contribute to the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. By sharing Mrs. Goodman's story, the couple not only celebrates Mrs. Goodman's survival, but also raises awareness about the severity of ovarian cancer. We here in Washington need to do our part to raise awareness about risk factors and early warning signs for ovarian and other gynecologic cancers. In this Congress and the last, I introduced Johanna's Law: The Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act, which would require the federal government to take action to increase early detection of gynecologic cancers and ensure that other women never have to go through what Molly Goodman did. Our bill currently has over 230 cosponsors, and we are doing everything we can to make it law. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing Molly Goodman on this momentous occasion and to share in her hope that we continue to make progress in diagnosing and defeating this terrible disease.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. But you don't take care of the basic issue that we referred to here, and the answer is that you will pay for it by more deficit. That is what you are going to do. The President's budget already projects a national debt of $11.5 trillion, it is hard to say that, $11.5 trillion. You are going to make things worse and worse and worse. Your fiscal irresponsibility sees no bounds. You come here today defending a tax cut years away from now, half of which more or less goes to people making $1 million, when 17 million people face this year a tax increase. You have blinders on. I think everybody who votes against this motion can expect this to be brought up these coming months as well as on the floor today.

Mr. LEVIN. How would you pay for AMT?

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

Mr. LEVIN. So you are claiming that it would all be paid for through reconciliation?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, you know, the question is straightforward. Why would anybody favor a tax cut, about half of which goes to people making $1 million a year over preventing a tax increase for 17 million Americans, most of whom are middle class? Why would anybody do this? Well, my friend from Michigan (Mr. Camp) says that it is broad-based, the capital gains and dividend provision, more so than AMT. But most of that broad base receives very little, while a small minority of that broad base receives very much. So the broad base is really poor rhetoric. I guess the second answer is, we will do it later, the AMT. We will do it later. I wish you would get up and tell us how you pay for that right here and now, right here and now. I will yield to you if you want to say.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in support of this for the reasons that they have all given. What happens in Ukraine is important for its people, obviously. It is important for its neighbors. It is important for us in the United States, and I think really in the world. Let me just state why I think it is important in terms of its economic and democratic development. Clearly it has met the requirement in Jackson-Vanik as to immigration. Jackson-Vanik was an amendment to a trade bill, and so it is relevant for us to look at the economic and democratic developments within Ukraine. The Jackson-Vanik instrument is our opportunity in the Congress to deal with the accession of countries to the World Trade Organization, and that is why we have withheld PNTR in several cases until we were satisfied in terms of the WTO accession agreements and could participate in the development of those agreements. The U.S. has now negotiated with Ukraine a WTO accession agreement, and it is satisfactory. I think it will be mutually beneficial. I think also it will spark further reforms within Ukraine, both economic and also, I think, help the evolution of democracy within that country. So this is an important moment in terms of the economic role of Ukraine and the evolution of its democratic processes. Let me say another word, if I might quickly, about the importance. We have been working on this legislation for a number of years. In proposals that we have placed on the record, that we have introduced, we have talked about various aspects of our relationship with Ukraine, and various doings within Ukraine, both human rights, how it treats its workers and many other aspects. All of these aspects are not covered in this legislation, but I do think this legislation points out the importance of Ukraine to continue its democratic evolution. There are challenges ahead. I have had the chance to talk with constituents, with the large Ukrainian-American community in the 12th District. And I want to close with this. To echo what Mr. Lantos has said, and others, what happens in Ukraine is important, as I said, not only for its people, but really for the whole world. The Orange Revolution really resounded throughout the globe. It was an important moment for all of us, and so is its progress in terms of human rights and in terms of the elimination of anti-Semitism within Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, so I join in this effort, and I urge that we all support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the chairman said, this isn't games playing. This is not partisanship. This is a plea for serious attention to a real problem on a bipartisan basis. Yesterday, General Motors announced that it will freeze its guaranteed benefit pension plan for salaried employees and replace it with a defined contribution plan in which employees take the risk. This is what we are saying in part four of our motion: If the conferees follow the direction set by the current House and Senate pension bills, there will be far more announcements like GM's in the future. The changes in both the House and Senate bills would dramatically increase the chances of companies having to make large, unexpected contributions by making pension funding more volatile, the risk that GM, struggling with manufacturing challenges the U.S. Government has failed to consider, decided it could not afford. It would mean companies facing challenges even less serious than General