Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will close, first of all, if I might, commenting on TAA to the gentleman from Texas and to Mr. McCrery and Mr. Herger, who could not be here, we have a lot of work to do on TAA. We are working on legislation that would reform it as well as reauthorize it, that would expand its scope. To exclude service workers, for example, is no longer acceptable, if it ever was. We also need to be sure that we remove the obstacles to those who have been eligible on paper for TAA but, because of the obstacles and the complexities within the law, have really not been able to access it. We also need to look at the health benefit because today only about 10 percent of the people who are eligible for TAA ever are able to access the health benefit. So as mentioned by my friend from Washington and as I said earlier, as Mr. Rangel has also said publicly, we are working on legislation. We hope to have a draft ready next week, but we want to disseminate it and discuss it within the majority ranks, also to discuss it with the minority, in the hope that perhaps we can obtain strong bipartisan support. I don't think it's preordained on trade issues; I guess nothing is preordained. But there will be those discussions. But I want to serve notice that we really need to and intend to proceed, that this extension is not an excuse for the lack of basic action. And, secondly, I want the record to be entirely clear that TAA reform is critical, but it is no substitute for reform of our trade policy. We need to have programs that help those who are disadvantaged by trade, and for other reasons, to be able to have the opportunity, they have the desire, but also the opportunity to do some retraining, to obtain more education to extend their skills so that they can get back on their feet with a living wage. We also need to pass reform of trade policy that prevents dislocation in the first place, wherever possible. And to have the notion that simply ``catch those people who fall off because of dislocation'' isn't enough. We have to address the basic issues in trade policy. We began to do that in the Ways and Means Committee today in terms of a Peru FTA that I think are the first steps toward a new trade policy for America. I hope that we can do both and, if at all possible, on a bipartisan basis, but we need to do both.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3540.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there being no further requests on this side of the aisle, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3540) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, as amended.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3540 extends the financing and spending authority of the Airport and Airway trust fund. The trust fund taxes and spending authority are scheduled to expire on October 1, 2007. H.R. 3540 extends these taxes at current rates for 3 months. H.R. 3540 was unanimously reported out of the Ways and Means Committee with bipartisan support. This bill will keep the Airport and Airway trust fund taxes and operations in place until the long-term FAA Reauthorization Act is signed into law. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate--September 21, 2007

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise In strong support of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. This legislation provides a balanced, responsible and long-term approach to addressing the critical issue of energy security in this country. It provides long-term incentives for renewable energy that will give the solar, wind, and biomass industries the stability they need to increase production capacity. There are also significant incentives for making our Nation and economy more energy efficient. The bill provides resources to States and localities to help their residents improve the efficiency of their homes, as well as make public investments in energy-efficiency, transportation and research. The bill works across sectors and technologies, across governmental and private sector lines, and in both residential and commercial settings to reduce our Nation's dependence on fossil fuels. In a word, Mr. Speaker, the approach taken by this bill is comprehensive. I want to highlight two provisions in the bill that I think are particularly important. First, this legislation will increase the tax credit for alternative refueling property from 30 percent to 50 percent, and extend the credit through 2010. Nearly everyone agrees that biofuels such as E85 are an increasingly important component of our Nation's evolving energy strategy. Real progress has been made in recent years to spur use of alternative transportation fuels, and U.S. automakers have made significant investments to bring flex-fuel vehicles to market. But we need to speed the deployment of E85 pumps. This bill does just that. Next, this legislation provides incentives for manufacturers to produce washing machines, refrigerators and dishwashers that push the boundaries of energy and water efficiency, and to build them in the United States. Reducing the energy or water usage of a washing machine may seem like a small thing, but over time and across millions of households, these incentives will produce remarkable reductions in energy and water usage, and consumers will save money on their utility bills. Finally, I think it is unfortunate that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposing this package because