Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1281, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill. We have come a long way since the Jim Crow era of voter disenfranchisement and intimidation, but we still have a long way yet to go to ensure an equal right to vote for all citizens. Every election, we hear shocking and disgraceful stories of voters being lied to about their voter registration or citizenship status, polling place information, or even the date of the election, in order to suppress the vote in certain areas. The targets of these tactics seem to always be the same: racial minorities, immigrants and poor communities. Thomas Paine once said, ``Voting is the right upon which all other rights depend.'' Throughout our nation's history, Congress has acted to ensure that right, granting African Americans and women the right to vote, prohibiting states from requiring the payment of poll taxes to vote, and the passage and reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today, we continue in that grand tradition with passage of this important legislation to make it unlawful to knowingly communicate false information with the intent to prevent another person from casting a ballot. The right to vote may be the most basic right we have as Americans, but we must remain vigilant in protecting this right in order to ensure that it is not weakened or undermined by those who seek political gain at the expense of this basic tenet of democracy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1281.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, over 25 years ago I was assistant administrator of AID, running the population program. This issue of fungibility came up. We were assiduously implementing the Hyde amendment. So we tried through accounting mechanisms to address the fungibility issue. So then it was said that's not enough. So then Mexico City was proposed and implemented. This is not a repeal of the Mexico City policy. Whatever one thinks of it, it is not. This isn't about abortion, and it really isn't about fungibility. Mr. Wolf, if you take your position far enough, we should give no military assistance to any country that has a policy on family planning that you don't like because in that sense it is fungible. But that carries it beyond a rule of reason. And what this proposal does is to apply a rule of reason, as has been said, to contraceptives provided in kind to people who need these contraceptives. That is the long and the short of this. And, essentially, you are the ones who are blurring the issue, not us. And if you take your logic to the extreme, you will tie this appropriation process for numerous countries into knots. This is trying to untie a knot, if you want to put it that way, only in the sense of providing products in kind to people who need them. And if you say you are for family planning and you vote otherwise, you are voting against family planning.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we can guarantee that there will be no results. From juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease to Multiple Sclerosis and cancer, stem cell research has the potential to begin to uncover cures for the diseases that affect our constituents and our families. In the debate over fixing our broken health care system in America, we cannot afford to ignore the medical breakthroughs in disease management that stem cell research has the potential to uncover. Some opponents of this legislation argue that the federal government already significantly funds stem cell research or that private entities will step in to take up the slack. The reality is that stem cell research is practically at a standstill in this country today. Of the 78 stem cell lines currently permitted under federally funded research, 57 are contaminated and are thus incapable of producing such breakthroughs. Research has been stifled under the Administration's stem cell policy. This morning's news highlights a recent scientific paper written by scientists that have manipulated an ordinary mouse skin cell into what may be effectively an embryonic stem cell. More research must be done to see if scientists can coax human skin cells to have the same qualities as embryonic stem cells; however, as advocate Sean Tipton told the Washington Post this morning, ``You cannot make good policy one scientific paper at a time.'' The bill before us today encourages further research on isolating and testing non-embryonic cells and at the same time lifts the ban on federal support of embryonic stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan approach. The bill only allows the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The legislation contains strict ethical guidelines, including the requirement that embryos can be used only if the donor give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange. The President vetoed very similar legislation last year, and there is little doubt that he will veto it again. The medical research that embryonic stem cell lines offer is crucial for millions of people dealing with incurable and debilitating diseases. It is an insufficient response for Congress to simply accept the Bush Administration's intransigence on this issue. The legislation before us is a bipartisan bill that strong majorities of the House and Senate support. Further, it is clear that a broad majority of Americans support responsible embryonic stem cell research. The real question today is whether enough Members of the House now recognize that the current stem cell policy is not working and are willing to vote for a better way forward. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, voting ``no'' today will not bring home the troops during the next four months. The President is determined that the troops remain during this period. The danger is that cutting the funds could leave our troops in Iraq without the necessary equipment, including equipment vital for their safety. It is so difficult to watch the deaths of so many brave American soldiers. Until we can force the President to bring them home, we must give them the equipment they need to keep them safe. So de-funding this supplemental will not shorten the war but could endanger the safety of our men and women in uniform. This is the issue confronting those of us, like myself, who actively opposed going to war in the first place 4 years ago, and who have voted time and again since then to press the White House and the Iraqi government to achieve a number of key benchmarks so our troops can come home. The Iraqi government has to finally step up and make some difficult political decisions and end the sectarian violence that is tearing their country apart. The benchmarks contained in this bill are important, but they would be much more effective if they were backed up by a realistic timetable for the redeployment of our troops if the benchmarks are not met. The House and Senate approved just such a bill last month, but the President vetoed it and there were not enough votes in either the House or the Senate to override the President. Everyone should understand that it was not for lack of Democratic votes that we were unable to force the President to change direction on Iraq. The problem is that it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a Presidential veto and only a handful of Republicans were willing to vote with us. This bill contains funds to provide our troops with body armor, vehicles designed to withstand improvised explosive devices, countermeasures to roadside bombs and