Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier today I, along with Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Jack Reed, introduced the No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act. Our bill will put a stop to companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship but come back to try to seek taxpayer funded government contracts. There is an existing law on the books that is supposed to ban Federal contracts with inverted corporations, but just like with the tax code, after about a decade of lawyers looking for loopholes in the law, a number of corporations have found them. This bill would bring that ban up-to-date. Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S. corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don't think that is right, and it is time we put a stop to it, which we can do by passing the Stop Corporate Inversions Act I introduced 2 months ago with 22 cosponsors. Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge U.S. laws. And because of that, Congress has passed a series of restrictions on contracting with inverted corporations over the last decade. We passed one in 2002, and another in 2006 and 2007. Since fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision has been included in every annual appropriations bill banning contracts with inverted corporations. Our bill would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers, while at the same time, shifting their tax burden onto those same American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent. Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate is too high. It is true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the effective tax rate--what corporations really pay--is about 12 percent. When companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is. Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn't. First, if it happens at all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening now. Second, this is a bill about contracting. This bill doesn't amend the tax code. I expect it will be referred to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, not to the Finance Committee. So even Senators who believe that fixing the tax inversions problem should wait until comprehensive tax reform should be able to support this bill. In the past, in similar circumstances, Congress has chosen to act-- overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to businesses who don't invert to have to compete with companies that do invert. This is about putting American families who work hard and pay their share. We shouldn't sacrifice the interests of those families. We shouldn't ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors who skip out on their tax obligations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier today I, along with Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Jack Reed, introduced the No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act. Our bill will put a stop to companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship but come back to try to seek taxpayer funded government contracts. There is an existing law on the books that is supposed to ban Federal contracts with inverted corporations, but just like with the tax code, after about a decade of lawyers looking for loopholes in the law, a number of corporations have found them. This bill would bring that ban up-to-date. Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S. corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don't think that is right, and it is time we put a stop to it, which we can do by passing the Stop Corporate Inversions Act I introduced 2 months ago with 22 cosponsors. Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge U.S. laws. And because of that, Congress has passed a series of restrictions on contracting with inverted corporations over the last decade. We passed one in 2002, and another in 2006 and 2007. Since fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision has been included in every annual appropriations bill banning contracts with inverted corporations. Our bill would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers, while at the same time, shifting their tax burden onto those same American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent. Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate is too high. It is true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the effective tax rate--what corporations really pay--is about 12 percent. When companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is. Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn't. First, if it happens at all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening now. Second, this is a bill about contracting. This bill doesn't amend the tax code. I expect it will be referred to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, not to the Finance Committee. So even Senators who believe that fixing the tax inversions problem should wait until comprehensive tax reform should be able to support this bill. In the past, in similar circumstances, Congress has chosen to act-- overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to businesses who don't invert to have to compete with companies that do invert. This is about putting American families who work hard and pay their share. We shouldn't sacrifice the interests of those families. We shouldn't ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors who skip out on their tax obligations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Intermediary Lending Program Act of 2014. This bill would make permanent a successful small business financing program which provides startups and growing small businesses with access to capital. As a long-time member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I have been a strong supporter of efforts to help small firms expand and thrive so they can create jobs