Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Oman is a small nation, but there are some large issues here. It is an important place, and I would like to support an FTA with Oman, as I and many others did with Bahrain. There is an important issue that relates to the path of globalization. Globalization has become increasingly controversial. Expanded trade, that I favor, has been hitting road bump after road bump. One major reason is because too many people within countries are not sharing in the benefits. Too many people are being left out. And that is why we have to care. Among those who are being left out are workers. And how do we make sure that workers participate, are part of the process? By making sure in free trade agreements that they have their basic international rights. These are the basic ILO core labor standards, not American standards, especially the right to associate and to bargain. In Oman, workers do not have those rights. There are no worker organizations today in Oman. There are only labor management committees, representative committees. In a document that the Department of Labor gave to us a few weeks ago, it stated that management holds 70 to 75 percent of the leadership positions in those committees. There is an umbrella committee of these RCs, and management holds all of the positions on the executive committee. So, look, we need to have a free trade agreement that meets the basic ILO standards in practice and in law. In Bahrain, they were there in practice and they made commitments to do so in law. In Oman, Mr. Moran and others, there is no semblance, semblance, of workers having their rights. There are no worker organizations. Oman said to us they could not do anything until November because the Sultan had to consult. Then in the last few weeks, actually the last few days, we have a kind of statement of decrees of the Sultan. I guess he did not have to consult with the legislature. But so many of those have to be implemented by ministerial decree. Mr. Moran said the Sultan is willing to agree to anything. Let us see laws in place, with meaning as to what they imply. I want to close with this. The Trade Representative has said this, our new Trade Representative, Ambassador Schwab: ``Erosion of America's traditional bipartisan support is the most pressing problem we face in trade today.'' How true. And it affects the WTO negotiations. Proceeding like this today is another nail in what is a near coffin of bipartisan trade foundations in this country. It is unnecessary. We could take the time to see what these decrees mean, whether they are beginning to meet basic ILO standards, so that more and more people will participate in the benefits of globalization. If that doesn't happen, globalization will continue to be in deep trouble. It will lose ground when it should not. That is one of the major reasons to oppose this agreement at this time, to oppose it. You are turning your back on any chance of bipartisanship.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. So does that mean that those provisions are not in Omani law today?

Mr. LEVIN. But they are not in law, right, until there is action?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this institution is often called the people's House and today I ask my colleagues to stand in the shoes of the millions of people dealing with incurable or debilitating diseases. Diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, or cancer. Diseases that impact them every day . . . their plans for the future. Let us stand with them today and vote to override the President's veto of the medical research that holds the potential to find a treatment to improve their lives, or, over time, a cure. The U.S. House has approved this legislation. The Senate has approved this legislation. The reason the American people--72 percent of them in public surveys--support the Federal Government proceeding with this legislation is because in virtually every family there is a life experience with the need for medical breakthroughs. We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we guarantee there can be no results. The President's stem cell policy is not working. Of the 78 existing stem cell lines permitted for use in federally funded research, only 22 of these lines are currently used for research, and many have raised concerns that these lines are genetically unstable, contaminated, and harder to work with than newer lines. Research is practically at a standstill in this country. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan approach. It is opposed with false arguments that divide Americans when what is involved is an expansion of research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos that were originally created for fertility treatments purposes, are in excess of clinical need and would otherwise be discarded, and have been donated by the individuals seeking fertility treatment through written consent and without any financial involvement. Let us override the President's veto and take these vitals steps to tap into the promise of research that has the potential to change the face of modern medicine as we know it today. That is a human value that should not be undermined by the people's representatives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority says they want to recognize the past. What you are doing in this resolution is to twist it. So let me say again what the facts were. The bill was vetoed by Mr. Clinton, by the President, because of inadequate child support and inadequate health care provisions. He so stated. He had started this effort to reform welfare, but the inadequacies in the bills that came before him required a veto. What was the result of the veto, of the two vetoes? Money was put in for child care and for health care. It is ironic that this resolution brags about the amount of money for child care. Without those vetoes, a lot of those moneys never would have been in welfare reform. The same is true of transitional Medicaid. So come here, but don't, for totally partisan electoral purposes twist the history of this. You are twisting it. Maybe you think it will gain you a few votes, but you lose your credibility and you lose any chance of proceeding on a bipartisan basis. You did the same thing in the bill that was passed just some months ago on welfare reform. You cut child support. This resolution talks about child support collections increasing; but in the bill that was passed recently, you made arrangements for a reduction in child support estimated by CBO to be $8.4 billion over the next 10 years. You talk in this resolution about giving States ``great flexibility in the use of Federal funds.'' That was one of the advantages of the 1996 legislation and that is one reason why a good number of Democrats voted for it. In the 2006 legislation, you reduced the flexibility of the States. I want to just refer to some of the programs that the States have used that would probably be disentangled by this 2006 legislation: The Portland Program, that has some strategies so that people can upgrade their skills and get out of poverty. The Corpus Christi Employment, Retention and Advance Program. The Maine Program, that does rely on some higher education, including a 4-year degree. And also the Utah Program, that was very advanced in terms of addressing substance abuse and mental health. So you essentially have reduced the flexibility of the States. Let me talk for a moment about poverty and what was the main problem with the 2006 legislation. The data that we have show this, more or less, that 60 to 70 percent of the people who have moved from welfare to work have been earning less than 42 percent of the median average wage in their States. We were hopeful in the 2006 legislation that we would take a further step in welfare reform, that we would help people not only move from welfare to work, but from welfare to work that would take them out of poverty. You, on a strictly partisan basis, did not even bother to talk to us. You made no effort. You would not even work with us to try to provide a law that would help people move from welfare to work. So I regret your spurning any effort to make this resolution bipartisan. I think instead of recognizing the past, you are mainly twisting it; and there has been a failure of this Congress to take the next steps in welfare reform so people move from poverty into something beyond it when they move from welfare to work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. We stand here today with a historic opportunity to improve and renew one of the greatest advancements in the history of our American Democracy. In 1965, in a direct response to evidence of pervasive discrimination taking place across the country, including the use of literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats and violence, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act. Since 1965, we have come a long way towards breaking down the many entrenched barriers to minority participation, but exhaustive hearings and testimony have clearly indicated that more can and must be done. Opponents of this legislation make the false presumption that the Voting Rights Act has accomplished its goals and is therefore no longer necessary. Yet since its last reauthorization in 1982, the Department of Justice--under the Voting Rights Act--has objected to over 1,000 proposed changes to voting laws because they would have denied equal access to the political process. Other Members would eliminate Section 203, which provides voters with language assistance at the ballot box. The current law requiring bilingual voting assistance was enacted because Congress found evidence of blatant discrimination against non-English-speaking voters. Many American citizens are proficient in English, but may not be able to fully comprehend the complex legal wording in ballot initiatives. It is important to remember that there are American citizens who can speak English, but not read it. Bilingual assistance is necessary to ensure that these citizens are not left out of the political process. Today four amendments have been offered which seek to severely weaken and undermine the Voting Rights Act. These amendments seek to turn back the clock on the advancements made since 1965 in the enfranchisement and participation of minority voters. Let me be clear, I oppose any attempt to water down the Voting Rights Act, and will oppose each and every one of these damaging amendments. Back in the early 1970s, I worked together with Congressman John Lewis--who was one of thousands to risk his life to challenge the discriminatory voting practices of the time--registering voters in Mississippi. Since then, our country has made substantial strides in expanding and ensuring the right to vote for all American citizens, yet discrimination still exists. Cases remain where absentee votes are deliberately ignored, voters continue to be unjustly purged from voter rolls, and problems with electronic voting machines persist. Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act is absolutely essential as we continue to work for complete equality in the voting process. I truly believe that the Voting Rights Act is the most effective civil rights law ever enacted, and I strongly support its passage without amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Macomb County Clerk's office and the Mt. Clemens Regional Social Security office for an innovative new partnership which is expected to improve customer service, reduce unnecessary administrative work, and save Social Security over $257,000 over the next 5 years alone. As you know, the Immigration Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act required the Social Security Administration to verify all birth records before issuing Social Security cards. In most offices, that means Social Security staff have to go in person to the county clerk's office with stacks of birth records, which the clerk's staff then manually verify. The process is time-consuming and labor-intensive for both offices, and sometimes results in unnecessary delays for people waiting for new or replacement Social Security cards. Macomb County Clerk Carmela Sabaugh, in cooperation with Social Security Administration District Manager William Seaman, has implemented a very different system. Under Macomb County's system, Social Security employees are able to instantly verify birth record authenticity using a secure Internet page available only to Social Security employees with federal security clearance. The first-in-the nation Macomb County process builds on the digital imaging for vital records that Sabaugh implemented last year. It's faster and easier, but no less effective and secure than the old way. I'm proud that our local offices took the initiative and came up with a better way to implement this new requirement. Thanks to their innovation, staff will spend more time serving the public and less time processing paperwork. That's better for Social Security, better for the Clerk's office, and best of all, better for all the Macomb County residents they serve.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I rise to point out a serious shortcoming in the FY07 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill. Manufacturing has a proud history in this country as the engine that created our middle class--a source of good jobs, steady benefits, and quality products for consumers. While I will support the overall bill, I am concerned that it does not provide adequate resources for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP. MEP is a small, but proven program that helps small manufacturers compete globally by giving them access to technologies and processes that improve their productivity and their products. By proposing to cut MEP by more than 50 percent, the President has again demonstrated his upside-down priorities and refused to acknowledge the manufacturing jobs crisis in this country. Since 2001, manufacturing states like Michigan have lost a median 17 percent of their manufacturing jobs--an average of more than 75,000 jobs per state. Yet the Bush Administration has ignored the importance of preserving our manufacturing base at every turn--refusing to enforce U.S. trading rights here and overseas, failing to take advantage of opportunities to create new markets for American goods, and repeatedly proposing funding cuts for programs that spur innovation and forward progress here at home. I understand that the Subcommittee has tried to do its best with inadequate resources, and I appreciate that the $92 million provided for MEP in the bill is a significant improvement over the President's request. But we have to do more than turn a 50 percent cut into a 15 percent cut. I hope that as this bill moves forward, we will be able to restore funding for MEP to the current level of $106 million. The consequences of not doing so are serious: 2,100 fewer manufacturers would receive MEP's valuable services, resulting in 5,760 fewer manufacturing jobs in this country. By way of comparison, last year in Michigan alone, MEP helped create or retain almost 2,000 jobs and almost $190 million in sales. In a word, fully restoring funding for MEP to the current level is critical. It is critical to our small manufacturers and to the workers and families that rely on them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. It is important that the record here today reflects that FEMA is proposing to revise base flood elevations using flawed methods and old data. In my home state of Michigan, FEMA has proposed raising the base flood elevation, significantly in some areas. While FEMA should work to keep flood maps up-to-date, indeed updating these maps is one of the purposes of this bill, it must do so in a responsible manner, utilizing accurate data. Unfortunately, that has not been true in this case. FEMA's proposal for base flood elevations in Michigan is based on a study that is 18 years old. More to the point, the last year of data included in this 1988 study of Great Lakes water levels is the same year that the Great Lakes hit historic highs. Since then, water levels in the Great Lakes have fallen to historic lows. These elevations, which determine who is required to purchase flood insurance, need to reflect the actual risk of flooding. Commonsense, let alone science, should tell us very clearly that the risk of flooding is lower today that it was 18 years ago when this study was completed. Right now, the International Joint Commission, or IJC, is conducting a comprehensive study of Great Lakes water levels that will be completed in 2010 or 2011. This study will take a more realistic view of factors affecting lake levels, including increased population, water consumption, environmental changes and higher flow through the Great Lakes system. This amendment would require FEMA to use the more up-to-date and accurate data that the IJC study will provide. I am not arguing that Great Lakes states like Michigan should not have their flood maps updated, or that there should be some fixed ratio between premiums paid and damage claims received. What I am saying is that the revised flood maps should use the best data available, rather than 20-year old data that does not reflect the true flood risk. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about reforming and improving the National Flood Insurance Program. In doing so, we must signal to FEMA that they must be responsible in setting these flood elevations. In Michigan, FEMA is proceeding on the basis of bad data, and that's going to lead to bad policy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President transmitted legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. The Senate Finance Committee will mark up this legislation tomorrow, and the word is the Senate is going to try to rush this through on the floor of the Senate in the afternoon. And the House Ways and Mean Committee will take up this bill on Thursday. This agreement is a test of globalization. Globalization is under major pressure today, in part because as it has spread, the benefits of increased trade between nations too often have not been widely shared among people within the nation. Workers rights matter, especially the ability of workers to represent themselves in the workplace because they are an important economic tool to spread more widely the benefits of expanded trade. To help make globalization work, a view widely held by House Democrats is that trade agreements should include squarely within the text of the agreement a requirement that there be adherence to basic ILO standards within a reasonable transition period. We have strongly opposed the standard that USTR has tabled for worker rights, and the environment, in FTAs, which requires that a nation must only enforce its own laws. It is a standard that USTR does not propose for any other provision of an FTA and would never dream of using for other economic issues, whether intellectual property or investment rules or any other. Where an FTA has been negotiated with a nation using that standard, but at the time of the FTA vote the basic ILO rights were in operation in practice and in law, many of us have voted for the agreement despite opposition to the standard. That was the case in Chile, Singapore and Morocco. With the Bahrain FTA, there was clear evidence that the ILO standards were there in practice so that there was a foundation for assurances that the laws would be swiftly brought into conformity with existing ILO-compliant practices. In accordance with law, unions in Bahrain enjoyed autonomous status, independent of the employer, beyond interference. In addition, as long as the union existed under law in an enterprise, the law provided that an employer must recognize it and engage with it in collective bargaining. So many of us voted to approve the U.S.