mines, and medical care to treat their injuries. Again, voting no on the bill today won't force the President to withdraw our troops from Iraq; it just means our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan won't get the resources they need to protect themselves. Voting no would also cut off funding needed to sustain our military and political efforts in Afghanistan. This is an area that many of us feel deserves more attention and resources, not less. It is critical that today's vote is not the end of this debate. The funds provided for Iraq in this bill run only through September. In the weeks ahead, there will be other opportunities for Congress to change the direction of this war, to hold the Iraqi government and President Bush accountable, and bring our troops home. The legislation we need to debate and pass is one that essentially deauthorizes our current military involvement in Iraq and provide a responsible timeline for the orderly redeployment of our forces. I regret that this is not the bill before us today, but we will have this debate in September. At that time, I hope that more of our Republican colleagues will join us in voting to change the President's policy on Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, as well as H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act. When the new Democratic Congress convened on January 4, our first action was the approval of a sweeping package of changes to restore the integrity and fiscal responsibility of the House of Representatives. While these reforms represented the most significant ethics and lobbying revisions in decades, we promised that this would be just the first step in ending the cozy relationships between Congress and special interest lobbyists. Today we take the next important step. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act H.R. 2316 mandates quarterly disclosure of lobbying reports; ends the K Street Project of Members and staff influencing employment decisions of private entities for partisan political gain; increases disclosure of lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers; and establishes an online, searchable public database of lobbyist disclosure information. One of the most important provisions of this lobbying reform package is the Lobbying Transparency Act, H.R. 2317. This legislation requires a registered lobbyist who also serves as a fundraiser to disclose the campaign checks that he or she solicits or ``bundles.'' When lobbyists also act as campaign fundraisers, a possible conflict of interest arises, making it all the more necessary to allow for greater public awareness as to their actions and treatment. Reforming the way that lobbyists and Members of Congress do business is the right thing to do not only because it will help to restore the trust of the American people in their institution of Congress, but also because doing so has a very real impact in putting the power back into the hands of the public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2316 and H.R. 2317.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1252, I rise in support of the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, and urge its passage by the House. Gasoline prices are now at record highs. In my home state of Michigan, the average price of regular gas is $3.47 a gallon--a full 66 cents a gallon higher than it was at this time last year. According to the General Accounting Office, the rise in gasoline prices this year has drained consumers of an extra $20 billion. The six largest oil companies announced $30 billion in profits over the first three months of 2007 alone. This is on top of the $125 billion in profits they racked up last year. The other side says that we should do nothing. They say that it's a world market for oil, and therefore something we cannot control. How then do they explain that the cost of gasoline has been rising even in the face of falling world oil prices? We must face the fact that there is something wrong in the distribution chain, especially during times of energy emergencies such as when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. As a first step in attacking the problem, we need to give the Federal Trade Commission the explicit authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate the price of gasoline. The oil companies oppose this bill. The White House also has indicated that the President may veto the bill. With all due resect, we work for our constituents, not the oil companies and not the White House. I urge the House to stand with consumers and vote for this needed legislation. Mr. HARE Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. Oil prices are continuing to skyrocket, increasing the burden on American families, small businesses, and individuals who rely on their vehicles for their livelihood. Every day I hear from troubled constituents who are paying over $3.00 per gallon at the pump. Constituents like Richard Benefiel, a small business owner who called me yesterday out of desperation explaining he would have to shut down his shipping operation in less than 30 days unless relief was provided. On the other hand, Exxon-Mobil raked in $9.3 billion between January and March--its best first quarter in history. This is unacceptable. The bill before us today is a much needed step toward addressing market manipulation by Big Oil and the egregious impact it has on the American consumer. The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act provides the Federal Trade Commission with new authority to investigate and prosecute energy companies who engage in predatory pricing, market manipulation, and other unfair practices, with an emphasis on those who profit most, thereby providing immediate and much needed relief to consumers. Yet, this is only the first step in bringing down energy costs. Last year, our Nation hit its highest dependence on foreign oil, importing 771,000 barrels daily from Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. This served as a wake-up call for the United States to begin taking measures to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I refuse to continue to allow OPEC, which accounts for 65 percent of internationally traded oil, to continue to dictate our Nation's gas prices. Antitrust laws must be put into action and greedy oil exporters need to be held accountable. I am pleased that we voted yesterday to pass H.R. 2264, which authorizes the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC state-controlled entities who conspire to limit supply or fix the price of oil. I also believe that building a diverse energy portfolio which focuses on renewable, homegrown energy sources like ethanol, biodiesel, as well as wind, solar, hydro-power and clean-coal technologies is a critical step toward energy independence, which will bring down prices, and clean up our environment. The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act is a critical first step in addressing skyrocketing energy costs and I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation will give state and local law enforcement the tools and resources they need to prevent and prosecute violent hate crimes. In the not so distant past, violence motivated by hatred or discrimination towards a minority was sanctioned by our government. As we struggled to right the inequities present in our society, many used targeted violence against individual African Americans as a tactic to scare African Americans in general and discourage the Civil Rights Movement overall. This type of targeted