it takes back just a few of the most outrageous tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Our work in this House is about priorities, and the difference in priorities on this bill could not be more clear. I urge all of my colleagues to support this responsible legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, Faygo Beverages is part of our Michigan tradition, and I rise today to recognize their 100 years of operations. Faygo was founded in Detroit on November 4, 1907 as Feigenson Brothers Bottling Works by Russian immigrants Ben and Perry Feigenson. The original flavors of Faygo, Fruit Punch, Strawberry and Grape, were based on cake frosting recipes used by the Feigensons in Russia. That is why these, and the flavors they developed later, were and still are so unique. Throughout the 20th century, Faygo steadily increased its production line. They coined the word ``pop,'' because of the sound made when opening the bottle and are credited with the spreading of the word ``pop'' instead of ``soda'' to mean ``soft drink'' in the Midwest. The brothers bought their first delivery truck, a 1922 Ford. They produced the soda one day, closed the factory the next day, loaded the product on a horse drawn wagon, and sold it for three cents or two for a nickel. The brand name changed to ``Faygo'' in the 30s, and after that, in 1935, the company moved to the corrent Detroit location. To say that we are proud of Faygo is an understatement. For those of us in Michigan, we grew up with it. In the 40s, ``The Faygo Kid'' appeared on television, with the famous Detroit line, ``Which way did he go? Which way did he go? He went for Faaaaaaygo!''. In the 60s, Strawberry Soda changed to ``Redpop.'' In the 70s, Faygo became pioneers of one way bottles, twist-off caps and warehouse distribution. Then there's the ``Faygo Boat Song,'' a memory for another generation. That 1970s commercial featured everyday people on a Boblo Island boat singing ``Remember when you were a kid? Well, part of you still is. And that's why we make Faygo.'' Madam Speaker, as one who grew up as a kid with thousands of others on Faygo pop, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering and congratulating this Michigan icon, Faygo Beverages, as it celebrates 100 years with employees and their families at the Detroit Zoo on Sunday, August 5, 2007.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, some issues are complicated. This one is quite simple. It's kids and more benefits for seniors. Five million more kids. I just wonder how many on the minority side are going to stand up and say no to 5 million kids, including kids where you live. Benefits for seniors are improved. And then we hear there will be benefits for illegal aliens, illegal immigrants? It's false. It's a lie. This does not go to illegal immigrants. I did read the bill, and I also read the minds of the American people. I also read the minds of the American people. They want the children of America covered by health insurance, and the Republicans have failed to do it in their years here. We're going to do it today for the 5 million kids in the United States of America. That's what this is all about. I rise in strong support of the Children's Health and Medicare Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation re-authorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program and improves Medicare for all beneficiaries. Some of the issues we debate in Congress are complicated. This issue is quite simple. It is about kids getting health care and seniors getting better Medicare benefits. The American people want the children of America covered by health msurance. The current health insurance program covers 6 million children nationwide, including 55,000 kids in my home State of Michigan. But when two-thirds of the 9 million uninsured kids in America are eligible, but not participating, we need to extend the reach of the program. Extending this program means giving States the resources they need to reach out and cover these 6 million kids. This important legislation not only allows more kids to have health insurance, but it also makes long-needed improvements to the Medicare program. Improvements include ensuring physician access for Medicare beneficiaries, lowering the cost of mental health care for seniors, eliminating co-pays and deductibles for preventative services like mammograms and colonoscopy screenings, and expanding programs that help low-income seniors pay for their health care and prescriptions. The Republicans reject this bill because it does not fit their rigid ideology. This bill is about a program that works and kids that need health care.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the lead sponsor of this resolution, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and someone who has taken a lead on human rights issues around this globe, Mr. Lantos of California.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my admiration for the comments on both sides of the aisle, for the statement of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) and the very eloquent words of my colleague from California. I hope, as we proceed to pass this, that the words will be remembered, and that they will echo beyond Washington, D.C., through capitals everywhere, so others will join us in trying to help bring about the freedom that the vast majority of people of Burma truly desire. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, as amended.

