Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and all of the members on the committee who have worked hard on this bill to make sure that it is targeted in the right direction and that it will be, indeed, effective. We have an immense counterfeiting problem in this country. A lot of it occurs overseas outside of our shores, but a lot of it occurs right here in the United States. We need to do more about what is going on overseas. I heard on the radio coming in this morning that they are selling in China a counterfeit DVD of the new ``Star Wars'' movie, and people here in the United States are waiting in line to get into the theater. Here in the U.S. the counterfeiting problem has grown, and that was the inspiration for this bill. It has struck manufacturing in many respects. It has surely hurt the automobile industry, including the auto parts industry. Some estimates are that counterfeiting has cost the automotive parts industry over $12 billion in the last year. This is a time when that industry, as so many other parts of manufacturing, are having an immense challenge. They face an unlevel playing field. There is much talk in trade and competition about the need to level it, and there is nothing that rigs a field more than counterfeiting. That is the ultimate rigging. This bill is an effort to get at this problem, to increase the sanctions, to increase the ability of law enforcement to crack down. Mr. Speaker, I hope there is unanimous support for this bill. There is surely bipartisan support. Again, we have been glad to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and others on this, and we salute the Committee on the Judiciary, the majority and the minority, for taking this issue seriously and working out any problems and placing this bill on a path where it could be brought up today and, we hope, supported across the board.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment. Three weeks ago, by a bare three-vote margin, the House of Representatives approved the Republican budget. Today, we're dealing with the consequences of that vote and the majority's misguided priorities. The budget that was agreed to contained more than $100 billion in additional cuts--the vast majority of which disproportionately benefit the very richest individuals in this country. At the same time, the budget calls for billions of dollars in spending cuts, nearly all of which were not specified. Well, the chickens have come home to roost. The bill before the House contains a $241 million cut in Clean Water funding, a reduction of 22 percent. This cut comes on top of the Clean Water funding reductions that were approved last year. There was a time during the 1970s and 1980s when the Federal Government provided most of the funding to upgrade water treatment plants and improve sewer infrastructure around this country. Today, there is really only one Federal program left to help communities improve sewer infrastructure to keep pollution out of our lakes, rivers and streams, and that's the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Program. Let me tell you what this program has done in my district. In the mid-1990s, fourteen communities in my district were confronted with the difficult necessity of upgrading the Twelve Towns Drain. The problem was that whenever there was a significant storm in Southeastern Michigan, the Drain would quickly overflow and spill millions of gallons of partially treated sewage into the Clinton River. The result was deteriorating water quality in the Clinton River and beach closures at the River's terminus in Lake St. Clair. The solution was to expand the retention basin to prevent the sewage overflows, but the cost was enormous: $130 million. The Twelve Towns Drain improvements could not have been accomplished without the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The communities involved with this project borrowed more than $100 million from the revolving fund. Giving these communities the ability to borrow the needed money at below-market interest rates is the least the Federal government could do, and that's what the State Revolving Fund makes possible. Thanks to the Revolving Loan Program, this massive water infrastructure effort will be completed later this year. This is an example of the kind of water quality work that will be sacrificed unless we approve this amendment. Earlier this week, I received a letter from the Director of the Michigan Department on Environmental Quality. This is what he says: ``Discharges from aging and failing sewerage systems, urban storm water, and other sources continue to pose serious threats to Michigan's lakes, rivers, and estuaries, endangering our public health, tourism, and recreation areas.'' He goes on to say that the proposed State Revolving Fund cuts ``will likely severely impede the amount of water infrastructure projects that can be funded in the state of Michigan.'' There isn't a Member of this House who supports polluted waterways or beach closures, but there is a chasm between rhetoric and reality when it comes to providing the needed resources. If this Congress wants to be on the side of rivers, lakes and streams that are drinkable, swimmable and fishable, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Vote for the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority has written a budget that uses every penny, every penny of the Social Security surplus. I went back and read what the President said March 22, 2001. ``The budget I set up says the payroll taxes are only going to be spent on one thing, and that is Social Security.'' Once again, the President is not keeping that commitment. The budget, this budget of yours, raids Social Security in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. That is reform? That is regression. And for every year covered by this budget, every penny comes out of the Social Security surplus, every penny. Now, it was not many weeks ago the President went to West Virginia. And we all read about it. He went to the bureau that holds the trust fund documents of the Social Security, and he said, ``There is no trust fund, just IOUs.'' I could not disagree with the President more. Those bonds held by the trust fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. So the problem is not with Social Security or the trust fund, it is with the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration. I remember 1993, when many of us joined to put this country on the path of fiscal responsibility. And we faced not deficits, but surpluses, not using Social Security. But then the Republican majority comes here, and the Bush administration, and they push through a number of measures, including the irresponsible tax cuts, with the results that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has just indicated. And we warned you, more red ink. And you did not listen. So last year, we have a deficit of $412 billion. But if you do not include Social Security, it is $567 billion. That is reform? This same lack of fiscal discipline will result in an even larger deficit this year. This has to stop. It has to stop. And we can do that tonight. I urge the House to reject this irresponsible budget, defeat the previous question and demand a budget that does not raid the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This past Sunday, April 24th, marked 90 years since the beginning to one of