violence against a minority--violence specifically intended to intimidate and repress all members of that minority--was particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a whole. Congress recognized that these particularly heinous actions warranted stronger criminal penalties, which were codified in Federal hate crimes law in 1968. Unfortunately, almost 20 years later bias-based violence continues, and while the groups and individuals victimized have changed, the damage remains the same. In 1998, Matthew Sheppard was viciously murdered because of his sexual orientation. In January 2000, a 16-year- old high school female student was brutally attacked by a group of teenagers because the student was holding hands with another girl--a common practice in her native country in Africa. Just last October, Michael Sandy was beaten then chased into traffic and killed because he was gay. Under current law, the attackers in each of these cases could not be prosecuted for a hate crime for two reasons. First, in order for it to constitute a federal hate crime, a victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting. Second, the current hate crime law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act addresses both these gaps in current law by expanding the definition of a hate crime to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also expands the instances in which federal authorities can prosecute or assist local authorities in prosecuting hate crimes. Importantly, the bill before the House includes specific language stating that nothing in the bill can be interpreted to prohibit ``expressive conduct'' protected by the First Amendment. In doing so, we have ensured that this legislation in no way impinges on one's constitutional right to freedom of speech or religious expression. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act enjoys the strong support of law enforcement, and has been endorsed by International Association of Chief of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys Association, as well as 31 state Attorneys General. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. In doing so we are sending a clear message that hate crimes have no place in America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today there are two distinct messages coming out of Washington. The first message is from a majority of the Congress and underscores impatience with the lack of political progress in Iraq. We call for a new direction, including enforceable benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. The other message is from the White House. The message the President is sending is that America's military commitment in Iraq remains open-ended, no matter what. The President keeps saying that we're making progress in Iraq. This claim cannot be reconciled with the facts. Nearly everyone agrees that there is no military solution possible in Iraq; rather, the Iraqis must make the political compromises necessary to end the violence. But where is the progress on the benchmarks that the President himself has endorsed? Where is the agreement to fairly share Iraq's oil wealth among all of Iraq's people? Where is the law reversing the disastrous de-Baathification policy? Where are the promised new election laws? Where is the progress on amending the Iraqi constitution to address longstanding Sunni concerns? The Iraqi government has repeatedly promised action on all of these, but there is little forward movement after many months. Benchmarks are only real if there are consequences for failure to meet them. Back in January, the President said, and I quote, ``if the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people--and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.'' But by vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the President has made it clear that failure to follow through on the benchmarks will not result in the loss of the White House's support for this open-ended war. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has been wrong so many times about nearly every aspect of the war in Iraq. Now the President comes to Congress again to ask for yet another blank check. We should not give him one. I urge the House to override the President's veto.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 518, I rise in strong support of this measure. The issue of waste coming into Michigan from Ontario is one of great concern to the people I represent, and I appreciate Representative Dingell's tireless efforts to move this legislation. Like the bill approved by the House last year, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency to implement and enforce the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada. The Administrator is required to issue final regulations within 24 months after the date of enactment. The legislation further requires the Administrator of EPA, when considering whether to consent to a shipment of foreign municipal solid waste to give substantial weight to the views of the recipient State or States, and also consider the impact of the shipment on local recycling programs, landfill capacity, road deterioration, homeland security, public health and the environment, among other factors. As I mentioned, the bill before the House is nearly identical to the legislation that the House approved last September. Unfortunately, the former leadership of the Senate failed to take up the bill last year, despite bipartisan pleas from Michigan's House delegation urging prompt action. Now that the Senate is under new management, I hope we can at last address this longstanding problem and get a bill to the President's desk for signature. Our Nation has no closer friend in the world than Canada, but the current trash arrangement in which hundreds of trash trucks cross the border each day on their way to Michigan landfills is simply untenable. The legislation before the House builds on the agreement that Michigan's two Senators negotiated with the government of Ontario last year to reduce municipal waste shipments from Canada over the next four years. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the legislation before the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, last Friday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcalls 236 through 244. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 236, the Sessions Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 237, the Garrett Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 238, the Campbell Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call 239, the McHenry Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 240, the Price Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 241, the Putnam Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 242, the Price Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 243, the motion to recommit H.R. 1257 with instructions. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 244, final passage of H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1257, the Shareholder vote on Executive Compensation Act. Earlier this year, the Ways and Means Committee held a series of hearings on the state of the U.S. economy. We heard from experts across a variety of disciplines and a wide spectrum of political perspectives, and one of the recurring themes we heard from them was that income inequality is rising, and that this trend is eroding the public's confidence in the fundamental fairness of our society and our public policy. Recent data indicate that in 2005, the share of national income going to the top one percent of earners jumped to 19.3 percent, representing the highest degree of income concentration since 1929. Rising executive compensation is, of course, just one component of this trend, but it is one of the most visible. What are middle-class families who are struggling with the rising costs of health care and higher education to think when they read about CEOs that are given tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars to leave companies whose stock price has fallen precipitously? These executives are not being rewarded for their performance, they are apparently being rewarded for squandering billions of dollars of shareholder value. Mr. Chairman, corporations are creations of government, and by law, their boards have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders who are the owners of that corporation. A variety of scandals from Enron to options backdating have called into question the independence of boards that are often hand-picked by management, and we have taken steps both through legislation and the regulatory process to strengthen the independence of boards of directors. The measure before us is a relatively modest additional step to ensure that corporations and their management operate in the interest of shareholders. All we are saying in this bill is that shareholders own these corporations, and they should have an annual, non-binding vote on the corporation's executive compensation disclosures. The opposition of the minority to this is simply inconsistent. They call for an ``ownership society'' that would all too often shift ever greater risk onto individuals, and then oppose giving individual shareholders a non-binding vote on the compensation of senior executives who are the guardians of their investment. Corporations do not exist to serve the interests of management, they exist to serve the interest of their owners. Mr. Chairman, it is not too much to ask that hardworking Americans who have made an investment in a company be given the opportunity of an advisory vote on the pay of managers who are essentially their employees. Again, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation is a modest, common-sense reform that will strengthen corporate governance in our society, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate William Clay Ford, Jr., on being a recipient of the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit's ``City of Detroit'' Boneh Kehillah Award. Mr. Ford displays an unwavering devotion, as a business and community leader, to the people and the company that help define Detroit as the Motor City. It is my privilege to acknowledge Mr. Ford for his exemplary commitment to the growth of 21st century innovation and ushering in a renewed sense of community and pride to the citizens of Metro Detroit. Among the many titles Mr. Ford has held throughout his career with Ford Motor Company, he is most notably recognized for serving as the President and CEO of Ford Motor Company and for his continuing role as executive chairman of the board of directors. Mr. Ford is a proven leader in the automotive industry and a conscientious environmentalist, a combination that allows him to promote technology that improves our lives while investing in Michigan's economic future and preserving our planet. Mr. Ford displays a commitment to the spread of ideas and humanitarianism that reach far beyond the walls of the boardroom. He humbly utilizes his resources to give back to the community and takes an active role in organizations that promote regional economic revitalization such as Detroit Renaissance and the Detroit Economic Club. Mr. Ford inherited a name that is easily identified with Detroit, but it is his actions and personal convictions that ultimately define him as a spirited leader in our community. I am honored to express my gratitude and admiration to Mr. Ford. He truly exemplifies ``Boneh Kehillah'' through his on-going efforts to foster a bold plan for the future of Metro Detroit and its workers. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Ford on this momentous occasion. May he know of our admiration and warmest wishes for continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act and urge its passage by the House. I want to compliment Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for making early passage of this legislation a priority. The last Water Resources bill was signed into law over 6 years ago by President Clinton. It is Congress' job to renew this law every 2 years, but for whatever reason, we have been unable to reach agreement with the other body and get a final bill to the President for his signature. The Nation's water and environmental infrastructure problems won't wait forever. We need to overcome our past differences and move this bill to upgrade and modernize our Federal programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and environmental restoration. I want to express my thanks to Chairman Oberstar for including a project I requested to authorize Federal funding to implement restoration projects in Lake St. Clair. In the past, Lake St. Clair has been described as ``the forgotten lake.'' No longer. Today, many of my constituents refer to Lake St. Clair as the ``Heart of the Great Lakes.'' We need to protect and restore it. Lake St. Clair is not the largest body of water in the Great Lakes System, but it is absolutely one of the most heavily used portions of the Lakes in terms of fishing, boating and drinking water. Two years ago, the Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive management plan for Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River. Congress paid for this plan. The recommendations contained in the management plan will help shape Lake St. Clair's future, but only if they are implemented. Having come this far, we can't let the report and its recommendations become another study that sits on a shelf and gathers dust. Everyone, including the federal government, has to step forward and take responsibility for turning these recommendations into action. Again, I support the bill before the House and urge its adoption.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise to congratulate Florine Mark on being a recipient of the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit's Jewish Community Boneh Kehillah Award. It is my privilege to applaud Ms. Mark as a deserving community member and friend for her many years of entrepreneurship, community service, and civil activism on a day when she is being acknowledged for her vast achievements. As President and Chairman of the Board of The WW Group, Inc., Ms. Mark displays a keen business sense and devotion to promoting the physical and mental well-being of her fellow citizens, a commitment that she has worked diligenty to nurture and expand for over 30 years. In addition to her successful business career, Ms. Mark displays a devotion to the community at large and a gracious heart through her insight and support of local and national organizations on women's issues, healthy lifestyles, and the preservation of our rich cultural heritage. The American Heart Association, Detroit Institute for Children, Detroit Renaissance and Seeds of Peace are just a few of the many organizations that have benefited from her involvement. Beyond her role as a business leader and pillar of the community, Ms. Mark is also the proud mother of 5 children and 19 grandchildren who share a bond of giving and receiving to each other, their neighbors and community. I am honored to express my gratitude and admiration to Ms. Mark for the profound impact she has on the lives of men and women around the country and her impact on the Metro-Detroit Community. She truly exemplifies ``Boneh Kehilla''. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Mark on this momentous occasion. May she know of our admiration and warmest wishes for continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1677, the Taxpayer Protection Act. I would note that its consideration today is particularly timely as millions of hardworking Americans file their tax returns. Those workers and families deserve to know that their government is taking every step to protect the sensitive data contained in those returns and to enhance taxpayer rights. Identity theft is a large and growing problem in our society, and unfortunately, a lack of vigilance on the part of the IRS has contributed to that problem. One criminal who testified before the Senate Finance Committee last week detailed how he stole $1.1 million from the Treasury by using stolen identities to claim fraudulent refunds. While this individual is rightly serving time in prison, we must act to prevent such crimes in the future. This legislation contains a number of common sense provisions to accomplish just that, including a requirement that the IRS notify a taxpayer if it discovers that there may have been an unauthorized use of the taxpayer's identity during the course of a tax fraud investigation and the authority for the IRS to notify taxpayers on the Internet about unclaimed tax refunds. It also increases penalties on misleading websites that use government names and symbols to engage in the fraudulent practice known as ``phishing. `` I am also pleased that it enhances Earned Income Tax Credit outreach so that every taxpayer who is eligible for this credit realizes its benefits. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to make permanent the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Ryan, who sponsored this bill in the last Congress, for working with me in this matter. I would also like to thank Representatives John Lewis, Wally Herger, John Tanner, Dave Camp, Rahm Emanuel, Phil English, Shelley Berkley, Jerry Weller, Joe Crowley, Ron Lewis, Allyson Schwartz and Eric Cantor who are joining Mr. Ryan and myself in introducing this legislation. Last year, a version of Mr. Ryan's legislation, H.R. 3098, was incorporated into the Tax Relief and Health Care Act. As a result, homeowners who purchase mortgage insurance will be able to deduct the premiums they pay beginning January 1st of this year. Unfortunately, the provision is temporary and expires December 31, 2007. The legislation we are introducing today will make this deduction permanent. Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time, low- and middle-income, minority and veteran borrowers afford to purchase a home. The Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Rural Housing Service and private mortgage insurance programs allow these homebuyers to obtain a mortgage with a significantly reduced down payment of 3 percent or less of the appraised value, addressing one of the key barriers to homeownership. As a result of our legislation, mortgage insurance will be a more affordable option for families that want to purchase a home. Particularly given the ongoing problems associated with subprime lending, it is important that we continue to make premiums on new mortgage insurance contracts deductible beyond the end of this year. According to the most recent data, more than 388,000 families in my home state of Michigan held mortgages with either FHA or private mortgage insurance, and insured mortgages comprised 36 percent of home purchase loans originated in Michigan from 2000-2005. Mortgage insurance covered 40 percent of the mortgage loans made to African American or Hispanic borrowers. Borrowers earning less than 120 percent of area median income comprised 80 percent of the insured home purchase loans originated in the state. Nationwide, 11.5 million families presently use mortgage insurance. The people who use mortgage insurance are our neighbors. They are policemen, firemen, teachers, and veterans who live in every community in everyone of our districts. This House has a longstanding commitment to expanding homeownership and to achieve that goal, we must expand the circle of people that are able to participate in the housing market. Making the tax deduction for mortgage insurance premium payments permanent will help make the American dream of owning a home come true for many more of our citizens. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and join us in working towards its enactment at the earliest opportunity this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before the House, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. This measure supports our troops in the field. It provides more resources to ensure that our wounded service members and veterans receive the health care and support they need. And it sets a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of our troops. Our Nation continues to pay a high price for the administration's reckless invasion of Iraq and the President's open-ended commitment of U.S. military forces in that country. Our troops are entering their fifth year in Iraq, and there is no end in sight. The situation is deteriorating. Iraq is descending into a civil war. For the last 4 years, the former Republican majority in the Congress sat on its hands and followed the President's policy like robots. The American people elected a new majority in the House and Senate so that Congress would stand up and stop being a rubber stamp for the President. The President's open-ended policies of committing U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as it takes is not working. We need a new way forward. The only chance to salvage the situation in Iraq is to put real pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. Last January 10, President Bush addressed the Nation and admitted that the situation in Iraq was descending into a vicious cycle of sectarian violence. He laid out a series of actions that the Iraqi Government would have to take; benchmarks that the Iraqis would have to follow through on or lose the support of the American people. The President said that Iraq would approve legislation to share oil revenue among the Iraq people; that Iraq would spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects; that Iraq would reform the laws governing de-Baathification and allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life; that Iraq would establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution; and that Iraq would set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections. The President said, ``America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' Since President Bush made that speech two months ago, 217 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. More than 3,200 American soldiers have died since the war began. More than 23,000 have been wounded. Until the Iraqis step up to the plate and make the difficult political decisions that need to be made, the sectarian violence will continue and American military men and women will continue to be killed and wounded. Either the factions in Iraq are going to come together and make these decisions, or they are not. We should not leave our troops in harm's way indefinitely and just hand the President another blank check to continue an open-ended policy with no end in sight. The