-Bahrain FTA. The conditions in Oman are very different than those prevailing in Bahrain and in those other countries where we have supported FTAs. As one approaches consideration of the U.S-Oman FTA, there are some clear truths. Oman is a nation in the volatile Middle East with good relations with the U.S. Secondly, the amount of trade is small. It would likely grow under an FTA, but remain small, and thus any economic negative dislocations for either side would be small. In practice and law, thirdly, realities in Oman today do not remotely meet the five basic ILO standards, including the right of workers to associate and bargain collectively. Workers cannot be represented in the workplace unless they have their own representatives and their own organizations. This basic condition is not close to being true in Oman today. Where there is an organization in an establishment, a representative committee, representatives of the employer belong as well as employees. There is an umbrella committee of representatives committees called the Main Representative Committee. From available information, of the 13 members currently on the MRC, the vast majority are high-echelon officials of companies. For 8 months our staffs have been in touch with Omani and U.S. Government officials simply to get the facts on the table. We have put together two documents trying to obtain basic information. When the response to the first detailed inquiry came back incomplete, we took the time to send a second document, still without a response in detail. I ask that the second document be entered into the Record. Any fair reading of these documents leads to one conclusion. From all available information, there are no organizations of workers in Oman today. There are no organizations representing workers and bargaining on their behalf, so it is not surprising that there is not a single collective bargaining agreement today. In reality, there are organizations made up of management and workers who operate mainly like joint committees to discuss labor management relations and problems. The recent communication from the U.S. ambassador glosses over this basic fact. It says: ``Although the MOM recognizes the potentially problematic participation of senior officers in some of the committees, a move away from this tendency will take some time, given deeply ingrained cultural traditions that still place importance on tribal affiliations and highly value an individual's personal influence with decision-makers (termed ``wasta''). Historically speaking, workers with issues have generally approached human resource representatives or committee members with problems because of these individuals known connections and ability to get things done. The MOM, as well as the committees, believes that it is more important to now raise awareness about the MRC and the RC's roles and promote membership rather than focus on technical limitations of the law.'' There are two serious problems with this approach. First, no matter how it is spun, the organizations today representing workers are not organizations of and led by workers. They do not begin to meet the basic worker rights of association and bargaining. Second, according to the Ambassador's own document, today 70 percent of the workers in Oman are foreign nationals. Of these 80 percent are from the Indian subcontinent (60 percent from India). Present Omani laws say that members of an RC must be persons who have been there for a year and speak Arabic to be a leader. The Omani government says that the law is not enforced. It is difficult to tell what this means since people do not apply for membership in an RC or pay dues and since there have not been full responses to our questions. But in any event, if foreign workers are active participants in RCs, the vast majority comes from nations where the laws and cultural conditions have given workers rights to form labor unions for decades. Since Oman's practices are not in conformity with the basic ILO standards--most noticeably that workers lack the basic right to join worker organizations that are free from employer and government interference--it is vital that the changes in law be in place before we vote on the FTA. The Government of Oman has stated that it could not make these changes before October 31, 2006. If the Government acts before then--and the changes conform to basic ILO standards--we would be faced with circumstances similar to those that existed where we have supported free trade agreements. The Ambassador says in his letter that Oman is ``already complying with ILO core labor standards in practice, if not yet in law,'' and it is a matter of bringing technical limitations ``of the law'' into conformity with practice. This is simply not true. Neither practices nor the laws come close to meeting basic international standards. To say otherwise twists both standards and reality. Doing so does not serve the purpose of carrying out cordial relationships between our nations. It does not represent an effective path for globalization. May 24, 2006. To: Andy Olson, Cynthia Plath. From: Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Minority Staff. Re Follow-Up Questions Concerning Current Practices With Respect to Labor Rights in Oman. Thank you for providing information relating to our questions of May 12, 2006, in the cable from the U.S. Embassy in Muscat dated May 17, 2006. The information was responsive to some, but not other, questions. Thus, we have a number of follow-up questions. The following is a list questions that were not answered in the cable, either in whole or in part, as well as questions seeking further clarification of information provided in the cable. I. Worker Representation 1. What kinds of organizations are there representing workers? c. In what industries or occupations in the public sector? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``There are no committees in the public sector, which is covered by Civil Service Law.'' Unclassified Cable dated May 17, 2006 from U.S. Embassy, Muscat (UC) at para.4. Follow-up Question: Does the Civil Service Law provide for the formation of representative committees? If so, what is the extent of any exception (e.g. ``essential services'' such as firefighters or police)? d. How many workers do they cover in each sector? What is the percentage of represented workers compared with the overall workforce? As a percentage by sector? Please verify how this information is collected. The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``Since committees do not yet require applications for membership, and do not have established procedures to collect dues, RCs currently represent de facto the entire workforce of a company, including those who have been employed less than a year. A February statistical bulletin confirmed the current private workforce of Oman to be 102,455 Omanis and 438,531 expatriates, meaning that approximately nine percent of the workforce is now represented by a union.'' UC at para. 5. Follow-up Questions: Since there are no applications for membership and no dues, how do workers, comprising the entire workforce of a company where a representative committee is established, know that they are members of such an organization or represented by it? By what methods does the RC notify the workforce? Why does the Ministerial Decree set forth criteria for membership if every worker is a member? Do any of these committees have by-laws, if so how are they written and who votes for them? e. Are there categories of workers that are not allowed to have organizations representing them? If so, what are they? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: `` * * * the labor law does not prohibit any category of worker from establishing worker committees.'' UC at para. 4. Follow-up Question: This statement appears to conflict with another statement in para. 4 which states that ``there are no committees in the public sector.'' Please explain whether public sector workers are able to form representative committees. 12. How do workers form such organizations, what procedures must they follow? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``As there are no official MOM application forms for establishing committees, employees wishing to establish a committee simply notify the MOM with a letter of intent and a list of elected officials comprising their leadership board.'' UC at para. 3. Follow-up Question: Based on the above response, what would happen if two different groups wished to form a committee? Are there any minimum threshold requirements? 3. Are employers/managers members in these organizations? a. If so, in how many of the organizations are they? Which ones? Are they allowed to be officers? What offices do they hold? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``Of the committees established, company management holds officer positions of Saud Bahwan Group, Omantel, Port Services, and Suhail Sahwan Group committees.'' UC at para. 4. Follow-up Questions: Are these the only representative committees where employers/managers are members? Do employers/managers hold offices in the RCs established at Petroleum Development Oman, Intercontinental Hotel, and El Hassan Co. Group? If so, what positions do they hold? Of the representative committees listed in the cable, what offices do the company management officers hold? 4. Is membership in these organizations limited to those workers who have been employed for more than a year? Are there any members of such organizations who have been employed less than a year? If so, which ones and how many? Not Answered: Please provide a response. 6. Are leadership positions in these committees limited to those who: a. Have ``good spoken and written Arabic language''? b. Are permanent workers? c. Have not been suspended from work for committing grave misconduct in the government or private sector? d. Are there any leaders who do not meet the criteria listed above? If so, which criteria do these leaders fail to fulfill? How many such leaders are there? If there are non- Arabic speakers, where are they from? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to the above questions: ``While Ministerial Decree 135/2004 delineates qualifications for leadership, such as the ability to speak and write Arabic . . . and not have been convicted of a felony, the MOM has not denied candidacy to anyone failing to meet these regulations, and, in fact, has encouraged people to participate regardless of proscriptions.'' UC at para. 5. Partially Answered: Please indicate whether there are any current leaders who do not meet the criteria listed above. How many such leaders are there? If there are non-Arabic speakers, who are they and where are they from? Can you provide evidence that the MOM has ``encouraged people to participate regardless of proscriptions''? Are the workers informed that they should disregard the Ministerial Decree? If so, how has this been done in specific instances? 9. Has the government issued specific rules for the formation and functioning of these organizations, or otherwise participated in their activities? If so, what are these rules and in what way does the government participate? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to the above questions: ``Labor committee members and government officials assert that, in practice, the government neither interferes with nor unduly involves itself in committee activities, but continues actively to support establishment of labor committees through private sector outreach and educational awareness.'' UC at para. 1. ``The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) asserts that it is not intrusively overseeing labor union representative committee (RC) activities as permitted in Ministerial Decisions 125/ 2004, and claims that the actual application of the labor law is already ILO-consistent.'' UC at para. 2. Follow-up Question: Please provide examples of how the MOM ``actively supports the establishment of'' representative committees. How involved has the MOM's activity been with respect to outreach and public awareness? Is the term ``labor committee'' anywhere found in communications from the MOM? c. Does the MOM restrict the right of these organizations to belong to any organization or authority with headquarters outside the Sultanate or receive delegations? Not Answered: Please provide a response. d. Does the MOM ban these organizations from holding public festivities or presenting public lectures without prior approval? Not Answered: Please provide a response. 