history's dark chapters. On that day in 1915, the government of the Ottoman Empire began a brutal and systematic campaign of genocide against the Armenian people. It started with the execution of some 300 Armenian leaders, professionals and intellectuals. By 1923, over 1.5 million Armenians had been killed, and another 500,000 had been deported. The Ottoman Empire claimed that it was acting to suppress civil unrest among Armenians during World War I. The absurdity of this justification for a reign of terror was pointed out at the time by no less credible a witness than our own Ambassador to the Empire, Henry Morganthau. His report to Washington described the Ottoman campaign as one of ``race extermination.'' The almost unimaginable pain and suffering endured by the Armenian people has been compounded since by the refusal of the Ottoman Empire and now the government of Turkey to acknowledge that the Genocide ever even occurred. Generations of Turks have been raised to deny this atrocity, perpetuating resentments and hostilities. By trying to defend the indefensible, the government of Turkey has denied the Armenian people, as well as its own people the chance to begin the process of healing these wounds. Mr. Speaker, 90 years is far, far too long for a people to wait for an acknowledgment of the crimes committed against them. That is why I am proud to support the resolution that will be introduced in the coming days remembering the victims and honoring the survivors of the Armenian Genocide. This resolution will appropriately recognize these acts for what they were. Only with a common understanding of this dark period can we move forward and work to prevent similar tragedies in the future. While we mark the loss and pain of the Armenian people every April 24th, it is my fervent hope that some day soon, it will no longer be necessary to urge the recognition of these terrible events as genocide. I am particularly disappointed that the President has once again failed to lead on this issue. Once again, President Bush's statement this weekend studiously avoided proper recognition of this tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues take the time to reflect on this anniversary, and that we renew our commitment to the victims of the Armenian Genocide and to each other to never allow such human suffering to occur again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, if ever there was a time when this country needed a smart, forward-looking energy strategy, this is it. Energy prices throughout the country are close to record highs. Consumers in my State are struggling with soaring gasoline costs. The price of gasoline in Michigan today is 36 cents a gallon higher than it was just 1 year ago. Steep increases in the price of natural gas have resulted in skyrocketing increases in consumers' home heating bills over the past few winters. So what is the response of the House of Representatives? The Leadership of the House has brought a bill to the Floor that will do little or nothing to reign in energy prices. This is virtually the same bill that the Senate rejected 2 years ago. According to the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration, the policies contained in this legislation will have a negligible effect on energy production, consumption, imports and prices. Instead of bringing us a comprehensive energy bill that brings down gas prices and encourages greater U.S. energy independence, the bill before the House is little more than a grab-bag of special interest giveaways. For example, the tax title of this legislation contains just over $8 billion worth of tax incentives. Only about 6 percent of these go to energy efficiency, renewable energy or conservation. Nearly all of the $8 billion goes to the oil, gas and nuclear industries, as well as electric utilities. With oil and gas prices--to say nothing of energy industry profits-- near record levels, why are we extending these additional subsidies? Just the other day, President Bush said that ``with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.'' Yet this bill is chock-full of these unneeded incentives. There's $3.3 billion in oil and gas production tax incentives, plus a number of ``royalty holiday'' provisions for energy extraction on public lands. It's easy to see how this legislation is good for the bottom lines of oil and gas companies, but it's consumers that need our help today. I know that the proponents of this legislation have been saying that opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling will help bring down gas prices. This simply is not the case. We have no idea how much oil lies beneath the Refuge. The New York Times reported in February that the ``major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. ``Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.'' The crusade to drill in the Refuge is a distraction. Even if there is extractable oil there, it would take nearly a decade to bring the energy to market. This country badly needs a balanced energy policy. We can't drill our way to energy security. We need a balance between energy production, on the one hand, and greater use of renewable sources of energy and conservation on the other. The bill before the House today doesn't even pretend to seek balance, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the City of Madison Heights, Michigan, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary of its incorporation as a city. On January 17, 1955, the residents of the east side of Royal Oak Township voted for the incorporation of the City of Madison Heights and elected nine commissioners to draft a charter for the new city. The Charter Commission drafted its first charter within six months of incorporation. The draft charter was presented to the citizens at a June 6th election and was defeated. A Revised Charter was again presented to the citizens on December 6, 1955, and it was approved, becoming the tenth city government in South Oakland County. At that time, the 7\1/4\ square-mile City was the second largest in South Oakland County. Madison Heights ranked as fifth-highest populated City in South Oakland County. The first City Hall was located at 26305 John R Road, the former township offices. On April 5, 1963, a new municipal building was constructed which is on the present location at 300 West Thirteen Mile Road. The City of Madison Heights was named a ``High Tech Hot Spot'' by Detroiter Magazine. Nestled in the heart of Automation Alley, the newest technology cluster in the United States, Madison Heights offers lifestyle and economic benefits to its residents. There are more than 1,300 commercial and industrial businesses and services within the City and the City is proud to have a majority of small businesses, as well as more than 100 major companies within its borders. The Madison Heights City motto is ``The City of Progress'' and it's well deserved. Over 31,000 people call Madison Heights home and enjoy the many benefits of living in a full-service and forward-thinking community. The city leadership has been central to providing growth as well as maintaining a sense of community. As the city of Madison Heights celebrates this auspicious occasion, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating its citizens as they celebrate the past and focus on the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Oakland Community