and grow the economy. The need for creative and effective ways to expand access to capital for small businesses is greater than ever. According to a study issued by the Brookings Institute in May, entrepreneurship is experiencing a troubling decline in the United States, a trend the authors document over the last 30 years, across all 50 States and almost all metropolitan areas. They conclude that we need to pursue policies that better foster entrepreneurship if we want to create more jobs. One way we can foster entrepreneurship and address the lingering unemployment affecting so many of our communities is to make permanent the Small Business Intermediary Lending Pilot Program. I proposed and helped enact the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program into law in 2010. Over the last three years, the program has provided loans of $1 million to nonprofit intermediary lenders to make small to mid-sized loans to small businesses. The program gets financing to small businesses that are not being served by banks or conventional loan programs currently available through the Small Business Administration. Small businesses seeking this flexible debt financing may have graduated from the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, and for a variety of reasons, especially lack of adequate collateral, do not qualify for guaranteed 7(a) loans or other private capital. Given the slow economic recovery, high demand exists for the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program. In the short life of the program, intermediaries in 20 States across the country have already made more than 300 small business loans, totaling more than $26 million. If not for the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, the small businesses receiving these loans would have been hard-pressed to find this financing elsewhere. Almost 90 percent of the loans were in the $50,000-$200,000 range, making these loans larger than microloans. The average loan size in the pilot has been about $88,000. The loans facilitated by the Intermediary Lending Program have done more than help small businesses; they have created or retained thousands of jobs. Building on this success and keeping the program going will strengthen our economy, get small businesses sorely-needed capital, and catalyze job creation. Merit Hall, a full service staffing firm located in downtown Detroit, provides services and staffing to construction, landscape and facility maintenance contractors throughout southeastern Michigan. In 2013, Merit Hall received a $200,000 ILP loan to support the company's growth. Merit Hall used those funds to retain and create 10 office jobs and 300 jobs in the field. In addition, this loan allowed Merit Hall to grow their revenues to the point where they were bankable and were able to receive a $350,000 loan from a commercial bank and pay off their ILP loan. Rubber Technologies of Coleman, Michigan, recycles tires to create premium recycled products such as playground surfacing and rubber mats. The Intermediary Lending Program loan they received will help strengthen their business, allowing them to add equipment and retain 12 jobs. Roaming Harvest, a small business in Traverse City, Michigan, started out as a food truck and now thanks to a loan from the Intermediary Pilot program has opened a cafe featuring local food, retaining two jobs and creating two new jobs. These small loans can add up. An intermediary lender in the state of Washington, Craft3, has already made 34 loans through the program and created 98 jobs as a result. Intermediary lenders do more than provide loans; they provide technical assistance and counseling which often does not accompany conventional loans, helping business owners start and grow successful enterprises. The Intermediary Lending Program is modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Loan Program, which has existed since 1988. Like the USDA program, this SBA counterpart is a decentralized initiative relying on the capacity and market expertise of local, nonprofit intermediary lenders, but it expands this approach, serving both rural and urban areas. The legislation I am introducing today makes the Intermediary Lending Program permanent and authorizes a funding level of $20 million for each of the next three fiscal years. The legislation authorizes nonprofit lending intermediaries, chosen on a competitive basis, to participate in the program. As in the pilot, each intermediary will receive a loan of up to $1 million at a low interest rate to create a revolving loan fund through which they will make small business loans. The nonprofit lenders who participate in this program already tap a variety of financing programs to meet the needs of the small businesses in their states and localities. SBA has observed that one of the benefits of the Intermediary Lending Program as compared to the Microloan Program is the longer repayment term, 20 years versus 10 years, respectively. This patient capital helps to facilitate larger loans that some businesses need, up to $200,000, and it allows the revolving loan fund to revolve about 2.5 times before the intermediary fully repays the initial SBA loan. In addition to authorizing the program, this bill makes a technical correction to the language of the pilot program. While the pilot program limited the amount that an intermediary can borrow under the Intermediary Lending Program to $1 million, it did not intend to take into account money an intermediary borrowed through other SBA programs. Unfortunately, SBA interpreted the language in a way that placed an overall cap on how much a participating intermediary can borrow from the SBA under all SBA programs. The result was that more experienced lenders with higher loan volumes, especially many strong microlenders, were unable to participate. That was simply not the intent of Congress. Rather, this program was designed to complement the microloan and 