10. Is there an umbrella organization or larger federation for these organizations? If so, how many are there? a. Are all workers' organizations required to be members of an umbrella organization or federation? If so, can they select among several or must they join one mandatory organization? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``All established committees may participate in the national federation of unions, referred to as the Main Representative Committee (MRC). The MRC is currently the only umbrella organization to represent Omani unions internally and abroad, and members are chosen through secret ballot elections.'' UC at para. 6. Follow-up Questions: You indicate that established representative committees ``may participate in the national federation of unions,'' but it is our understanding that participation is mandatory. Please clarify what is provided for in law and current practice, for example, how many representative committees currently are members of the Main Representative Committee? Also, have secret ballot elections been held? If not, have elections been scheduled? b. Are employers/managers allowed to be members of such umbrella organizations? If not, are employers/managers in fact members? Not Answered: Please provide a response. c. Does the government participate in the selection of members of this umbrella organization including establishing the eligibility criteria? Has the government established the grounds for termination of these members? Has the government terminated any members? Not Answered: Please provide a response. d. Is this umbrella organization required to seek approval from the government (i.e. MOM) for administrative decisions, such as the approval of a logo? Does this organization provide notice to or send agendas (including other documents and papers) to the MOM in advance of meetings? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to the above questions: ``Similar to the situation of the representative committees, members of the MRC do not give notice to MOM prior to general meetings; nor do they provide the MOM with a copy of their agendas or meeting minutes.'' UC at para. 6. Follow-Up Question: Has the MOM ever requested that the MRC give advance notice of its meetings or provide related documents? Has the MOM asked to review a logo being prepared by the MRC? e. Does the MOM send a delegate to the meetings of this umbrella organization? If so, how frequently? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to the above questions: ``Moreover, no MOM official has ever attended any committee meetings or banned the MRC from meeting without prior approval. Members of the MRC maintain open relations with the MOM to discuss ongoing changes in the labor law and possible means to strengthen the labor unions.'' UC at para. 6. Follow-up Question: Please explain the nature of the ``open relations with MOM'' to discuss the labor law and means to strengthen unions. f. Does the MOM restrict the right of this umbrella organization to belong to any organization or authority with headquarters outside the Sultanate? Not Answered: Please provide a response. g. Does the MOM ban this umbrella organization from holding public festivals or presenting public lecturers without prior approval? Not Answered: Please provide a response. h. Where are the meetings of the umbrella organization held? Not Answered: Please provide a response. i. Who are the current members of this umbrella organization? Please provide names and positions they hold within the umbrella organization, as well as the positions that they hold at the enterprise level(s). The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``. . . recent personnel changes at establishments have meant the addition of Issam al- Sheibany of Oman Oil Refinery and Aida al-Hashmy of the Al- Bustan Palace Hotel to the MRC, bringing the total number of MRC representatives to 13.'' UC at para. 7. ``As part of its outreach and organization, the MRC recently established four sub-committees to focus on specific areas of concern: --External Relations--This committee manages conferences and is headed by mid-level officer Saud al-Jabri of Petroleum Development Oman; --Rights and Duties--This committee is headed by Oman's busiest labor advocate, Nahhan al-Battashi, of the Grand Hyatt Hotel Muscat; --Articles of Association and Membership--Abdullah al- Araimi heads this committee, which serves as a resource for newly established committees; and --Women's Issues--New MRC member Aida al-Hashmy of the Al- Bustan Palace Hotel heads up this important committee promoting women in the workforce.'' UC at para. 8. Partially Answered: Please provide a complete and current list of all MRC members. Please include their names and the positions they hold within the MRC (including positions in any executive committee), as well as the positions that they hold at the enterprise or company level(s). II. Collective Bargaining Agreements 1. Are there any? a. If so, in what sectors? b. Covering how many workers? c. Covering what areas (i.e. wages, hours, working conditions, terms of employment, etc.)? d. Are there areas that are outside the scope of bargaining? If so, what are they? 2. Have employers refused a workers' organization's request to negotiate collectively? If so, when and with what recourse? 3. Are there individual contracts between employers and non-managerial employees? If so, of what nature and to what extent? Not Answered: The cable did not contain any information relevant to this section. Please provide a response. III. Anti-Union Discrimination 1. What protections are provided to workers for exercising their rights to participate in organizing activities? Not Answered: Please provide a response. 2. What penalties are available to be assessed against employers who violate these rights? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``Although there are no penalties yet for anti-union discrimination (still under discussion), as evident by the Salalah example, the MOM and Oman's labor courts do not tolerate wrongful termination.'' UC at para. 12. Follow-up Question: Are there any examples of cases where court action was taken against employers who have engaged in wrongful termination? If so, please provide details of the action taken. 3. How are workers informed of their rights? Not Answered: Please provide a response. a. Have there been any reports that workers are reluctant to assert their rights because they fear being dismissed or otherwise retaliated against because they are unsure of their rights? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``While the MOM does keep a variety of labor statistics, there have been no reported cases of workers suffering retaliation for participating in worker committee activities.'' UC at para. 13. Follow-up Question: What type of labor statistics does the MOM keep? Does it specifically track instances or cases of retaliation taken against workers for forming or engaging in representative committee activities? If so, please provide these data and/or examples. Is it possible that there are cases involving worker retaliation of which the MOM is unaware? b. Are there any activities related to organizing workers or forming a worker organization that are grounds for dismissal or arrest? If so, what are they? Not Answered: Please provide a response. c. Do employers or managers challenge the right of workers to have or form workers' organizations? If so, on what grounds do they challenge this right? What is the process for doing so and what methods of challenging the right to form a worker organization are permissible? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to the above questions: ``Neither employers nor managers have challenged the right of workers to form a representative committee, moreover, labor organizing is not grounds for dismissal or arrest.'' UC at para. 13. Follow-up Question: Does the MOM keep specific records to verify the statement that ``neither employers nor managers have challenged the right of workers to form a representative committee''? How can the MOM be certain that it is aware of all pertinent instances involving an effort to form a representative committee or to engage in specific activities? 4. Does the MOM keep records of how many workers have been dismissed or otherwise retaliated against for participating in worker organization activities and what sanctions have been imposed against the employer and what remedies have been awarded the affected workers? If so, please provide these data. The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``To date, there has been only one case of an individual terminated who was also a member of a representative committee (reftel).'' UC at para. 13. Partially Answered: Please provide additional details regarding this individual's termination. For example, did the worker challenge his or her termination? If so, what remedies were provided to the worker? What penalties imposed against the employer? Was this case documented through any records? 5. What are the processes available to workers who believe they have been dismissed or otherwise retaliated against for engaging in organizing activities? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``As with any labor dispute, workers are encouraged to submit complaints to the MOM and may sue employers for wrongful dismissal. Labor courts favor the worker in the majority of cases, regardless of the reason for termination.'' UC at para. 13. Follow-up Questions: Can you provide examples of labor courts rendering favorable determinations to workers who have been wrongfully dismissed? How many cases have there been? Can you provide evidence to support the assertion that ``labor courts favor the worker in the majority of cases . . .''? IV. Right To Strike 1. Does the law explicitly permit workers to strike? a. If so, is the right available to all workers or only to specific categories of workers? Not Answered: Please provide a response. b. Have workers exercised this right? If so, on what specific occasions? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``While the law does not explicitly permit workers the right to strike (to be amended by October 31), there were 33 strikes involving 6,000 workers in 2004 and 4 strikes involving 1,083 workers in 2005.'' UC at para. 12. Follow-up Questions: What were the outcomes of these strikes? Per the question below, were they considered legal? 