College on their 40 years of educational excellence. When the voters of Oakland County voted to establish the Oakland Community College District on June 8, 1964, they not only approved the establishment of a valuable opportunity for thousands of students, but also an institution which would eventually become one of the State of Michigan's largest educational facilities. And, with 888 full-time employees, OCC is one of the County's largest employers. When the college opened, a record 3,860 students enrolled to take classes. Today, annual enrollment reaches 74,000 and some 700,000 students have received a world-class education at OCC since it opened. As the largest community college in the state of Michigan, and 14th largest in the nation, OCC has attracted students from over 80 countries. Oakland Community College is certainly a home-town institution with more than 11 percent of Oakland County's high school graduates attending OCC. The college also boasts the largest freshman class in the entire state. And with campuses throughout Oakland County, many of which I have had the pleasure to represent at one time or another, this institution increasingly became accessible to students. I worked very hard years ago with an active group of citizens and Board members to open campuses in South Oakland County. Today, the Southfield and Royal Oak Campuses are among the two largest in the County. OCC is also home to the CREST Program. The CREST or Combined Regional Emergency Service Training Facility is a 22-acre site which is the only emergency-response training center in the Midwest designed for the combined training of police, fire and emergency medical technicians in ``real-life'' scenarios. Mr. Speaker, on May 5th Oakland Community College will celebrate its 40th anniversary at a dinner to raise money for its scholarship endowments. I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting a major community asset, Oakland Community College, as it celebrates its past and focuses on the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bankruptcy bill before the House. This legislation has two fundamental flaws. The first problem is that the bill does not distinguish between those individuals who abuse their credit and then seek to wipe the slate clean through Chapter 7, and those who enter bankruptcy as the result of a costly medical emergency or after one of the breadwinners in a family loses their job. We need to make a distinction between a family who is struggling to pay for a medical operation for a child and a person who maxes out their credit cards on a shopping spree at the mall. This bill does not do so. A recent Harvard University study underscores the fact that the bankruptcy bill's impact will extend well beyond cracking down on people who abuse credit. The study looked at 1771 bankruptcy filers in five states. The results were striking: Half of the people in the study said that illness or medical bills drove them into bankruptcy. Most of these people actually had some health insurance; but high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverages left them liable for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs when serious illness struck. Other people in the study suddenly lost their jobs and therefore their health insurance. In many cases, people were let go from their jobs soon after the onset of a debilitating illness, so the medical bills begin to arrive just as the insurance and paychecks disappear. The second fundamental problem left unaddressed by the bill is the credit card industry's role in the surge of bankruptcy filings in recent years. The industry hands out credit cards like popcorn, and then loads on extraordinary penalty fees and higher interest rates after a payment is late. The result is that even if someone wants to pay off their credit debts, they are unable to do so because of thousands of dollars of punitive fees and penalty interest rates that can run as high as 40 percent. The lending policies of the credit card companies themselves is a major factor in driving consumers into bankruptcy, yet the legislation before the House does nothing to end these abuses. I include with my statement an article from the March 6 edition of the Washington Post entitled, ``Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors; Senate Nears Action on Bankruptcy Curbs.'' [From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 2005] Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors; Senate Nears Action on Bankruptcy Curbs (By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer) For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt. Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed for bankruptcy last June. That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were tardy, triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her balance over her credit limit, the credit card companies added more penalties. ``I was really trying hard to make minimum payments,'' said Hosseini, whose financial problems began in the late 1990s when her husband left her and their three children. ``All of my salary was going to the credit card companies, but there was no change in the balances because of that interest and those penalties.'' Punitive charges--penalty fees and sharply higher interest rates after a payment is late--compound the problems of many financially strapped consumers, sometimes making it impossible for them to dig their way out of debt and pushing them into bankruptcy. The Senate is to vote as soon as this week on a bill that would make it harder for individuals to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. The Senate last week voted down several amendments intended to curb excessive fees and other practices that critics of the industry say are abusive. House leaders say they will act soon after that, and President Bush has said he supports the bill. Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an individual has filed for bankruptcy or is hauled into court by creditors, he or she has repaid an amount equal to their original credit card debt plus double-digit interest, but still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of penalties. ``How is it that the person who wants to do right ends up so worse off?'' Cleveland Municipal Judge Robert J. Triozzi said last fall when he ruled against Discover in the company's breach-of-contract suit against another struggling credit cardholder, Ruth M. Owens. Owens tried for six years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28, even though, like Hosseini, she never used the card to buy anything more. Of that total, over-limit penalty fees alone were $1,158. Triozzi denied Discover's claim, calling its attempt to collect more money from Owens ``unconscionable.'' The bankruptcy measure now being debated in Congress has been sought for nearly eight years by the credit card industry. Twice in that time, versions of it have passed both the House and Senate. Once, President Bill Clinton refused to sign it, saying it was unfair, and once the House reversed its vote after Democrats attached an amendment that would prevent individuals such as anti-abortion protesters from using bankruptcy as a shield against court-imposed fines. Credit card companies and most congressional Republicans say current law needs to be changed to prevent abuse and make more people repay at least part of their