7(a) programs and add another tool to the portfolio of nonprofit community- based lenders. The bill I am introducing today changes the language to clarify our intent, maintains the $1 million loan limit, and increases the overall amount intermediaries can have outstanding from SBA under the Intermediary Lending Program to $5 million. The Intermediary Lending Program is a small program which has already made a big difference. It is modeled on a program which has been operating successfully for almost 30 years, and it shields the government from any risks involved in lending to small businesses by having experienced intermediaries take on that risk. As we all look for ways to bolster our economy, we should build on this record of success. The Intermediary Lending Pilot is addressing a lending gap and helping create jobs across the nation. If we adopt my legislation, this program will continue to be an engine for small business growth. I urge its swift enactment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Intermediary Lending Program Act of 2014. This bill would make permanent a successful small business financing program which provides startups and growing small businesses with access to capital. As a long-time member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I have been a strong supporter of efforts to help small firms expand and thrive so they can create jobs and grow the economy. The need for creative and effective ways to expand access to capital for small businesses is greater than ever. According to a study issued by the Brookings Institute in May, entrepreneurship is experiencing a troubling decline in the United States, a trend the authors document over the last 30 years, across all 50 States and almost all metropolitan areas. They conclude that we need to pursue policies that better foster entrepreneurship if we want to create more jobs. One way we can foster entrepreneurship and address the lingering unemployment affecting so many of our communities is to make permanent the Small Business Intermediary Lending Pilot Program. I proposed and helped enact the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program into law in 2010. Over the last three years, the program has provided loans of $1 million to nonprofit intermediary lenders to make small to mid-sized loans to small businesses. The program gets financing to small businesses that are not being served by banks or conventional loan programs currently available through the Small Business Administration. Small businesses seeking this flexible debt financing may have graduated from the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, and for a variety of reasons, especially lack of adequate collateral, do not qualify for guaranteed 7(a) loans or other private capital. Given the slow economic recovery, high demand exists for the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program. In the short life of the program, intermediaries in 20 States across the country have already made more than 300 small business loans, totaling more than $26 million. If not for the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, the small businesses receiving these loans would have been hard-pressed to find this financing elsewhere. Almost 90 percent of the loans were in the $50,000-$200,000 range, making these loans larger than microloans. The average loan size in the pilot has been about $88,000. The loans facilitated by the Intermediary Lending Program have done more than help small businesses; they have created or retained thousands of jobs. Building on this success and keeping the program going will strengthen our economy, get small businesses sorely-needed capital, and catalyze job creation. Merit Hall, a full service staffing firm located in downtown Detroit, provides services and staffing to construction, landscape and facility maintenance contractors throughout southeastern Michigan. In 2013, Merit Hall received a $200,000 ILP loan to support the company's growth. Merit Hall used those funds to retain and create 10 office jobs and 300 jobs in the field. In addition, this loan allowed Merit Hall to grow their revenues to the point where they were bankable and were able to receive a $350,000 loan from a commercial bank and pay off their ILP loan. Rubber Technologies of Coleman, Michigan, recycles tires to create premium recycled products such as playground surfacing and rubber mats. The Intermediary Lending Program loan they received will help strengthen their business, allowing them to add equipment and retain 12 jobs. Roaming Harvest, a small business in Traverse City, Michigan, started out as a food truck and now thanks to a loan from the Intermediary Pilot program has opened a cafe featuring local food, retaining two jobs and creating two new jobs. These small loans can add up. An intermediary lender in the state of Washington, Craft3, has already made 34 loans through the program and created 98 jobs as a result. Intermediary lenders do more than provide loans; they provide technical assistance and counseling which often does not accompany conventional loans, helping business owners start and grow successful enterprises. The Intermediary Lending Program is modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Loan Program, which has existed since 1988. Like the USDA program, this SBA counterpart is a decentralized initiative relying on the capacity and market expertise of local, nonprofit intermediary lenders, but it expands this approach, serving both rural and urban areas. The legislation I am introducing today makes the Intermediary Lending Program permanent and authorizes a funding level of $20 million for each of the next three fiscal years. The legislation authorizes nonprofit lending intermediaries, chosen on a competitive basis, to participate in the program. As in the pilot, each intermediary will receive a loan of up to $1 million at a low interest rate to create a revolving