2. Are there specific procedures that workers must follow to declare a legal strike? Have any strikes been declared illegal? If so, on what grounds? Not Answered: Please provide a response. 4. Is there a practice or a requirement for arbitration to settle disputes? If so, under what circumstances and under what procedures? Not Answered: Please provide a response. 5. Did a strike occur at the Port of Salalah? If so, was any participant disciplined? If so, was there subsequent reinstatement and when? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``In 2005, there was one reported collective complaint that occurred during one of Oman's most widely publicized strikes. As reported in reftel, workers at Salalah Port closed Oman's largest seaport for two days while the MRC and the MOM negotiated the reinstatement of a committee representative who had been fired. In addition to the strike, workers took the opportunity to successfully renegotiate working hours and split-shift schedules.'' UC at para. 12. Follow-up Question: When was the worker reinstated? Was this worker also a representative committee leader? Please provide corroborating evidence. Also, what is ``reftel''? V. Foreign Workers 1. What approximate percentage of Oman's labor force is comprised of foreign workers in key sectors? Please identify the key sectors. The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``Foreign workers in Oman make up roughly 50 percent of the labor force and are concentrated in the following sectors: Construction--28.2 percent; wholesale/retail--20.1 percent; domestic servants--13.4 percent; manufacturing--11.8 percent; agriculture--10.7 percent; hotels/restaurants--5.9 percent; and health/education/community/real estate, misc.--10 percent'' UC at para. 14. Follow-up Question: Does the 50 percent figure representing the number of foreign worker in Oman pertain to both public and private sectors? Based on information provided in para. 5 of the cable, it appears that approximately 80 percent of the private sector is comprised of foreign workers. Please confirm that these figures are consistent. 2. Are foreign workers participating in workers' organizations? a. If so, what percentage of workers' organization members are foreign? What countries are they from (if possible, please provide an approximate break down of percentages)? With what companies are these foreign workers affiliated? Not Answered: Please provide a response. Please also indicate whether the information provided as an attachment to e-mail correspondence of May 9, 2006 (specifically, the Table with Members of the General Assemblies of Representative Committees and the Number of Workers (Omanis and Expatriates) in Establishments Which Have Representative Committees) is accurate. Please also explain how the information in this chart compares or relates to information provided in the cable at para. 5, which states that ``approximately nine percent of the workforce is not represented by a union.'' b. How many foreigners or non-Arabic speaking workers hold leadership positions? Who are they? What countries are they from? What companies do they represent? Not Answered: Please provide a response. 3. Do employers withhold foreign workers' legal documents, including employment contracts, employment letters, passports or visas? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``While some employers have reportedly held passports of foreign workers, the MOM asserts that this practice is illegal and that legislation formalizing that will be forthcoming.'' UC at para. 15. Follow-up Question: Through what accounts or by what means is it known that employers ``reportedly'' are holding passports? Does the MOM keep statistics? Have any instances been reported through the 24-hour hotline? Can you provide reports/accounts of any action taken against an employer for illegally holding a passport or other foreign workers legal documents? VI. Forced Labor 2. Have there been any circumstances where forced labor has been exacted for public purposes in circumstances other than those enumerated in ILO Convention 29? Not Answered: Please provide a response. VII. Worst Forms of Child Labor 3. Does Oman's labor law specifically prohibit harmful child labor? If so, what provision? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``Forced or compulsory labor by children is specifically prohibited by law.'' UC at para. 17. Follow-up Question: Please provide the citation to the specific relevant law, either in the Basic Statue or the 2003 Labor Law, or elsewhere. In addition, please also note where Oman's labor law specifically prohibits the following forms of harmful (or worst forms of) child labor: (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties; (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. VIII. Inspections and Reporting of Working Conditions 1. Is there a government-level organization charged with inspecting conditions of labor? If so, what is the number of personnel charged with this task? What enterprises do they cover? In what sectors? In what regions? What is the size of their budget? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``The Labor Care Directorate of the MOM is responsible for enforcement of, and compliance with, workplace laws and regulations. Its responsibilities include: occupational safety and health, labor inspections, dispute settlement, female employment, liaising with the Main Representative Committee, issues related to child labor and forced labor, and resolution of individual and collective labor disputes.'' UC at para. 19. Partially Answered: What is the size of the Labor Care Directorate's budget? 2. Please provide additional information about the extent and nature of inspections into conditions of labor, such as number of total inspections, number of random inspections, in what areas, in what regions, number of enterprises and workers involved. Please also provide a relevant universe to serve as a point of comparison. The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``{t}he MOM employed approximately 82 labor inspectors who conducted 4,541 workplace inspections, including an unknown number of random inspections, in 2005 that represented 19 percent of the workforce. Labor inspectors are spread throughout the Sultantate.'' UC at para. 19. Follow-up Question: Can you provide an estimate or percentage of the number of random inspections? If not, are there any criteria by which the Labor Care Directorate considers when conducting random inspections? Are they more prevalent in any particular sector or area? How many workers were involved in the 4,541 workplace inspections? 3. Is there communication channel or other type of means for workers to contact the government to report labor-related complaints or grievances? a. If so, by what means? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``The MOM operates a 24-hour hotline (English and Arabic) for workers throughout Oman to report complaints, offer suggestions or seek responses to questions about the labor law.'' UC at para. 19. Follow-up Question: Are the majority of foreign workers in Oman English-speaking or from English-speaking or Arabic- speaking countries? Has the MOM given any thought to including other languages? b. Do workers utilize this means? If so, what statistics are available with respect to use, types of complaints and number of resolutions? The cable provides the following information that is relevant to this question: ``The MOM estimates that while it takes thousands of general inquiries a year on the hotline, it only receives about 150 complaints that require formal processing and action.'' UC at para. 19. Follow-up Question: Does the MOM keep official statistics of complaints? Please provide examples of the types of complaints that have been made that require formal processing and action.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a test whose side are you on: The 300 million Americans who will be alive in the year 2009 or the 7,500 families whose estates would be taxed according to 2009 law and figures. That is a Joint Tax Committee statement. It is 300 million versus 7,500 families. This is not a compromise. This is a sellout, a sellout of 300 million people. It is at a time that you will not even bring up a minimum-wage bill. At a time when middle-income families are under pressure. I read from The Economist, not a very liberal magazine: In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom, but after 2000 something changed. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker have risen less than 1 percent since 2000. In the previous 5 years, they rose over 6 percent. Yes, there is class warfare by you on 300 million Americans, not on the family farmer, the small business person. Under our approach, 99- plus of people with estates would not be taxed at all. Essentially, you are saying to 300 million, you pay the $800 billion the cost of this bill in the full 10 years. That is the accurate figure. This bill is irresponsible fiscally, and it is immoral in terms of values. Let us have a resounding ``no'' vote on this irresponsible legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the valuable service of Dr. Charles M. Chambers, Chancellor of Lawrence Technical University, and an advocate of higher education in Michigan and around the world. Appointed Chancellor on February 1, 2006, Dr. Chambers had served as the president of Lawrence Tech since 1993. He will conclude his tenure July 1, leaving behind an impressive legacy. During his career at Lawrence Tech, Dr. Chambers spurred an expansion of campus facilities, garnered significant financial support from the community, and spearheaded Lawrence Tech's emergence as one of Michigan's preeminent private research universities. Indeed, just a few years ago I was privileged to have had the opportunity to attend the groundbreaking of the Alfred Taubman Student Services Center, which offers a one-stop center for students combining admissions, academic advising, computer and career services. Under the stewardship of Dr. Chambers, Lawrence Tech has seen large expansions in research and academic offerings, including the launch of dozens of new degrees and Lawrence Tech's first doctoral programs. He has also overseen a considerable increase in student scholarships and community outreach. Under his leadership, Lawrence Tech became Michigan's first wireless laptop campus. Exhibiting similar innovation and foresight, Dr. Chambers helped pioneer the creation of learning centers and higher education partnerships in southeastern and northern Michigan, as well as in Canada, Germany, Mexico, and throughout Asia. Recognizing the value of economic expansion and diversification to Michigan, he assured that the University was a founding partner in Automation Alley and the Great Lakes Interchange, an Automation Alley SmartZone. Dr. Chambers is a life-long advocate of higher education, and has proven a capable steward of an impressive institution. As he returns to teaching at the institution he so vigorously led, I look forward to continuing my friendship with him.