debt. Consumer- advocacy groups and many Democrats say people who seek bankruptcy protection do so mostly because they have fallen on hard times through illness, divorce or job loss. They also argue that current law has strong provisions that judges can use to weed out those who abuse the system. Opponents also argue that the legislation is unfair because it ignores loopholes that would allow rich debtors to shield millions of dollars during bankruptcy through expensive homes and complex trusts, while ignoring the need for more disclosure to cardholders about rates and fees and curbs on what they say is irresponsible behavior by the credit card industry. The Republican majority, along with a few Democrats, has voted down dozens of proposed amendments to the bill, including one that would make it easier for the elderly to protect their homes in bankruptcy and another that would require credit card companies to tell customers how much extra interest they would pay over time by making only minimum payments. No one knows how many consumers get caught in the spiral of ``negative amortization,'' which is what regulators call it when a consumer makes payments but balances continue to grow because of penalty costs. The problem is widespread enough to worry federal bank regulators, who say nearly all major credit card issuers engage in the practice. Two years ago regulators adopted a policy that will require credit card companies to set monthly minimum payments high enough to cover penalties and interest and lower some of the customer's original debt, known as principal, so that if a consumer makes no new charges and makes monthly minimum payments, his or her balance will begin to decline. Banks agreed to the new rules after, in the words of one top federal regulator, ``some arm-twisting.'' But bank executives persuaded regulators to allow the higher minimum payments to be phased in over several years, through 2006, arguing that many customers are so much in debt that even slight increases too soon could push many into financial disaster. Credit card companies declined to comment on specific cases or customers for this article, but banking industry officials, speaking generally, said there is a good reason for the fees they charge. ``It's to encourage people to pay their bills the way they said they would in their contract, to encourage good financial management,'' said Nessa Feddis, senior federal counsel for the American Bankers Association. ``There has to be some onus on the cardholder, some responsibility to manage their finances.'' High fees ``may be extreme cases, but they are not the trend, not the norm,'' Feddis said. ``Banks are pretty flexible,'' she said. ``If you are a good customer and have an occasional mishap, they'll waive the fees, because there's so much competition and it's too easy to go someplace else.'' Banks are also willing to work out settlements with people in financial difficulty, she said, because ``there are still a lot of options even for people who've been in trouble.'' Many bankruptcy lawyers disagree. James S.K. ``Ike'' Shulman, Hosseini's lawyer, said credit card companies hounded her and did not live up to several promises to work with her to cut mounting fees. Regulators say it is appropriate for lenders to charge higher-risk debtors a higher interest rate, but that negative amortization and other practices go too far, posing risks to the banking system by threatening borrowers' ability to repay their debts and by being unfair to individuals. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David H. Adams of Norfolk, who is also the president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, said many debtors who get in over their heads ``are spending money, buying things they shouldn't be buying.'' Even so, he said, ``once you add all these fees on, the amount of principal being paid is negligible. The fees and interest and other charges are so high, they may never be able to pay it off.'' Judges say there is little they can do by the time cases get to bankruptcy court. Under the law, ``the credit card company is legally entitled to collect every dollar without a distinction'' whether the balance is from fees, interest or principal, said retired U.S. bankruptcy judge Ronald Barliant, who presided in Chicago. The only question for the courts is whether the debt is accurate, judges and lawyers say. John Rao, staff attorney of the National Consumer Law Center, one of many consumer groups fighting the bankruptcy bill, says the plight consumers face was illustrated last year in a bankruptcy case filed in Northern Virginia. Manassas resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill increased to $5,357 from $4,888 in two years, even though McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and has made monthly payments totaling $3,058. Those payments, noted U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stephen S. Mitchell in Alexandria, all went to ``pay finance charges (at a whopping 29.99%), late charges, over-limit fees, bad check fees and phone payment fees.'' Mitchell allowed the claim ``because the debtor admitted owing it.'' McCarthy, through her lawyer, declined to be interviewed. Alan Elias, a Providian Financial Corp. spokesman, said: ``When consumers sign up for a credit card, they should understand that it's a loan, no different than their mortgage payment or their car payment, and it needs to be repaid. And just like a mortgage payment and a car payment, if you are late you are assessed a fee.'' The 29.99 percent interest rate, he said, is the default rate charged to consumers ``who don't meet their obligation to pay their bills on time'' and is clearly disclosed on account applications. Feddis, of the banker's association, said the nature of debt means that interest will often end up being more than the original principal. ``Anytime you have a loan that's going to extend for any period of time, the interest is going to accumulate. Look at a 30-year-mortgage. The interest is much, much more than the principal.'' Samuel J. Gerdano, executive director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, said that focusing on late fees is ``refusing to look at the elephant in the room, and that's the massive levels of consumer debt which is not being paid. People are living right up to the edge,'' failing to save so when they lose a second job or overtime, face medical expense or their family breaks up, they have no money to cope. ``Late fees aren't the cause of debt,'' he said. Credit card use continues to grow, with an average of 6.3 bank credit cards and 6.3 store credit cards for every household, according to Cardweb.com Inc., which monitors the industry. Fifteen years ago, the averages were 3.4 bank credit cards and 4.1 retail credit cards per household. Despite, or perhaps because of, the large increase in cards, there is a ``fee feeding frenzy,'' among credit card issuers, said Robert McKinley, Cardweb's president and chief executive. ``The whole mentality has really changed over the last several years,'' with the industry imposing fees and increasing interest rates if a single payment is late. Penalty interest rates usually are about 30 percent, with some as high as 40 percent, while late fees now often are $39 a month, and over-limit fees, about $35, McKinley said. ``If you drag that out for a year, it could be very damaging,'' he said. ``Late and over-limit fees alone can easily rack up $900 in fees, and a 30 percent interest rate on a $3,000 balance can add another $1,000, so you could go from $2,000 to $5,000 in just one year if you fail to make payments.'' According to R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers, a California credit card consulting firm, banks collected $14.8 billion in penalty fees last year, or 10.9 percent of revenue, up from $10.7 billion, or 9 percent of revenue, in 2002, the first year the firm began to track penalty fees. The way the fees are now imposed, ``people would be better off if they stopped paying'' once they get in over their heads, said T. Bentley Leonard, a North Carolina bankruptcy attorney. Once you stop paying, creditors write off the debt and sell it to a debt collector. ``They may harass you, but your balance doesn't keep rising. That's the irony.