loan fund through which they will make small business loans. The nonprofit lenders who participate in this program already tap a variety of financing programs to meet the needs of the small businesses in their states and localities. SBA has observed that one of the benefits of the Intermediary Lending Program as compared to the Microloan Program is the longer repayment term, 20 years versus 10 years, respectively. This patient capital helps to facilitate larger loans that some businesses need, up to $200,000, and it allows the revolving loan fund to revolve about 2.5 times before the intermediary fully repays the initial SBA loan. In addition to authorizing the program, this bill makes a technical correction to the language of the pilot program. While the pilot program limited the amount that an intermediary can borrow under the Intermediary Lending Program to $1 million, it did not intend to take into account money an intermediary borrowed through other SBA programs. Unfortunately, SBA interpreted the language in a way that placed an overall cap on how much a participating intermediary can borrow from the SBA under all SBA programs. The result was that more experienced lenders with higher loan volumes, especially many strong microlenders, were unable to participate. That was simply not the intent of Congress. Rather, this program was designed to complement the microloan and 7(a) programs and add another tool to the portfolio of nonprofit community- based lenders. The bill I am introducing today changes the language to clarify our intent, maintains the $1 million loan limit, and increases the overall amount intermediaries can have outstanding from SBA under the Intermediary Lending Program to $5 million. The Intermediary Lending Program is a small program which has already made a big difference. It is modeled on a program which has been operating successfully for almost 30 years, and it shields the government from any risks involved in lending to small businesses by having experienced intermediaries take on that risk. As we all look for ways to bolster our economy, we should build on this record of success. The Intermediary Lending Pilot is addressing a lending gap and helping create jobs across the nation. If we adopt my legislation, this program will continue to be an engine for small business growth. I urge its swift enactment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to allow us to begin debate on the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014, of which I am a cosponsor. One of this Nation's founding principles is respect for religious faith. Most all of us agree that one American should not be able to impose his or her religious convictions upon another. Yet the outcome of the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case is that thousands of Americans may lose the ability to make the most personal choices about what health care meets their religious or ethical standards and hand those decisions over to an employer. The Court's reasoning in the Hobby Lobby decision was deeply flawed. As I and several colleagues argued in a brief to the Court, applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Court did seriously misconstrues the language of the statute and ignores the intent of Congress in passing it. Giving for-profit corporations the power to impose the religious beliefs of managers or owners upon employees is what violates basic religious freedom. It is a central feature of our health care system that millions of Americans receive health insurance through employer-sponsored plans and those employers are most often, as was the case with Hobby Lobby, corporations. Business owners choose to incorporate because forming a corporation means access to limited liability and other government- conferred privileges. But corporations don't have faiths. People do. That includes the women who have now lost their ability to make the most important and personal decisions about their health care. If we are to say we truly value the freedom to practice any religion or no religion, as we see fit, surely that includes the freedom for American women to make choices about their own health care without the imposition of their employer's religious convictions. The Supreme Court's decision has elevated the religious faith of a business's owners above the values of that business's employees. That is not what the law envisions, and it is not what Americans believe. I strongly support this legislation to repair the damage the Supreme Court has done. We should proceed to this bill, debate it, vote on it, and hopefully pass it. America's women and their families deserve nothing less.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation's first responders are in many ways our everyday heroes. Always ready when we need them most, they risk their lives to ensure our safety. To do this, they spend long hours away from their families on grueling shifts and make countless other sacrifices. For the last century, the Hamtramck Fire Department has been a part of this distinguished tradition. The Hamtramck Fire Department was established in its current form in 1914, but the department's roots run deeper. The Hamtramck Spouters, the first organized firefighting unit in the area, was founded in February 1857. From its inception, the department has sought to improve with each passing year, which has led to many advances, including updated technology, lowered response times, and fewer fires through prevention efforts. The department has served Hamtramck citizens with distinction, even as tough economic times have made the job harder. Their mission to protect the residents of Hamtramck is as vital today as it was 100 years ago. Today, the fire department tackles a heavy load, making more than 3,100 runs each year. In the process, they have saved countless lives and property, often at great personal risk. Their courageous service is remarkable, and their