Mr. LEVIN. This bill will renew the import ban on products from Burma. In light of the overwhelming evidence that that country continues to blatantly disregard human rights and suppress democracy, it is important, indeed I would say vital, to continue to continue sanctions for another year. The State Peace and Development Consul, as it is called, the controlling military junta, continues to have total disregard for its own people and their basic rights. The Burmese regime forcibly relocates civilians and has created a situation in which hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced or forced to flee to neighboring countries. That government continues to arrest, imprison, torture, and beat political activists and senior officials of the National League for Democracy. Over 1,100 political prisoners are imprisoned. In May, the Government of Burma extended the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. She has been detained for 11 of the last 17 years without charge or trial, and has spent the past 4 years in isolation. In light of that country's continuing dismal record and its lack of any concrete steps to provide basic human rights to its citizens, I urge all of my colleagues to extend the ban on the import of Burmese products for another year. And also, very importantly, we hope the European Union, ASEAN, and other nations around the world will continue to work with the United States to increase pressure on the Burmese regime. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and urge my colleagues to support the bill. It has become painfully obvious that the White House is incapable of changing course in Iraq. The Bush administration's talking points about the situation in Iraq change from week to week, but the fundamental strategy remains the same. The President is determined that our troops will remain in Iraq no matter what. The latest White House talking points are aimed at getting the American people to believe that the surge in Iraq just began a couple weeks ago, instead of 6 months ago. In fact, the President announced the surge back on January 10, and the troop escalation began in early February. The White House is emphasizing today that it finds that Iraq is making ``satisfactory'' progress in some areas, such as the cooperation between U.S. forces and tribal sheiks in Anbar province as well as the formation of a Constitutional Review Committee, although the constitutional review itself is not complete. The reality is that the Iraqi Government has not approved a law to share Iraq's oil wealth. It has not enacted legislation to reform the De-Ba'athification laws. It has not disarmed the militias. It has not made progress on ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law. It has not made progress toward increasing the number of Iraqi Security Forces units capable of operating independently. It has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing a date for provincial elections. In the past 6 months, nearly 600 of our troops have died. More than 13,000 Iraqis have died. The level of violence in Iraq has not decreased. The violence and attacks have simply shifted away from places where our forces are concentrated. Six months into the surge, there is no indication that the Iraqis are coming together to make the political decisions necessary to end the sectarian violence that is tearing their country apart. Time has shown that whatever small chance there is of the Iraqi factions coming together, it will not happen as long as the U.S. military commitment in Iraq remains open-ended. We need to change course. The bill before the House does just that. It requires the Department of Defense to begin a phased and orderly redeployment of our combat troops from Iraq starting in 120 days of enactment, with the troop reduction to be complete by April 1, 2008. No other way has worked to convince the Iraqis that they need to step up and reach a political settlement to end the sectarian violence.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues suggested earlier that debating the war as we are today is breaking the will of the American people. On the contrary, it's the people's will that is breaking down the wall of a tragically mistaken policy. It has become painfully obvious that the White House is incapable of changing course in Iraq. The Bush administration's talking points about the situation change from week to week, but the fundamental strategy remains the same. The President has determined our troops will remain in Iraq no matter what. The reality is that the government of Iraq is not meeting the benchmark. Six months into the surge, there is no indication that the Iraqis are coming together to make the political decisions necessary to end the sectarian violence that's tearing the country apart. They are unlikely to do so as long as the U.S. military commitment remains open-ended. We need to change course. Support this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. In 2004, a report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth laid out how two-thirds of the jobs created in the next decade will require post-secondary education and training. There is little debate that Michigan's economic future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the completion of degrees in higher education. Despite increasing costs across the country and in our state, our federal investment in higher education has faltered. Direct grant aid, which once made up roughly 60 percent of the federal government's student aid contribution has dropped to 40 percent, with the remaining 60 percent offered through loans. The real dollar value of Pell Grants has sunk in recent years, while the average college graduate is now faced with close to $17,500 in debt. For lower and middle income students and families these costs are simply too great, forcing nearly 200,000 to delay or postpone their college dreams because of the prohibitive costs. It has become increasingly clear that the failure of the federal government to adequately invest in higher education will have effects beyond college accessibility. In 2005, the National Academies of Sciences released a report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' which expressed deep concern that our country is losing its competitive advantage in science and technology