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, in a few words, this is fiscal madness. It is a death wish on the part of some of my colleagues about fiscal responsibility. What my colleagues are burying is fiscal responsibility. The national debt is now $4.6 trillion, $6.3 if we add in Social Security funds. As mentioned, this bill would add $290 billion in debt, and who would benefit? The very, very wealthy. One-third of the estate tax is paid by the wealthiest one of one thousand Americans. I think that is one-tenth of 1 percent. Not farmers or small business people. That is the lamest argument brought to this floor in recent memory. The Pomeroy amendment would totally take care of this, and what my majority colleagues' bill does, and it is interesting, they do not come here and say so, they would increase the taxes for thousands and thousands of Americans. These citizens would have to pay capital gains tax when they do not now do so. Why do my colleagues not come here and say this is a tax increase for thousands of Americans? They do not say that. What this is also, everybody should understand, is a further raid on Social Security funds. My colleagues have come here, some of them on the majority side, talking about Social Security and how we need to address the shortfall. For some of these same colleagues, private accounts do not even touch that, and then they come here and increase the shortfall. This is true fiscal madness. My colleagues will indulge in it again I guess, and I hope, once again, the Senate will come to our rescue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Bob Matsui was a pillar of his beloved Sacramento. He was a pillar of the congressional community. So it is truly fitting that the courthouse in his beloved city be named after him. I think today we should pause and ask what would be the best monument to Bob Matsui here in Washington, and I think it is clear and that is that we join together with his wife Doris, who is now a colleague, to try to carry out his hopes, to fulfill his dream that everybody in this country counts, and when it comes to our work here, everybody should count equally. So I am pleased to join with my colleagues and this is another moment of emotion. We very much remember Bob.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today in this chamber we heard a compelling voice for the power of freedom and democracy in President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine. Just a few months ago, the Ukrainian people stood up for genuine liberty in their country by peacefully demanding free and fair elections in what has become known as the Orange Revolution. I am proud that the United States stood with the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that demonstrated for democracy in the streets of Kiev. I will never forget last November 24th, when I joined nearly 1,500 Ukrainian-Americans from around the country at a demonstration in support of fair elections outside Ukraine's Embassy in Washington. The Orange Revolution marked an important milestone in the history of Ukraine. President Yushchenko today addressed forcefully both the lessons of the past and fervent hopes for the future. Now that this peaceful revolution has been dramatically launched, we must stand with the people of Ukraine as they work to strengthen their democratic institutions and to make their country more prosperous. The U.S. should do more, not less, to help build a democratic and prosperous society in Ukraine. In particular, we must end trade restrictions that were enacted for a different Ukraine at a different time. To achieve this result, I introduced H.R. 1170, a bill to extend permanent normal trade relations to Ukraine. The U.S. must work promptly for the admission of Ukraine to the WTO. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate President Yushchenko on his election and the Ukrainian people for their determination to decide the future of their country. I urge the House of Representatives to make sure that the United States continues to stand with Ukraine as a friend and ally.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago or so I worked with colleagues in the Senate on the difficult issues relating to the wishes of people who were going to receive medical care if they were incapacitated. We required that State laws be told to patients about living wills and advance directives. The Florida judicial system has worked hard to follow its laws and to try to discern what was or would have been the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo. Section 1 of the bill says: ``The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo for the alleged violation of any of her rights under the Constitution or Federal laws.'' That court has already addressed that issue, it did so just a few days ago, and here is what it decided: ``The court finds there is not a substantial likelihood the petitioners will prevail on their Federal constitutional claim.'' That is the same court to whom you are sending this case. And the Supreme Court of our country denied review. So essentially what you are doing now for one case is changing the Federal rules, for one case, and saying there shall be a de novo hearing, disregarding everything that has happened through the State courts and Federal courts until now. In a word, what you are doing is allowing the rule of law of this country to be twisted in the winds. It is a mistake.