reputation within the community is impeccable. The Hamtramck Fire Department also has sought to make an impact in the community outside of the fire hall. From organizing park cleanups, to buying uniforms for Hamtramck High School's women's basketball team, the fire department has provided valuable services to the community. Just this year, the fire department won a fireworks display for the city in the national Red, White & You contest. They were chosen from a group of more than 2,500 entries. Because of their efforts, the city hosted its first Fourth of July fireworks display in more than three decades. Announcing the fireworks display, Fire Chief Paul Wilk noted, ``We are a very diverse city that's fallen on hard times--we need a boost like this.'' The pride in their city and sense of service the department displayed in their application to the Red, White & You contest bears repeating. Firefighter John Dropchuck, who has been with the department for 15 years, wrote, ``Cultural diversity and a strong blue collar work ethic make up the backbone of our town. There is no better representation of the pursuit of the `American Dream' than Hamtramck. . . The Hamtramck Fire Department is entering this contest on behalf of our residents, who we feel deserve this celebration.'' The commitment of Hamtramck's firefighters to going above and beyond for their city and its citizens is an example for all of us. On May 3, 2014, the Hamtramck Fire Department celebrated its 100th anniversary with the annual St. Florian March and Mass. It was a fitting way to mark this historic milestone, giving the community an opportunity to offer their thanks. On July 5, the celebrations continued with an impressive fireworks display, another opportunity to come together in fellowship and thanksgiving. We owe our Nation's firefighters and first responders a huge debt of gratitude. Their bravery and willingness to serve provides families across Michigan with a measure of security. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating the Hamtramck Fire Department on a century of service and a job well done. They are a wonderful example of public service, and I wish them much success as they continue their mission to protect the public.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Abuse of Structured Financial Products: Misusing Barrier Options to Avoid Taxes and Leverage Limits.'' The subcommittee hearing will examine a set of transactions that utilize financial engineering and structured financial products to attempt to avoid paying U.S. taxes on short-term capital gains. Witnesses will include representatives of major financial institutions, as well as tax experts from a nonprofit institution and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. A witness list will be available Friday, July 18, 2014. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Nation recently lost two distinguished former members of this body. I join those who mourn former Senate majority leader Howard Baker of Tennessee, and former Senator Alan Dixon of Illinois. And I am reminded by their passing of the passing of an era they helped forge, one in which elected officials of strong opinions but good will sought to accommodate the diverse viewpoints of this great Nation, rather than using them to divide our people and obstruct the operations of government. Howard Baker became known as ``the Great Conciliator.'' I am one of the few members of the current Senate who served alongside him. We came from different places, and from different political traditions. We saw the world differently. But I knew him, as all who worked with him knew him, as someone who would fight for his positions but also work to understand the positions of others. He described himself as a moderate at a time when that word wasn't out of fashion. And that moderation and sense of fairness are what guided him as he helped guide the Nation through one of the most searing experiences in our history, the Watergate scandal. As the ranking Republican on the Senate committee investigating the scandal, he was a calm, collected, comforting presence at a time of great tumult. By placing the good of the Nation and the need to protect our democracy ahead of his own party's interests, he provided a powerful example for us to follow, just as he did in helping to build bipartisan support for important civil rights and environmental legislation. Alan Dixon, too, was shaped by, and helped to shape, a different era in politics. In his memoir, Senator Dixon wrote: ``Generally speaking, my political career was built on goodwill and accommodation.'' Too few political figures can make such a claim today. As an elected official in Illinois, as a Senator, and as a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Dixon gained a reputation for fairness, balance and understanding. I remember this well-earned reputation made him a great help to Senator Sam Nunn, the Democratic leader on the Armed Services Committee, during debate on the annual Defense Authorization Act. It is also why he was chosen for the difficult and important responsibility of leading the base closure commission. Senator Dixon showed that a fairness and accommodation need not contradict fighting strongly for your beliefs. He often told the story of how during committee debate on a defense bill during the 1980s the committee was poised to sign off on buying a new anti-aircraft system. Dixon had read that system had serious problems, and though he was then relatively junior on the committee, he objected to its inclusion in the defense bill. The powerful chairman at the time, Senator Goldwater, told Dixon that if he thought there was a problem, he should go down to Fort Bliss, TX, that weekend, check it out, and report back to the committee. Dixon did, and when he asked, somewhat to the chagrin of his military tour guides, for a demonstration of the system, it fired at 88 targets and missed 87. When he