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the rationale for the Bush administration's going to war in Iraq has been one of shifting sands. The first reason given for the action in Iraq was that it was necessary because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong. Then the rationale was the threat of nuclear weapons from Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium from Africa, which also was not true and was seriously questioned within the Bush administration before the military action. Then it was said that there was a linkage between the Iraqi regime and the perpetrators of 9/11, a claim that has never been found to be true. The evidence is that al Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq until after the President ordered military action in Iraq. The Republicans try to paint Democratic opposition to the administration's Iraq policies as a reflection of refusal to use force. That is absolutely not true. It is a question of under what conditions and circumstances. That was at the heart of the debate over Iraq before the action was taken. In 2002, a majority of Democrats voted for an alternative resolution allowing the President to undertake military force in Iraq, but only after first attempting a multilateral approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein through the Security Council, just as the first President Bush did in 1991. What Democrats rejected was implementation of an approach emphasizing the use of unilateral, pre-emptive military action by the U.S. That approach has had a number of consequences: terminating inspections before the inspectors could fully disclose that there were no WMD; the twisting of truth about the lack of an Iraqi program of developing nuclear weapons and the lack of a connection between the Iraqi Government and 9/11; a belief that military action would not only be easy to begin with, but would lead to rapid development of a democracy in Iraq; inadequate equipment to safeguard our troops from the dire consequences of guerilla and radical insurgent attacks; and a vast and deep distrust of our Nation among peoples of the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere. The situation in Iraq is not getting better. It's getting worse. As of today, 2,500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Nearly 18,000 of our soldiers have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Iraq is teetering on the brink of a full-fledged civil war. Sectarian killings have risen rapidly. This resolution represents a seal of approval of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. I oppose it. It is essential that we change the course, not simply stay the course, and adopt policies that heighten the pressure to bring about that change and accelerate the reduction of American military involvement in Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a leader in the field of education, James McCann, who is retiring after 20 years as the Superintendent of Lamphere Schools in Madison Heights, Michigan and a total of 40 years in education. I have been pleased to work with Jim McCann and know him as an active and passionate advocate for the public education system and the students it serves. Mr. McCann graduated from Eastern Michigan University in 1966 and worked as a teacher and administrator for the Archdiocese of Detroit from 1966-1971. Joining the Lamphere School District, Mr. McCann was a high school teacher from 1971-1972, and then went on to serve as an Administrative Assistant, Assistant Principal, Middle School Principal and High School Principal before becoming Lamphere Schools' Superintendent in 1986. Although Mr. McCann has many accomplishments in his 20 years as Superintendent, his success in the use of technology as a teaching tool is perhaps the most significant. He was inspired to focus on technology in the classroom in 1980 when he attended a summer institute sponsored by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Under Mr. McCann's leadership, Lamphere became the first district in the State of Michigan to have Internet access in the classroom, and in 1996 became the JASON Project Primary Internet site for the State of Michigan, helping students from across the state experience real time scientific adventures. For the past 8 years, he served as the Chairman of the Oakland County Superintendents' Committee for Instructional Technology. He was recognized for these and other accomplishments when he became the winner of the first-ever ``Tech-Savvy Superintendent Award,'' given for leadership and vision in the area of educational technology. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. McCann, a genuine leader in the field of education. He has worked tirelessly to improve the Lamphere School District and public education throughout Michigan. I have been privileged to work with him in many endeavors and to witness his devotion firsthand. To Jim and Karen, many, many thanks from the community at large and my best personal regards, as you enter the next chapter in your lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, no one should be fooled by the inventive title of the legislation pending before the House today. The sponsor of this measure calls his bill the ``American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act.'' A better title would be the ``Big Oil Give-Away and Accountability Evasion Act.'' The plain truth is that what we have here is an old proposal dressed up with a fancy, new title. Since 1995, Congress has voted again and again on the question of whether or not to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Just last December, the Alaska Delegation tried to force drilling in ANWR through the Congress by attaching it in the dead of night to a must-pass defense bill. The Senate refused, and so here we are today debating yet another bill to turn the Arctic Refuge over to the oil companies. Drilling in ANWR will not bring down gasoline prices--not today and not tomorrow. No one knows how much economically recoverable oil lies underneath the Refuge. We do know that even if the Refuge were opened to oil exploration tomorrow, it would take nearly a decade for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market. Even if the estimates of economically recoverable oil in ANWR panned out, oil from ANWR would account for only about 3 percent of domestic oil use in 2025. Of the many actions we could be voting on today to help consumers at the pump, it speaks volumes that opening up the Refuge to oil drilling is the first choice of the Leadership of the House. For the last 6 years, the Majority leadership and the President have set the energy policy for the United States. The Bush Administration unveiled its energy plan in 2001. Although over 95 percent of the recommendations in that plan have been implemented, our Nation still confronts sky-high gas prices, growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, and record profits for the oil industry. In 2005, the six largest oil companies reported $110 billion in profits. These profits will likely set a new record this year. The Majority's philosophy is that what's good for ExxonMobile is good for American consumers, but we have learned that this is not the case. So essentially what the House Leadership is offering the country is more of the same. If they were serious about dealing with energy, the Majority would schedule a debate and a vote on H.R. 4479, the Energy Consumer Relief Act, which would roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks, royalty holidays and subsidies to oil and gas companies and make that funding available to bring down home heating costs through the LIHEAP program, as well as provide relief from high energy costs to farmers and small businesses. Yesterday, Representative Visclosky sought to offer a far-sighted amendment to the Energy and Water bill to provide $750 million to move the United States towards energy independence. This amendment would have made important investments in alternative energy, including ethanol and biofuels; renewable energy research and development, and energy efficiency. Yet, the Majority blocked the House from even considering this proposal. I realize that the House will likely repeat its previous votes on this issue today, but I strongly encourage the House to take more meaningful action to deal with our country's energy problems soon.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this June will witness the retirement of Richard Shoemaker after an unusually illustrious career in the American labor movement. He rose from an eighteen-year-old worker at John Deere in Illinois to serve three terms as vice-president of the United Auto Workers. He rose up the ranks on the basis of his strong talents of mind and spirit. No matter what rung he was on, he never forgot where he started. The result was an exceptional dedication to work for the well-being of his fellow and sister workers. He was proud that the labor movement, of which he was a vital part, was playing a key role in creating a strong middle class in America, one that gave workers a chance to obtain what many of their parents dreamed for their children to have, and which so many did not possess before the labor movement--a truly decent wage, decent health care, some security for their retirement, and educational opportunity for their children. That was infused in his work as a President of his local at the age of 27, as an international representative appointed at the age of 30 by Walter Reuther, and in key administrative posts for UAW vice president Steve Yokich and President Owen Bieber. He was called upon to tackle tough issues. Some years ago it was the effort to resolve a long conflict in labor management relations at Caterpillar. Greater challenges still lay ahead. The American auto industry is now tackling perhaps the most dramatic challenges in its history. As vice- president of the UAW for GM and Delphi, Dick Shoemaker is in the very center of the storm, using his deep talents, intelligence and experience to work toward answers that can sustain the domestic auto industry that he loves and helped build, while remaining faithful to the workers to whom he has dedicated his life's work. Dick Shoemaker also learned early on the lesson that what goes on in the public sector and government can vitally affect any efforts and gains obtained in negotiations in the private sector. So he assumed a variety of major political responsibilities on behalf of the Union and in the Democratic Party. During these decades of unusual challenge, commitment, and achievement, Dick has been blessed by a wonderful partner, his wife Mary. This Thursday, May 25, there will be a dinner held to give full tribute on his retirement to Dick Shoemaker. Mr. Speaker, I speak not only for myself as an admirer and friend, but I know for many, many others who say to Dick Shoemaker--congratulations on an illustrious career leaving its major mark on many yesterdays, and for many tomorrows.