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, just a brief word about the gentleman from California's remarks about unprecedented deficits. The gentleman points to 9/11, it was one of the causes; so was the recession that occurred under the Bush administration, and also policies that were adopted by this Congress and the President and the tax cuts that went predominantly to the very wealthy. When Mr. Greenspan was confronted with this, he said, ``I relied on the projections that most people made,'' but he was reminded he was wrong. A lot of us here said that at the time. I want to say now a word about this rule. It completely ducks the issue of Social Security and what the costs would be if privatized. The President said just a few hours ago, ``personal accounts do not solve the issue.'' I am glad that the President acknowledged that privatization does not solve the issue. What he did not say is it makes it worse, far worse if it were to occur. When we take their own figures and project them through the first 20 years if privatization were to occur, and we are going to make sure it does not, it would mean that this 2042 shortfall year, 2052 according to CBO, but take 2042, the shortfall would occur 11 years early. It is fiscally irresponsible. Secondly, the President said, ``I have not laid out a plan yet intentionally; I have laid out principles.'' But they have also had briefings and endorsed plans and called them a good blueprint, and the impact would mean, it would mean there would be a deduction from Social Security benefits of 70 to 100 percent what would be in private accounts. What it also means is that there would be a mammoth cut in benefits under Social Security, worse and worse the younger you were, $152,000 for a younger worker over their lifetime. We know enough about these proposals that come out of the White House, come out of their briefings or words of the President to know massive debt, major benefit cuts, and they would not, for most younger workers, help but hurt. The President also said, ``A nest egg you could call your own.'' Those are his words. No, that is not correct. Because it would be under a government managed account and most workers would have to annuitize what was left in their private accounts and there would be nothing to pass on. No, it would not be a nest egg. It would be, for most people, an empty egg.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It would not only weaken it; but one last point, it would in the end shrivel it next to nothing and mean its demise because of the cuts in benefits and what is called the claw-back which would be an offset against your Social Security of what is in your private accounts and that would be for younger workers, about 70 percent of what was left in your Social Security benefits. So in the end the younger worker in most cases would end up less in both, end up with less in both than if Social Security had not been destroyed. And the Social Security part of it would be so small that it would no longer be sustainable. And that is why this privatization by diversion of Social Security monies is essentially a path to the dismantling of Social Security.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and congratulate her on doing this. What we are doing here tonight, I say to my colleague from Connecticut and, later on, from California, and my good colleague from New Jersey, is to read some of the letters that we have been receiving from constituents. There are so many, I thought I would read just three of them, and then let others carry on. I hope we will continue to do this, because it brings home to Washington what we hear at home and what comes from home, what comes from home. The first letter comes from a constituent in Clinton Township, Michigan. She wrote to a colleague of mine, and under our procedures, it was transferred to our office. And it reads, ``The Bush administration has placed Social Security on the top of the domestic priority list, but should it be? The `crisis' '', and that is in her quotes, ``they are trying to fix has been taking in more money than it has paid out since the 1980s. If left untouched, our current system would be capable of paying full benefits until 2042 and 75 percent after that.'' ``If this administration wants to fix a crisis, they should begin with the national debt that'' and there is a word left out I think, ``that have created over the past 4 years. Increasing the deficit each year has weakened our country tremendously. Furthermore, allowing Social Security reform would cost the government between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. We live in an economy of job loss, underfunded schools, costly health care, and debt. The problems of today still need to be confronted, so why is this their focus in 2042? Reducing benefits would deprive citizens of the stability they deserve during retirement. The Bush administration is attempting to undermine the very concept of Social Security by doing so. If we allow this reform, the future of numerous citizens would be placed in jeopardy. This need to privatize Social Security is fiction, but the national debt is not.'' This is a wise constituent. All our constituents are wise; this is one who may be especially wise. ``Our government should be working to strengthen stability within our country, not weaken it. My suggestion to the Bush administration is this: Fix the problems you have created before addressing those of 2042. Continuing to ignore the issues of today will not ensure a better future for tomorrow.'' It was sent, and we checked with this constituent to make sure we could use her name, Colleen Szeliga. Let me just read a second letter that is much briefer. I think the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) mentioned a letter from someone who had worked in the system. This is a brief letter from Jeanne Polisei who says the following in a letter to me: ``I worked for SSA for 18 years. I know,'' and it is underlined, ``what a great program it is. I know it has done wonders for people who would otherwise be poor. Please do all you can to keep this program as it is. Wall Street is not dependable but SSA is.'' If I may take a minute to read an excerpt from a letter. I will just read an excerpt because we did not have a chance to reach this constituent, so I will not mention the name or place this fully in the Record. Just the heart of this letter that was written November 10, 2004. This is her handwritten letter and I will read it exactly as it is: ``My daughter is on childhood benefits on her dad's work record and this is the only source of income, just as I am on widows benefits. We are both on Social Security. This has made'' and I think the word me is left out ``so sick with worry. What Bush wants to do is `privatize' Social Security.'' And then she goes on to say: ``The late President Roosevelt set this up as a trust fund for families and their children and the disabled. This is not his money.'' And then I finish with this: ``My husband worked hard for this money and died before his time. I pay the mortgage, the utilities, and food on the table. It is a daily struggle just to make ends meet from month to month.'' So this letter and the others and the ones other Members have read and those that will be coming express so directly and poignantly what this struggle is all about. It is to indeed to save and strengthen Social Security. We are willing to step up to the plate as we were 20 years ago. What we do not want to do is to weaken and dismantle it. And these letters express why this is so important for the people of our Nation. So carry on with more letters. We are going to keep reading the letters to get this message across as to what the diversion of monies from Social Security to private accounts would really mean for the people of this country. And I think another time we will be reading letters from younger people because they have so much at stake and would be hurt so badly by the effort of the President to take monies out of Social Security, put them into private accounts, making the shortfall worse, not less, and undercutting a program that has meant so much in terms of independence for those on Social Security and will mean so much for my children and my grandchildren. I thank the gentlewoman very much for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. LEVIN. The privatization proposal does nothing to address the shortfall and, indeed, makes it worse.