reported back to the committee on his findings, it quickly decided to cancel the program, a decision even the Pentagon had to support. Now, some might see that story as an illustration of the need to challenge authority, an argument against going along to getting along-- And it is--But it is important to note that Alan Dixon didn't try to demonize his opponents, didn't portray them as enemies. He honestly disagreed, raised his objections, pursued the facts, laid them before his colleagues, and trusted in their good judgment. Our Nation is no less diverse than it was when Howard Baker and Alan Dixon practiced the principled politics of accommodation. Our challenges are no smaller. The need to bridge gaps rather than widen them is just as urgent for us as it was for them. We can, and I hope we will, learn from their examples as we confront the challenges we face and the needs of the Nation we serve.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have just returned from Afghanistan, where I met with the two Presidential candidates, Dr. Ashraf Ghani and Dr. Abdullah. Both Dr. Ghani and Dr. Abdullah are impressive men who have committed to reformist agendas and campaigned throughout the country. Afghanistan is fortunate to have two such capable Presidential candidates. In the course of my meetings with the two candidates last Sunday and indeed during many meetings over the years, each has told me that he appreciates the support the United States has provided to their country, and each will sign a bilateral security agreement with the United States as soon as possible after the next President is inaugurated. This is a particularly sensitive time for Afghanistan, which has not had a peaceful transition of power in the 50 years since Zahir Shah was overthrown in a coup. More than 7 million ballots were cast in the first round of the Presidential election back in April, and more than 8 million ballots were recorded in the runoff election last month. All agree there was an impressive turnout in a country where the Taliban has repeatedly threatened violence against those who vote. There have been dramatic improvements in Afghanistan over the last decade in the number of schools and universities, in the number of students and teachers--particularly female students and female teachers--in Afghan life expectancy, in average income, and in many other areas. The Afghan Army and the Afghan National Police, who have taken over security responsibility from U.S. and coalition forces, have shown great capability by successfully securing two rounds of elections and repelling a concerted Taliban attack in the Helmand region of the country. If the ongoing dispute about the outcome of the Afghan Presidential election is not resolved in a fair and credible manner, however, these achievements would be at risk. The Taliban does not have the ability to defeat the Afghan Army or to take over Afghan cities and population centers. However, if a disputed election were to lead to infighting or to the establishment of parallel governments, the army could be severely weakened and divided, providing new opportunities for the Taliban. The United States and our coalition allies would be much less likely to provide the continued military and economic assistance that Afghanistan needs if that country's leaders cannot pull together and resolve their disputes through the existing election process. The State Department stated on Monday: The continued support of the United States for Afghanistan requires that Afghanistan remains united and that the result of this election is deemed credible. Both candidates told me personally on Sunday that they believe a comprehensive audit of the election results is necessary and appropriate and that they will abide by the results of such an audit. They also stated that they understand the outcome of the election will not be final and will not be credible until such an audit has been completed. The two campaign teams have been working with the United Nations and other international elections experts over the last few days to develop an appropriate audit scope to recommend to the elections commission. I had hoped that an agreement on this review could be announced at the same time that a preliminary vote count was released on Monday. While that did not happen, the head of the Independent Election Commission said the following: The announcement [of] preliminary results does not mean the winner has been announced. The investigation of votes could have impacts on the final results. The two campaigns have already agreed on audit triggers that will result in the review of nearly half of the ballots cast, but they have not yet reached full agreement on the measures to be taken. I hope they will be able to do so in the very near future. But this is the bottom line: Whether or not they are able to reach agreement in full, the Electoral Complaints Commission, working with the Independent Election Commission, has a responsibility to decide how many ballots to audit, and they have that responsibility on their own initiative. The Independent Election Commission must then announce a winner. The path to resolution of the matter is not unclear. On the contrary, the Afghan Constitution and election law are very clear. There is no uncertainty about this path. The Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission have the responsibility to proceed on their own to determine how many ballots need to be audited and to conduct an audit with or without the agreement of the candidates. Indeed, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has already called on the election commissions to do just that. I said to the two candidates on Sunday that the Afghan people and the Afghan security forces have shown great bravery in standing up for their country and that it is now time for the country's leaders to do the same. It would be truly unfortunate if the great progress made in Afghanistan at the expense of so much Afghan, American, and coalition blood and treasure were to be jeopardized by political infighting and the failure of political leadership. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republicans control the time from 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. and the majority leader control the time from 3 p.m. until 4 p.m. today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2014, at 2:20 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Promoting the Well-Being and Academic Success of College Athletes.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Russia and Developments in Ukraine.''