legislation before the House supports the troops, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. It holds the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks for progress that the President outlined in his January 10 speech. Under this bill, if the President cannot certify that Iraq has achieved these benchmarks by October 1 of this year, a redeployment of U.S. troops begins immediately and must be completed within 180 days. Absent this pressure, the Iraqi Government will continue to postpone action on achieving the benchmarks. If the Iraqi Government does, indeed, meet the benchmarks by October 1, redeployment of U.S. forces would begin next March and be completed within 180 days. After more than 4 years, this legislation would end the open-ended commitment to this war. It would set a clear timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Without this pressure, there is little chance that the Iraqi leaders will make the decisions necessary to end civil war and build one nation. Our country cannot make these decisions for them. I urge passage of this legislation by the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill. Estimates indicate that nearly 1,000 veterans receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) take their own lives each year. This should be a clear sign that more must be done to address the very serious and troubling issue of veterans' suicide. Many veterans continue to return from Iraq and Afghanistan with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental health concerns, and we must equip the VA with the information and resources they need in order to ensure that our veterans receive adequate care. When this legislation was first brought to my attention earlier this year, I happened to come across an Associated Press news story about a young man from Minnesota who served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq. Upon returning home from Iraq, he experienced nightmares and paranoia, often re-living his combat experiences in his sleep. On January 11, 2007, he told staff at a VA hospital that he felt suicidal. He mentioned this again over the phone the next day to VA staff. Despite these direct pleas for help, no action was taken, and 4 days later, he killed himself in his Minnesota home. He was 25 years old. H.R. 327 takes a number of important steps towards reducing the incidence of suicide among veterans. This legislation directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive program to regularly screen and monitor all veterans for risk factors of suicide, set up a tracking and counseling referral system to ensure all veterans found to be a suicide risk will receive the appropriate help, and provide education and training for all VA staff, contractors, and medical personnel who have interaction with veterans. The legislation would also provide 24-hour mental health care for veterans who are believed to be at risk for suicide, so that veterans could seek assistance whenever they need it. Our Nation's veterans fight for us overseas, and deserve proper care when they return home. This includes educating VA staff, veterans and their families about PTSD and suicide prevention in order to encourage service members to seek mental health assistance when necessary. Now more than ever, as service members return home with PTSD and other mental health issues, it is essential that we provide adequate mental health care that can help prevent suicide among our Nation's veterans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 327.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairwoman, two points. The revolving fund has meant so much to the district I represent. The 12-town drain system before was an open sewer, and with the revolving fund help, we were able to address and attack the problem. My second point is this: It is interesting that those who come here complaining about the Davis-Bacon provision have been in a party that has sat on its hands on this issue year after year and have come from a party whose President has suggested cutting the revolving fund by $396 million. You should have acted long ago to make the revolving fund more meaningful, and so don't use the prevailing wage issue as a reason to oppose this when you have failed to step up to the plate. We are stepping up to the plate here. More money and under circumstances that provide people a chance to have a decent way of life. I urge support of this bill. I rise in strong support of the Water Quality Financing Act. The bill before the House calls for a significant and needed increase in the annual Federal contribution to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. This may not be a well known program, but it has been absolutely critical to water quality improvements in my district, and in many other communities around the country. The Clean Water Revolving Fund is the only major Federal program that helps localities build, repair, and improve their sewer infrastructure. Over the years, the Revolving Fund has provided more than a billion dollars to my home State of Michigan for low-interest loans for water infrastructure projects. A billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it is literally just a drop in the bucket compared to the need. In southeast Michigan alone, maintaining and improving our aging sewer systems will cost between $14 and $26 billion over the next 30 years. Let me tell you what the Clean Water Revolving Fund has meant to my district. In the early 1990s, the Clinton River that runs through my district in Oakland and Macomb Counties was little more than an open sewer. In particular, there was one, large combined sewer system called 12 Towns that spilled hundreds of millions of gallons of partially treated sewage into the Clinton River each year. This contributed to a nearly dead river and closed beaches downstream in Lake St. Clair. It was a major concern to both Oakland and Macomb counties. In the late 1990s, the communities undertook an expensive renovation project at 12 Towns that has greatly reduced the sewer overflows. The communities bore the full expense for this project, which cost well over $100 million, but the low interest rates provided by the Revolving Fund saved the communities tens of millions of dollars in interest costs. The result is that the Clinton River is making a comeback. Water quality is improving. Twelve Towns is not an isolated example. The Revolving Fund has also helped many other communities in my district with critical water quality improvements. We could not have accomplished the progress that has been made to clean up the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair without the Revolving Fund's help. The Federal Government has to do more--not less--to help communities shoulder the burden of addressing critical water infrastructure needs. We should have increased the funding for the Revolving Fund long before this; instead, in recent years the Bush Administration and Congress has cut the program again and again. Just last month, the President's budget proposed a $396 million cut to the Revolving Fund. This takes the effort to clean up the Great Lakes in exactly the wrong direction. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation. We should vote for the bill today and--just as importantly--provide the funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund when we take up the EPA appropriations bill later this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today In support of H.R. 987, the NATO Freedom Consolation Act. In particular, I want to applaud my friend Mr. Tanner, and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for taking care to support Ukraine's progress towards NATO membership and designating that country as eligible for assistance under the NATO Participation Act. Last week, I participated in a meeting between Members of the Congressional Ukrainian Congress and Members of the Ukrainian Parliament. During that meeting, it was suggested that policymakers here in Washington might be experiencing ``Ukraine fatigue.'' We are not Ukraine fatigued; we are Ukraine concerned. We have seen clearly, both during the Orange Revolution and in last year's parliamentary elections, that democracy works in Ukraine, but we are concerned by what it has produced. President Yushchenko, and indeed many in Ukraine, have signaled a strong desire to join NATO. While there have been differences of late over the pace at which Ukraine should make progress towards that goal, this legislation takes exactly the right approach in reinforcing our commitment to help Ukraine achieve it. In particular, we can assist Ukraine in continuing a variety of reforms that not only move the country towards NATO eligibility, but also help the Ukrainian people build a properous and stable country more broadly. Further, it is critical that we help the Ukrainian people understand what NATO membership means, both its benefits and its responsibilities. Again Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation to facilitate further expansion of NATO, particularly with regard to assistance for Ukraine, and I urge its passage.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Despite the rosy economic forecast provided by the administration, a broad array of indicators shows otherwise--namely that despite record levels of corporate prosperity, the economic pressures exerted on our middle class continue to build. Middle class families have and continue to lose ground, faced with stagnant incomes and rising costs of essential services like health care, gasoline and a college education. One of the most important things we can do to relieve this middle class squeeze is to restore workers' freedom to join together to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Indeed, on average, union workers earn 30 percent more on average than nonunion workers and are much more likely to have health care and receive pension benefits. Yet the current system governing the formation of unions is badly flawed, and permits an unfair process greatly tipped in favor of employer efforts to block unionization drives. At present, organizers can present cards signed by a majority of the workforce in support of union representation, but the employer has absolutely no obligation to recognize this effort. Instead, employers can force a National Labor Relations Board election, which can take months to take place, during which time employers are free to erode union support using company resources through mandated anti-union activities at the workplace. Any pro-union activities are explicitly prohibited at the workplace. H.R. 800 levels the playing field by requiring employers to recognize the card-checking procedure, ensuring a fair and equitable process that balances the rights of employers with the rights of workers to form a union. This bill also provides negotiation benchmarks to ensure that initial collective bargaining agreements are negotiated in earnest. These provisions address problems with the current system which relies entirely on both parties engaging in a ``good faith'' effort to reach an agreement. In reality, this system permits employers to indefinitely delay negotiations during which time they can rekindle efforts to disband the newly elected union representatives. Lastly, the bill includes tougher penalties for violations of workers' rights. Currently, about one in five pro-union employee activists are illegally fired for their union activities, in large part because the remedies for these employer violations are so weak. By strengthening these penalties, we are further ensuring that employers follow the rule of law. The middle class is the backbone of our society. And the middle class is stronger when workers can join together to bargain for a higher standard of living. Years ago, it was unions that helped pave the way towards employer sponsored health care and pensions benefits. Now more than ever, it is vital that we address the current inequities faced by those who are fighting for workers' rights to bargain collectively. In doing so, we foster a stronger middle class and a more prosperous nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 800.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. This tax package provides limited, targeted tax relief for small businesses in a fiscally responsible manner. At a little over $1.3 billion it provides a meaningful level of relief, offset by closing a loophole that would allow some upper income tax payers to take advantage of a reduced capital gains tax that was intended to benefit low income Americans. In addition to being fiscally responsible, it's fully bipartisan. Both Democratic and Republican Members had a chance to provide their input. It was introduced jointly by Chairman Rangel and Mr. McCrery, and it has been co-sponsored by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Ways and Means Committee. I am particularly supportive of extending the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and expanding the Credit to include veterans who have been disabled since September 11th, which this bill does. But mostly, I am supportive of going to conference with the other body to pass a minimum wage increase. This legislation will accomplish that. Thirteen million Americans have not had a raise--not even a cost of living adjustment--in 9 years. In a word, a minimum wage increase is overdue. The current minimum wage is so low that an individual working full time at the minimum wage would make only $10,712--that's 35% below the federal poverty line for a family of three. I urge all of my colleagues to support this responsible tax package so we can move onto conference and providing millions of Americans with the raise they deserve.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution before the House. We need to send a clear bipartisan message to the White House. There is little support in this Congress for deepening our open-ended military commitment in Iraq by sending an additional 21,000 troops into this conflict. The debate we are having today is about the future of our Nation's policy in Iraq, so my main focus will not be to catalog the litany of the administration's past grave mistakes and misstatements over the last 4 years. At the same time, as a lesson for the future, it is important to remember that the war in Iraq was the first application of the Bush Doctrine. This policy was unveiled by the President in his commencement speech at West Point in June 2002 and made policy a few months later in the administration's 2002 National Security Strategy. The administration's doctrine stressed preemptive attack, U.S. military superiority, and U.S. unilateral action. This flawed policy has proven to be disastrous. It has destabilized Iraq, and threatens to undermine the stability of the entire region. It blinded the administration to the Pandora's box it was opening when it invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist and 9/11 terrorists that were not there. Far from strengthening U.S. security, this misguided doctrine has put our Nation's vital