Mr. LEVIN. About 30 percent of Social Security benefits go to those who are disabled and those who are family members. And the President said, if I might take another 30 seconds, that they would not be affected, the disabled. But that does not work out because what he has called a good blueprint provides for major benefits cut. And the plan, the second plan of the commission that is part of that good blueprint does affect the disabled. And if you were to have these massive cuts over time, especially hurting younger workers, for retirees and not for the disabled, it would mean deeper cuts yet for younger workers who are going to retire.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I am glad the gentleman raised that point, because we are going to spend some time talking about the impact of this privatization proposal on women. In future times, you are going to be talking about its impact on other segments of our population. Let me say just a word about this notion, borrow $1.5 trillion the first 10 years, another $3.5 trillion the second 10 years, what this all means and how it would impact on people. What has Social Security meant? It has meant independence. There are just a couple of facts I want to mention, and they show what Social Security has meant in this case, specifically for women. Four out of 10 widows in our country rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income. So those who want to play around with or really dismantle Social Security are really affecting the lives of people. Another thing, it is not the income alone, but the meaning of that income, because research has shown that Social Security income is key to so many people deciding they continue to live independently. When you compare the life of people before Social Security went into effect and when it did, the number of older women who are widows who are living independently increased the first 25 years of Social Security almost three times. So as was true for my beloved mother has been true for millions and millions of women. Social Security has not been a source of dependence; it has been a source of independence. Let me just say a few other things about the impact potentially of privatization on women. As we know, women on the average earn less than men, on the average. Social Security has a progressive element to it. And so that means that for women in terms of the replacement of their wages, Social Security is even more important on the average than for men. And also because life expectancy is greater for women than men on the average, if there were private accounts, it would have an especially adverse impact on women. The gentleman says there is not a comprehensive plan, but there are proposals. In the State of the Union briefing that was done by the White House, they talked about annuitization. There would be a requirement for millions of people to annuitize their private accounts if they existed. So it is not a nest egg that is their own. There would be a requirement of annuitization. And because women on the average live longer, the annuities would cost more. These are just some of the reasons why when we go to meetings and people can come, they are not screened, men and women, younger and older; and we are going to be talking another day about the deleterious impact on younger workers, but so many of the people who come, women on Social Security, they just say, look, this has meant I can continue to live my own life. That is what is at stake here. And so what we say to everybody is, the gentleman from Arizona said fix it. Yes, they would fix it by dismantling it. The fix would be in for Social Security. What we say is, we have fought to keep Social Security strong, we did 20 years ago here, and we will continue to fight to keep it strong. The President said, and I close with this, we need to keep Social Security strong, we need to keep it safe, we need to strengthen it. What they would do is to weaken it and dismantle it. So I thank the gentleman for letting me participate, and I am glad that others can continue with this. We are determined to go everywhere in this country and tell the truth.

Mr. LEVIN. This proposal would not address the shortfall, and $1.5 trillion would be diverted from Social Security the first 10 years and a total of $5 trillion over 20 years of privatization.

Mr. LEVIN. There is no comprehensive plan, but what has happened is that the President or his spokespeople have come forth with some proposals. So we have proposals, for example, in the commission report which was called a good blueprint by the President. We have a proposal that would shift from wage indexing to price indexing, would lead to a cut in benefits over time of over 40 percent.

Mr. LEVIN. As far as I know, that has been true. There may have been an exception, but I do not think so. So the gentleman is right. These are staged meetings and people who come are screened. For those of us who speak tonight, yourself, myself and others who have held our town hall meetings, there is no screening. We notify the public at large and whoever comes, comes. We have people who have differences of opinion. That was one statement of his that is very, very inaccurate. It is really an insult to the people who want to come to the President's meetings, saying that they come to heckle. The answer is they cannot get in. And they would love to participate in the discussion. He also mentioned another allegation about the number of workers per retiree, and I think he mentioned 15 to 1 or 16 to 1. That is a figure that existed before Social Security began to make payments. The truth of the matter is that when Social Security began to make payments to retirees, the ratio was 6 to 1. Higher than today, it is true. There is a shortfall that would exist either in 2042 or 2052. After that, according to the CBO, the payments would be 78 percent of the scheduled benefits and according to the actuaries, 72 percent. So the notion that it is headed for bankruptcy, this is the path for bankruptcy, is inaccurate. Then another thing that the gentleman from Arizona said, it is just a bunch of IOUs. The President of the United States will not say it is just a bunch of paper and I am sure the Secretary of the Treasury will not, or better not. Why? Because the trillions of dollars held in bonds by our creditors, foreign governments and also individuals, have a bond and those are the same bonds held by the Treasury of the United States to cover Social Security payments. The full faith and credit is behind those bonds. There has never been a default. Actually the bonds have been redeemed for Social Security over the years 11 times. So this notion it is just a bunch of paper is really a serious mischaracterization, and I hope that our leaders will never repeat it. Let me say a word about this compound interest argument. The privatization proposal would do nothing to address the shortfall.