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5384, the Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Act. In particular, I am pleased that funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, or CSFP, has been restored in this bill. In yet another example of the Administration's upside-down priorities, the President's request proposed eliminating CSFP. Last year, in Michigan alone, almost 76,000 low income seniors, mothers and children received much-needed, nutritious food each month thanks to this funding and the hard work of organizations like Focus: Hope in Detroit. I thank the Committee for responding to the outpouring of grassroots support for CSFP, and refusing to do away with this important program. The bill before us includes $118.3 million for CSFP, an increase of $11 million from the current level. Following the President's recommendation would have literally taken food from the mouths of seniors and children across the country. I hope our action here not only protects CSFP, but also sends a message to the President that cuts like this are not acceptable.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 70th anniversary of the Corp. Neil W. Reid Post 2358 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, created in 1936, and named after Neil W. Reid, the first casualty of World War I from Macomb County. The Post was formed in 1936 by members of the Post in Mount Clemens who sought to establish a separate post in the Village of Roseville. At its foundation, the Corp. Neil W. Reid was operating out of the old township hall and had 24 members. Shortly after, the Ladies Auxiliary of the Post was chartered, made up of 20 former servicewomen and wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of veterans. In 1939, members of the Post received a charter from the Military Order of the Cooties, formed to better the metal attitude of bed-ridden soldiers through hospital visitation and fundraising activities. By the end of World War II the membership of the Post had grown to 175. This growth was recognized in 1950 when the National Commander of the VFW visited the Post's Home, an honor that few Posts throughout the nation have received. In 1958, Mildred Mueth, a member of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Post, was elected President of the organization in the State of Michigan, and one year later, Post member Fred McDaniel was elected to the position of commander in the State of Michigan. McDaniel would go on to coordinate the National Convention of the VFW, held in Detroit in 1960. The Post continued to grow, and during the 1960's and 1970's expanded and remodeled its Home several times. With the added space, the Post became an important community institution, hosting baby showers, birthday, anniversary, and retirement parties, as well as funeral lunches. Over the years, the Post has been an important fundraiser for the Roseville Police and Fire Departments, the Roseville Community Schools Scholarship Foundation and has been active in raising money for several other charities as well. The Post has been rewarded with numerous awards for Community Service, Americanism, and Youth Activities, demonstrating its involvement and commitment to the local community. Today, the Post helps veterans in need of medical care and other assistance, and has been active in providing household goods to soldiers in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Corp. Neil W. Reid, Post 2358, and its Ladies Auxiliary on the occasion of their 70th anniversary. These organizations have been an important and active force in aiding local veterans as well as the community as a whole.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Majority's budget. We need to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with the budgetary policies the Republican Leadership has pursued for the last 5 years. It is time for a little honesty about where these policies are taking this country. Since 2001, the Federal Government has posted record budget deficits year after year. During the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans worked together with the Clinton Administration to cut the red ink and balance the budget. For the first time in many years, we balanced the budget in 1998. We kept it balanced in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Indeed, we ran budget surpluses during those years and, for the first time in a generation, actually began to pay down the national debt. Since the Bush Administration took office in 2001, we've swung from balanced budgets to massive annual budget deficits. In 2002--the year after the Congress adopted the Administration's tax policies--the Federal Government posted a $128 billion deficit. In 2003, the deficit rose to $378 billion. In 2004, the deficit soared to an all-time high of $412 billion. In 2005, the deficit was $318 billion. As bad as these deficits are, they do not tell the whole story, since these figures do not include the money the Federal Government borrows from Social Security and Medicare trust funds each year. In 2005 alone, the Federal Government borrowed nearly $175 billion from the trust funds, and we're on course to borrow even more this year. We cannot continue on the course we're on. It is wrong for this Congress and this President to--keep borrowing half a trillion dollars each and every year and then pass this debt along to our children. It is wrong for Congress and the President to keep borrowing more and more from foreigners to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy. China alone owns more than $818 billion of our debt. The Majority's budget simply digs the deficit hole deeper. The Republican budget proposes a $348 billion deficit for 2007. If you add in the borrowing from Social Security and Medicare--money that, by law, must be repaid--the total deficit for 2007 soars to $543 billion. The hard truth is that under the Majority's budget, the Federal budget never comes into balance. The tide of red ink rises forever. This policy is unsustainable and morally indefensible. Tucked away in this budget is a provision to raise the government's borrowing limit another $653 billion. This would be on top of the $3 trillion in debt limit increases already approved since President Bush took office. At the very least, there should be a straight up-or-down vote on a debt limit of this magnitude, but evidently the plan is to try to sneak this through. The Majority's budget also contains irresponsible cuts in critical domestic programs. In this regard, the Majority has mirrored the Bush Administration's budget, which included deep cuts in education, critical medical research, environmental protection, veterans' health care, to name only a few areas. There has been an attempt tonight to place a fig leaf over some of these cuts with a vague half promise of perhaps adding an additional $7.1 billion for domestic programs later. All this fig leaf does is acknowledge that the funding shortfall exists in the Republican budget without taking any action to actually address it. I will vote for the Democratic budget substitute offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt budget pays down the deficits over the next 5 years and achieves balance in 2012. We restore fiscal discipline by bringing back the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules and we force a degree of accountability by requiring the House to take a separate up-or-down vote on measures to increase the national debt limit. In addition, the Democratic budget alternative provides $150 billion for future tax cuts, and requires that any further tax cuts meet the pay-as-you-go rules. Lastly, our budget alternative rejects yet another round of spending cuts to key domestic programs that have been cut repeatedly in recent years. The choice before the House could not be more clear. We can vote to continue the failed economic policies of the last 5 years--policies that have resulted in massive annual deficits. Or we can say $3 trillion of debt and borrowing over 5 years is enough and vote for the Spratt budget alternative that pays down these deficits and balances the budget. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for Representative Spratt's budget.