research, two fields that are critical to our economic leadership. The seriousness of our higher education crisis necessitates a comprehensive response of dramatic proportions. The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 rises to this challenge by investing $18 billion over the next 5 years in higher education, the single largest investment in college financial aid since the GI Bill in 1944. The maximum Pell Grant is boosted $500 to $5,200--up from just $4,050 in 2006--with its eligibility expanded to more students. TEACH grants are established to provide $4,000 per year for high-achieving students who commit to teach in high-need schools or high-need fields--like math and science. The interest rates for need-based student loans would be halved. In Michigan, over 200,000 students could see benefits from the Pell increases and about 144,000 student borrowers with subsidized loans would see savings of over $4,200 on average over the life of their loans. This bill provides close to $513 million in loans and grants to Michigan's students and families. The investments in this bill maintain the commitment made by this Democratic Congress to fiscal responsibility. The bill is fully offset by trimming excessive federal subsidies to lenders in the college loan industry. Not only will this not cost taxpayers a dime, it includes $750 million over 5 years to pay down our national deficit. The College Cost Reduction Act meets the mounting hurdle of higher education affordability with vigorous across-the-board grant aid and loan investments. It shows the commitment by this Congress to the availability of a college education and the importance of this education to our economic competitiveness. Improving access to higher education is vital to expanding opportunity for Michigan students and building Michigan's economic future. This has to be an ongoing priority for the federal government and this legislation is an important step in the right direction. With this legislation, Congress has stepped up to the plate to ensure a better future for our students, their families and our country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who chairs the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to a very valued Member of this body, and we came to this institution together, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to be clear; we're voting on the Andean Trade Preference Act, we are not voting on FTAs. We are not voting for a bridge to other agreements, we're voting on the merits of the extension of this Trade Preference Act. It has basically worked. On this side, we're opposed to one-way trade agreements. This has been a two-way passage for those countries and for this country. Our trade, if you include oil not covered by the Trade Preference Act, has essentially been in balance. We should extend this on its own merits. In terms of asparagus, if you look at the facts, it shows that these agreements are basically complementary and not competitive. I urge support of this extension, as I said, on its own merits, not because anyone is trying to use this as a path to anything else. Vote ``yes'' on this. Be clear. This has been a two-way street, which this side of the aisle has insisted on as a basic part of American trade policy, and we will continue to do that, building upon it with a new model of trade. I urge a strong vote for this extension.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed, it should be clear. We're talking now about the Andean Trade Preference Act, and we're not talking about the free trade agreements that have been discussed here. In my view, whether one supports or opposes any of those free trade agreements, it would be counterproductive for someone to vote against extension of the ATPA for 8 months. This relates, as mentioned, to the four nations. The original ATPA was passed in 1991, and it was expanded and extended through a voice vote in the year 2001. I think it should be emphasized that, basically, our trade relationship with these four nations is more complementary than it is competitive. That's a crucial issue. And if you exclude oil and oil products, our trade balance, our relationship, is essentially balanced in the range of 10- to $11 billion that we export and they export, if you exclude oil, which is not covered by the ATPA. The Andean countries are a steadily growing market for U.S. goods, and that meant there was an increase, a rather substantial one, in 2005 over 2004. Let me touch briefly on issues that have been discussed regarding the ATPA. First, apparel. The Andean Trade Preference Act requires the use of U.S. yarns in fabrics, so it isn't a one-way street. And it's somewhat technical, but if you include, if you look at the source of the fabric, essentially the U.S. has made clear that we're not going to be left out in the cold. In terms of crops, whether they're fruit or vegetable crops, the trade is far more seasonal. In that sense, the trade is far more complementary than it is competitive. And so it's been of mutual interest to have this Andean Trade Preference Act. And that's why it was passed originally with broad support. It was extended with broad support. There was controversy last time because it was tied to TPA, and it essentially gave different treatment to Bolivia and Ecuador that this bill does not do. So it's also, I think, because of the complementariness of this agreement that it has had broad support in this country, and that's true in good parts of the management ranks as well as the labor ranks. There's been reference here to drugs, and that's been a mixed picture. But I think there is evidence that the ATPA, which was originally passed as part of a drug eradication strategy, has had some positive impact in several countries, much less so I think in Colombia than in Bolivia and Peru. If this is not renewed, I think it would be mutually disadvantageous. I think, because of the mutuality of this agreement, the way it's worked out, that we should pass it. And I close by emphasizing we're talking today about the renewal, or I should say the extension, of the ATPA for 8 months. We're not talking about free trade agreements. I strongly urge approval of this 8-month extension.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, a distinguished colleague, indeed, Mr. Kind from Wisconsin.