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Challenges at the Border: Examining the Causes, Consequences, and the Response to the Rise in Apprehensions at the Southern Border.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on July 7, Michigan lost a great champion. Over his 94 years, Peter M. Wege accomplished many lifetimes worth of goals. He helped the company his father founded, Steelcase, into one of the world's leading office furniture companies, employing thousands of Michiganians and helping cement the status of Grand Rapids as the world's hub of office furniture making. And had he done no more than lead a great company and provide jobs to great workers, he would be worthy of celebration. But as his hometown paper, the Grand Rapids Press, described him with typical West Michigan understatement, Pete Wege was ``an unconventional industrialist.'' In a community that has benefited greatly from the public spirit of its business leaders, few have rivaled the impact of this remarkable man. Always aware of his good fortune and of the needs of his community, he poured money that could have made him one of the world's wealthiest people into the Grand Rapids area and beyond. Libraries and schools, theaters and museums, churches and civic buildings, parks and wilderness areas all benefitted from his generosity and vision. And he had those two qualities--generosity and vision--in abundance. He was more than a philanthropist; he was a man on a mission. That mission began when he was on another kind of mission, serving his country during World War II, when he flew as a transport pilot. Piloting an aircraft to Pittsburgh during the war, the landing field was so shrouded in smog that he couldn't land. That polluted air launched him on a lifetime of dedication to environmental causes. He created the Wege Foundation in 1967 to promote educational, cultural, environmental and scientific efforts. Two years later, he established the Center for Environmental Study. He wrote two books laying out his argument that environmental stewardship would boost the economy, rather than harming growth. Perhaps nowhere was Pete Wege's impact more strongly felt than in his love for the Great Lakes. In 2004, he sponsored the Healing Our Waters conference in Michigan. His agenda was simple and powerful: ``The lakes are our life support system, and we've got to treat them that way,'' he said. The conference brought together environmental leaders from across the country, and led to publication of a report on the need for a plan to restore the Great Lakes. That powerful call helped lead to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has devoted millions of dollars to habitat restoration and environmental cleanup on the lakes. The Healing our Waters Coalition continues today to advocate for restoration and preservation of the lakes Pete Wege cared about so deeply. Peter Wege dedicated his life to preserving this world's natural beauty, and to promoting the beauty that humankind creates. His legacy will live in the cleaner waters of the Great Lakes he loved, and in the artistic and scientific endeavors he helped to promote. He represents the best part of Michigan, the best part of America, that part that celebrates what makes our world and its people so irreplaceable. I will miss him and Michigan will miss him.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Arizona for not only his remarks but also the thoughtfulness of his remarks on the U.S.-India relationship. I listened to them carefully and am glad to join in and look forward to his report. We have had a historic relationship with India as the two preeminent democracies, and we have a great opportunity to build on this relationship. I know my friend from Arizona has contributed vitally to that effort.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Recent events in Iraq have created great concern. The territorial gains by the ISIL, a violent extremist group, are not just a threat to Iraq's security but a security challenge to the entire region, and indeed to the United States. By its words and deeds, ISIL has made clear that it is deeply hostile to American interests and to universal values of freedom and human rights. That hostility can easily translate into plans and threats against us. Faced by these developments, President Obama's decision to send a small number of U.S. military advisers is prudent. They will help assess the situation on the ground, they will support Iraqi efforts to defeat the Islamic militants Iraq faces, and help the Iraqis make best use of the intelligence support we are providing. The President is right to say that U.S. troops will not return to ground combat in Iraq. The President is also right to say it is not our place to choose Iraq's leaders, because doing so is only likely to feed distrust and suspicion, and there is already too much of that in Iraq and in the Middle East. What we can do is promote moves toward the political unity that is so essential for Iraq if it is going to weather the crisis and make progress toward a stable, democratic society. The problem in Iraq has not been a lack of direct U.S. military involvement but, rather, a lack of inclusiveness on the part of Iraqi leaders. That is why I believe we should not consider any direct