interests at greater risk. The elevation of unilateralism has helped erode our Nation's standing in the world. The released NIE Estimate for Iraq underscores just how flawed the administration's doctrine has been. Among the key judgment, I quote, ``Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakening of the security forces and of the state in general.'' And again I quote, ``Extremists continue to act as a very effective accelerator for what has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And now I quote again. ``The Intelligence Community judges that the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq.'' The judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate reinforce the view that a military solution in Iraq is not possible. The administration has attempted troop surges in the past. They haven't worked. Adding another 21,000 American troops will not put an end to violence and instability in Iraq. The only chance to do that is for Iraq's leaders and factions to come together and begin the difficult process of political compromise and reconciliation. I believe that announcing the orderly redeployment of U.S. forces is the best way to put pressure on the factions in Iraq to come together and make these difficult choices. This resolution is straightforward. It states clearly and unambiguously that Congress does not support the President's plan. It supports our military personnel but not a further military escalation. Some have said it is not serious because it is nonbinding. Others have said the resolution emboldens our enemies and hurts the troops. How does it embolden our enemies or hurt the troops for this Congress to disapprove continuing a strategy that is not working? The resolution we are debating today is nonbinding, but is not nonconsequential. I hope the administration will hear the clear bipartisan message we are sending and change course. The question today before the House is whether or not we agree with the President's plan to send 21,000 additional troops to Iraq to referee a growing civil war. I do not agree with this escalation. I urge all my colleagues to join in calling on the President to change course in Iraq

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to Chief Judge Stephen C. Cooper, who is retiring from the bench of the 46th District Court. Judge Cooper brings closure to a distinguished 33-year career in public service. In addition to his service to the 46th District Court, Judge Cooper also served as City Council President Pro- Tem for the Southfield City Council. Chief Judge Cooper was elected to the 46th District Court in 1986 and re-elected in 1992, 1998 and 2004. His re-election was unanimously endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican Parties, both defense and plaintiffs lawyers, business and labor and every prominent elected official and community leader in his District. The Bar Association rated his performance ``outstanding.'' Judge Cooper was elected and served as president of the Michigan District Judges Association and currently in his second term as Michigan Governor of the American Judges Association (AJA). Judge Cooper was recognized by Optimist International as ``triple distinguished president'' of the Southfield-Lathrup Optimist Club. Judge Cooper has received numerous awards including the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award which is given to a local citizen whose life exemplifies the ideals espoused by Dr. King. He was selected as the Honoree-of-the-year of the Women's Bar Association, the Governor's Award for Volunteer Service, and the Southfield Schools' Alumnus of the Year Award. Judge Stephen Cooper was elected President of the Michigan District Judges Association, the Southfield Bar Association and the B'Nai Brith Association and was Vice President of the Southfield Chamber of Commerce. He also served on numerous boards including the Salvation Army, League of Women Voters, Anti-Defamation League, Southfield- Lathrup PTA Council, MLK Taskforce and the Easter Seals Society. Upon retirement, Judge Cooper will direct his professional talents to the field of mediation and teaching. He will also have more time for his hobbies, including kayaking, ceramics, welding, roller-blading and, above all, enjoying life with Caroline, his wife of more than 36 years and being a grandparent. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this fine individual and thanking him for his dedication to our community. I extend my heartiest congratulations and warmest wishes as he starts this new chapter in his life.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before the House. Few will take any great satisfaction with the manner in which the Congress is at last completing the budget process for 2007. This work was supposed to have been completed 4 months ago. It is important for everyone to understand how we got to this point and why we are forced to take the extraordinary step of approving a continuing resolution to fund nearly every domestic program for the balance of this fiscal year. We are here today because the Republican majority that controlled the House last year failed to do its work. Last May, they voted for a budget resolution that was so unrealistic that not even they could find a way to live within it. As a direct result after 8 months, the former majority was able to complete action on just 2 of the 11 regular appropriations bills. Then, in early December, the outgoing leaders of the House and Senate decided to punt on the remaining funding bills, pass a stopgap spending bill to keep the Government operating through February 15, adjourn the Congress, and leave town. So now it is up to the new Congress to clean up this budgetary mess as best we can, and that's what the bill before the House does. It is an imperfect solution. There are any number of programs that deserve a lot more funding than we are able to give them here today. We are still constrained by the overall funding levels adopted in last year's budget resolution, a budget that not a single Democrat voted for. At the same time, I am glad that the measure we are considering today manages to increase funding in a number of priority areas, especially veterans health care, medical care for U.S. troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Federal highway program, medical research at the National Institutes of Health as well as some key education programs. I also applaud the decision to put a moratorium on Members' earmarks until a reformed process is put in place to provide an accountable and transparent process for funding these projects. Even so, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have gotten up to complain that we should have done better. They want less spending in some areas and more spending in others. After sitting on their hands for 8 months last year, they now object to the procedure we're using to clean up the mess they made. It is unfortunate that the people who are complaining the loudest today were unwilling to convince their own leadership to make these spending decisions last year by passing the individual funding bills on time and getting them to the President for his signature. The reality is that we are already 4 months into fiscal year 2007. There isn't time to spend another month or two debating spending bills that should have been completed last September. The agencies and the States have waited long enough for Congress to act, and the President is submitting his 2008 budget request to us next week. It's time for Congress to complete this work.