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we held three town hall meetings and so many of our colleagues held many, many. It is interesting that our Republican colleagues in Michigan as far as I know during the break held no town hall meetings on Social Security. I think the main reason is it has become increasingly clear that the diversion of Social Security moneys for privatization is a bad deal for everyone, for seniors, for younger workers, for men and for women. I am glad that the gentleman from Arizona preceded us, because I want to say just a few words. The facts really are allies here of those who are defending Social Security and the facts really are the antagonists of those who want to dismantle it. For example, the gentleman who preceded us from Arizona said that people who are coming to the Republican meetings are coming to heckle. First of all, I do not think there are that many meetings held by our Republican colleagues. Secondly, when the President goes out and holds Social Security forums, the people who can come have to have tickets. They have to be people who are proponents of the President's position. And I just would like to say to everybody, let everybody into the forums that are held by the President as is true of our forums.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Congressman Evans' legislation, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act, and am proud to be an original cosponsor. This legislation will guarantee that veterans receive the health care they have earned and deserve. With an increase in the number of veterans seeking care, a dramatic rise in medical costs, and years of inadequate VA health care funding, there is a clear and growing mismatch between the demand for VA services and available funds to support these services. The number of patients entering the VA health care system has increased by 134 percent since 1996, but funding for medical care has increased just 44 percent. This has resulted in unprecedented waiting times for routine and specialized medical care nationwide. In my home state of Michigan, some veterans are waiting more than 6 months for an initial doctor's appointment. This situation is untenable. The reason for this problem is evident and so is the solution. Every year, veterans have to fight with a myriad of non-veterans' programs to receive the money necessary for their health care treatment. To end this annual budget battle, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act would require Congress to meet our veterans' medical care needs by providing funding for VA health care based on the number of enrollees in the system and medical inflation. This is legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle should support. In fact, a commission established by the White House, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans, issued a report in March 2003 noting the mismatch between veterans' needs and VA services, and recommending guaranteed funding to fix this problem. To date, the Administration has refused to endorse, or even to acknowledge, the Task Force's recommendation. The current system is not serving our veterans well. The VA must have a sufficient budget to effectively manage its health care programs, to hire the appropriate number of staff, and to adequately plan for the coming year well in advance. Guaranteed veterans' health care funding would end the year-to-year uncertainty the VA and our veterans face, and would fulfill the obligation this country has to the men and women who served in uniform.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to John Knapp on his retirement from the city of Roseville. Occasionally, we hear of people who are described as ``fixtures of their communities.'' John Knapp is a good example of what is meant by this term. For all the years that I have had the pleasure of serving in Congress, John Knapp has been serving the people of Roseville, Michigan. Since I began representing the city of Roseville a few years ago, John Knapp and the city of Roseville have always seemed to be a perfect match--they both epitomize the best in the definition of ``community.'' John Knapp has held the position of City Manager in Roseville since April 11, 2000. He came to Roseville in 1984, where he held the position of City Controller for over 15 years. Thereafter, John served as Interim City Manager, in addition to his duties as City Controller, from December 31, 1999, until his formal appointment in April, 2000. John's life of public service began long before this in the Wayne County Treasurer's Office, where he served for over 22 years. During John's years as City Manager of Roseville, he oversaw the completion of the building addition to the Roseville Police and Court Building. He was also instrumental in the development of Veteran's Memorial Park. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding John Knapp for his years of effective service to the city of Roseville and for his tireless commitment to the well-being of its citizens. My best wishes to John with whom I have been privileged to develop a personal friendship, and to his wife of 40 years, Karen, for a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my full support as a cosponsor to this resolution, congratulating the Ukrainian people for their role in ensuring a fair and free election on December 26, and congratulating Viktor Yushchenko for his perseverance in winning the presidency. Democracy in Ukraine has come a long way in a very short time. The Orange Revolution, as it has been called, will be remembered as a historic milestone. This revolution succeeded through the peaceful efforts of the Ukrainian people standing up for democracy and genuine liberty for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Mr. Yushchenko's supporters, many wearing the orange color of his political party, poured into the streets of Kiev and blocked entrances to government buildings to protest a rigged vote and demand the Ukrainian Supreme Court invalidate the election results. It was stirring to watch these men, women and children brave the bitter cold and snow in Independence Square and throughout the country, demanding to have their voices heard and their just demands met, namely, free and fair elections. Here in Washington, I was proud to stand with nearly 1,500 Ukrainian- Americans from around the country on the day before Thanksgiving at a demonstration in front of Ukraine's embassy to demand that the will of the voters of Ukraine be upheld in that nation's presidential election. We gathered together in the rain just as the AP Wire announced that Ukraine's Election Commission had grievously certified the election of Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine has come such a long way since then. The United States stood with the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians demonstrating for democracy, and made clear that Mr. Yanukovych must not be recognized as president. The U.S. must continue to stand with the people of Ukraine and strengthen the relationship that has formed between our nations. I have joined the other co-chairs of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus in writing to Speaker Hastert asking him to invite President Yushchenko to address a joint session of Congress. This should only be the next step. The U.S. must remain committed to assist Ukraine establish a full democracy and create a prosperous free market economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 16.