action on our part, such as air strikes, unless three very specific conditions have been met: First, that our military leaders tell us we have effective options that can help change the momentum on the ground in Iraq. In other words, only if our military leaders believe we can identify high-value targets--that striking them could have a measurable impact on the ability of the Iraqi security forces to stop and reverse the advances of the ISIL on the ground, and that we can strike them with minimal risk of civilian casualties and without dragging us further into the conflict. Second, any additional military action on our part should come only with the clear public support of our friends and allies in the region-- particularly moderate Arab leaders of neighboring countries. The United States has engaged in a comprehensive diplomatic effort to coordinate our response with Iraq's neighbors. If our strategy is to have the effect we want, it is essential that we have broad support in the region. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should not act unless leaders of all elements of Iraqi society--Shia, Sunni, Kurds, and religious minorities--join together in a formal request for more direct support. There is an obvious need for Iraqi leaders to form an inclusive unity government for their country's long-term success. But that process is likely to take some time, weeks or even months. But a unified formal statement requesting our further military assistance would be an important signal that Iraq's leaders understand the need to come together. It could not only be a sign that additional action on our part would be effective but also could be an important step toward creation of a national unity government. So far, the signs that Iraqi leaders are prepared to take the steps they need to take are mixed at best. Prime Minister Maliki, who has too often governed in a sectarian and authoritarian manner, delivered a speech recently in which he said national unity is essential to confront ISIL--which is true--but then he signaled little willingness to reach out to other groups. A number of prominent Shia leaders portrayed the conflict in starkly sectarian terms, and Shia militias, including those under the control of Moktada al-Sadr, have marched through the streets of Baghdad. There is little doubt also that Iran is pursuing its own sectarian agenda in the region. Some Iraqi Sunni leaders too have made statements that promote sectarian interests over the common good, and there are also fears that the Kurdish minority may exploit the situation. But on the other hand there have also been some signs that the Iraqi leaders recognize the need to confront the ISIL threat not as Sunnis or Shia or Kurds but together as Iraqis. Iraq's most influential Shia clerk, Ali Sistani, has called on all Iraqis ``to exercise the highest degree of restraint and work on strengthening the bonds of love between each other, and to avoid any kind of sectarian behavior that may affect the unity of the Iraqi nation,'' spreading the message that ``this army [the Iraqi Army] does not belong to the Shia. It belongs to all of Iraq. It is for the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurds and the Christians.'' That is the message from Ali Sistani--a very powerful message and a unifying message in contrast to the messages that should come, for instance, from Mr. Sadr. The United States has national security interests in Iraq, but further military involvement there will not serve those interests unless Iraq begins to move toward the inclusiveness and unity that is necessary if our involvement is to have a positive impact. Put another way, we cannot save Iraqis from themselves. Only if Iraq's leaders begin to unify their nation can help from us really matter. The ISIL is a vicious enemy. It is also the common enemy of all Iraqis--of all Iraqis and of Iraq's neighbors. If this vicious common enemy cannot unite Iraqis in a common cause, than our assistance, including airstrikes, won't matter. Only a unified Iraq governed by elected leaders who seek to rule in the interest of all their people can stand up to this threat. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on June 24, my hometown of Detroit and the State of Michigan lost a great friend and public servant. Indeed, the loss of Michael George at the age of 81 was a tremendous loss for all those who admire hard work, dedication, generosity, and commitment to making the world a better place. The son of immigrants, Mike was best known to many through his successful business ventures. He built a small, family-owned dairy business into Melody Farms, one of the largest and most successful dairy producers and distributors in the country. Had that been his only endeavor, we would have called Mike's life well-lived. But Mike was more than a businessman. He became a leader in Detroit's Chaldean community. Chaldeans--Catholics originating mainly from Iraq--settled in large numbers in Detroit along with other immigrants from the Middle East. Mike was deeply proud of his Chaldean heritage. He helped found the Chaldean Iraqi Association of Michigan, and chaired the Chaldean Federation of America. He helped hundreds of Chaldean-owned businesses to grow. And as religious minorities came under increasing persecution in the Middle East, he became a leader in helping to settle endangered Iraqi Christians in the United States. Mike didn't just serve the Chaldean community. He was passionately committed to Detroit and its rebirth. He served on countless charitable foundation boards and supported a host of worthy causes. Mike George was a walking, talking personification of the American Dream. He was a friend to the city of Detroit. He was a friend to me. Barbara and I join Mike's legion of friends in Michigan and around the country extending our condolences to his wife Najat, and his family and friends.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.