Motors' will make the same decision GM did. In a survey, 60 percent of chief investment officers for large pension plans said that changes like those in the House and Senate bills would lead them to cut benefits or freeze or terminate their pension plans. Despite our repeated requests, the administration has failed to tell us how their proposals would affect specific industries. Our motion includes a critical provision instructing conferees to drop those provisions which would encourage healthy companies to freeze or terminate their pension plans. Those provisions include the shift to a yield curve, take away what is called smoothing, classifying companies as at-risk based on credit ratings, as in the Senate bill, and provisions regarding advanced funding. Look, we are putting our motion forward for a simple reason: If your goal is to force employees to terminate their pension plans, leaving their workers on their own to face a risky and uncertain future, vote against the motion. But if your goal is to preserve the defined benefit pension system for workers, as well as the continued competitiveness of the companies they work for, do in fact vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 32, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' This legislation responds to a serious and growing problem: the trafficking of counterfeit goods. We've all seen movies in which someone buys what looks to be an expensive Rolex watch from a street vendor, only to find out later what they've really purchased is a cheap imitation that doesn't even keep proper time. Lately, it's the DVDs of the movie themselves that are increasingly likely to be counterfeit. In the area of pharmaceuticals, counterfeit drugs are now being sold in this country and around the world. The packaging makes them look like the real thing, but the pills inside often lack the active ingredient people are relying on to treat their illnesses, or contain the wrong active ingredient altogether. According to the Food and Drug Administration, upwards of ten percent of the drugs worldwide are counterfeit. In some countries, it is estimated that more than half the drug supply is made up of counterfeit drugs. The trade in counterfeit goods has also had a negative impact on the automobile industry, including the auto parts industry. People buy what they believe are name-brand parts, like brake pads and spark plugs, only to find that they spent good money on counterfeit goods that do not meet safety and performance requirements. Beyond the obvious safety problem for consumers, the trade in counterfeit parts costs the automotive parts industry an estimated $12 billion a year. This is a heavy loss to a U.S. auto parts industry that already faces immense challenges. The fact of the matter is that--whether it's counterfeit DVDs, video games, medicines, auto parts, or handbags--the United States economy is losing millions of dollars in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs because of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of counterfeit goods.We need new tools to deal with this growing problem, and that's what this legislation does. This bill expands criminal penalties to include those who traffic in counterfeit labels and packaging, setting fines of up to $2 million and a prison sentence of up to ten years for those who intentionally sell or distribute counterfeit labels and other false packaging. It also requires the offender to make restitution to the owner of the mark. In addition, the bill requires the forfeiture of any property derived from the proceeds of the violation, as well as any property used in connection with the offense. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this needed legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Sandy Germany, National President of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Ms. Germany is being honored for her commitment and dedication to veterans all over our country who have served with bravery and honor in our Nation's conflicts. As a Life Member of Kiehler-Pippen Auxiliary #5658, her involvement hits close to home with her own father, Pete Frauenhoffer, who served in the Army Air Corps in World War II, her brother, Ronald, who served two tours in Vietnam in the United States Air Force and her son, Curtis, who has been in the military since 1986 serving in the U.S. Army in Korea and recently in Iraq. The Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is dedicated to the principle of freedom for all people around the world. The organization's plans for 2005-2006 include helping veterans and their families by caring for their children at the VFW National Home for Children, providing special assistance through the Rehabilitation Program, volunteering in VA Medical Centers, sending care packages to the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar, and teaching young people about the responsibilities of citizenship. Ms. Germany was elected and installed as National President of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States at its 92nd National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, on August 25, 2005. She has served in many positions for the organization, including Auxiliary President. As District and State President, she earned Runner-Up Outstanding President of the Year. She also served as National Junior Girls Units Director, as National District Council Member #8, and eight years as State Secretary. Ms. Germany is also a life member of the VFW National Home for Children and belongs to the American Legion Auxiliary and the Military Order of the Cooties Auxiliary. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sandy Germany, a woman who has dedicated herself to all veterans, our community and the State of Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Tell me. I think the answer is, Mr. Camp, that you do not intend to pay for both. What you hope to do is to have some AMT relief, later on, unpaid for, in addition to 2009 and 2010 provisions on capital gains and the like. You do not have any intention to pay for both because you cannot do it. This is a further example of the fiscal irresponsibility of the majority in this Congress.