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of a program that makes an enormous difference in the lives of all our constituents: the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, program. The CDBG program provides direct federal funding to local governments to make needed investments that improve the quality of life in our communities. These funds are used to prevent homelessness, reduce infant deaths, and provide youth enrichment programs. They are used to rehabilitate housing, to reconstruct residential streets, to help fund domestic violence shelters, to provide seniors with snow removal and lawn care assistance, and to fund important economic development initiatives. The President has again demonstrated that his budget priorities are upside down and out of step with our communities' needs by proposing a 20 percent cut in formula funding to CDBG entitlement communities. But as the distinguished Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, Representative Obey, has pointed out, just looking at this year's proposal doesn't tell the whole story. The CDBG program is just one of many important domestic priorities that have been subject to a bizarre pattern in which, year after year, the President proposes draconian cuts, then Congress restores some of the funding and declares victory. However, the effect of this is that after several years, the draconian cuts are imposed. Since 2001, the CDBG program has already been cut by more than 22 percent in real dollars. Yet the President wants to reduce these vital resources to our local communities even further. According to a Congressional Research Service analysis that I requested, the CDBG entitlement communities in my district would stand to lose $2.25 million next year if the President's proposed funding cuts are adopted. As bad as these numbers sound, it is important to remember that there are real people behind them. During the April recess, two cities in my district, Warren and Southfield, Michigan, were kind enough to show me the impact that CDBG funds have had in their communities. They have used these CDBG resources to make a real difference in the lives of countless families. I was particularly impressed by the housing rehabilitation programs that represent the largest CDBG-funded program in both communities. These efforts, along with CDBG-funded investments in local parks and roads, have helped maintain vibrant neighborhoods in both cities. I ask that summaries of these programs be included in the record, but I want to share with my colleagues just one example of the powerful difference that CDBG funds have meant to individual families. Through its Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, the City of Warren was able to help Michelle Amburgy and her son. I quote: Michelle Amburgy is a single mother employed by a catering service. When her furnace stopped working before Christmas and she and her son were living without heat, Ms. Amburgy did not have the resources to purchase a new furnace. She says she, ``. . . tried everywhere to get money for a furnace. . .'' and was unable to find a program to help her. Luckily the application she submitted to the City of Warren for a rehabilitation loan was being processed and according to her, ``. . . the City put a rush on it . . .'' in order to get a new furnace so she and her son could have heat. In addition to the furnace, various other improvements were done to her home, including an update of the electrical and plumbing systems which she says were definitely needed but she, ``. . . never would have been able to afford on my own''. I hope that the House will remember Ms. Amburgy and her son, and the thousands of other families touched by the CDBG program when we consider funding for the CDBG program in the coming weeks. City of Warren Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program--CDBG The City of Warren has spent over $14,370,000 of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding it has received since 1982 on an owner occupied rehabilitation loan program, which has assisted over 1,000 households. The low or deferred interest loans are offered to eligible households for necessary home improvements, including the correction of dangerous structural defects and the elimination of unhealthy living conditions. The program provides households who may otherwise not be able to improve their homes and living conditions with a means for doing so. For example, Michelle Amburgy is a single mother employed by a catering service. When her furnace stopped working before Christmas and she and her son were living without heat, Ms. Amburgy did not have the resources to purchase a new furnace. She says she, ``. . . tried everywhere to get money for a furnace . . .'' and was unable to find a program to help her. Luckily the application she submitted to the City of Warren for a rehabilitation loan was being processed and according to her, ``. . . the City put a rush on it . . .'' in order to get a new furnace so she and her son could have heat. In addition to the furnace, various other improvements were done to her home, including an update of the electrical and plumbing systems which she says were definitely needed but she, ``. . . never would have been able to afford on my own''. In order to qualify for the program, the household must meet the definition of low or moderate income which is adjusted based upon household size. For instance, the total income for a household of two would have to be below $27,950 in order to be considered low income. If the household qualifies as low income, payments on the loan are deferred and no interest is charged. The total income for a moderate income household of two would have to be below $44,750. If the household is determined to be moderate income, monthly payments on the loan are due at a 4 percent interest rate. All loan payments and loan payoffs are placed into a revolving account used to fund future rehabilitation loans. The rehabilitation loan program not only provides funding needed to make home repairs, it also provides expertise and guidance through the home improvement process. The City's inspectors perform a thorough inspection of the home and determine all items which must be corrected in order to bring the home into compliance with current housing codes, which may include updating electrical, plumbing and heating systems. This work must be addressed through the program. The homeowner, in consultation with City staff, may also identify other items which should be done in order to improve the condition of the property. This may include the installation of new windows, roofing, and modest kitchen and bath updates. The City oversees the preparation of specifications, the bid process and the actual rehabilitation to ensure that the appropriate work is being done by qualified individuals. Arthur and Gloria Huard are a retired couple living in Warren. Mr. and Mrs. Huard were faced with a leaking roof that was causing structural damage to a portion of their home. Mrs. Huard says that she and her husband are living on a fixed income and, ``. . . didn't have the money to pay . . .'' for a new roof and the necessary repairs to the home. She and her husband received a rehabilitation loan from the City of Warren which funded a roof and repair of the structural damage. They were also able to have new windows installed and their bathroom updated, including the replacement of flooring which had been sinking. Mr. and Mrs. Huard were relieved to have the work done and she says that they were, ``. . . very pleased . . .'' with the work and that, ``. . . the men that worked were very nice and helpful''. Mrs. Huard says that the pension and social security they receive must go to pay medical bills for her ailing husband and she's relieved that the loan funds do not have to be repaid to the City until they sell their home because they are retired senior citizens. Many different types of households are assisted with the City of Warren's CDBG funded loan program. Of the 62 households receiving loans within the past two years, 22 were female head of household/not elderly, 19 were female head of household/elderly, 7 were elderly/not female head of household and 14 were classified as ``other''. For example, Kevin and Kelly Sorlien are a young couple with three children of their own. In addition, the Sorlien's also have custody of Kelly's teenage sister and are responsible for her care. Mr. Sorlien works full-time and Mrs. Sorlien takes care of the children and has picked up a part-time job to help support the family. The Sorlien's needed some improvements done to their home and Mrs. Sorlien says they couldn't afford to do them on their own. They applied for a rehabilitation loan through the City because she says that, ``. . . the interest rates were lower with the City's loan . . .'' than they would have been able to get had they gone elsewhere for a loan. With the City's loan, the Sorlien's were able to get a new roof and siding and updates elsewhere in the home. Mrs. Sorlien says that she, ``. . . loves the way my house turned out . . .'' and was happy that the City was able to make this program available to her family. Southfield Home Improvement Program (SHIP) CDBG Funded Residential Rehabilitation Program The City of Southfield, over the past 32 years, has spent close to $7,000,000 of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding on the Southfield Home Improvement Program (SHIP). Since 1975, SHIP has assisted over 930 households. The program is designed to assist low and moderate income homeowners afford structural repairs to their home who may not otherwise qualify for a bank loan. The loans we give range from small emergency repairs to large scale structural problems. Although the average loan amount is $15,000 it is not unusual to have a $25,000 loan on one property which includes roof repair, plumbing, electrical and new windows. The clients of SHIP range in income from extremely low; those on fixed incomes due to age or disability; and those families with moderate incomes who are not classified as poverty stricken but don't have sufficient income for amenities outside of basic living necessities. Sherry Crammer is a 59 year old widow of 16 years to a Detroit police officer and has lived in her Southfield home for 30 years. Her yearly income is $23,868 comprised primarily of her husband's pension. As a result of poor health issues, the homeowner incurred high medical bills and credit card balances forcing her into bankruptcy. In the early part of January 2006, the homeowner smelled a slight burning odor coming from her furnace. Upon calling the gas company, they red tagged the furnace after showing her the plastic coating on the wires that were melting. The act of `red tagging' means that the gas appliance is determined to be a hazard and is not to be used until repaired or replaced. The call from the homeowner was received by SHIP on a late Friday afternoon. At 5 p.m. the Housing Inspector went to her home to examine the crisis and to assist with the application process. During this initial contact it was learned that she had an unused wall space heater in a spare bedroom. The Housing Inspector, with the help of some caring neighbors was able to get the space heater running until a contractor quote could be finalized that following Monday and a new furnace installed. The homeowner was very grateful for all of the personal attention and service. Before assistance from SHIP, Mrs. Crammer had contemplated moving into a senior citizen apartment. SHIP afforded her the opportunity to continue living in the home she loved. The Andersons are a young couple who had in the past 2 years gotten married, bought a home in Southfield and started their own landscaping business. The business was doing okay, but there wasn't any extra money, most of the profits went back into the business. The home needed a new roof as well as electrical and plumbing repairs. With SHIP, the couple was able to get a 3 percent interest loan that wouldn't require monthly payments which would have added another strain to their already tight budget. They will be able to defer payment of the loan until the sale of their house. Without a program like SHIP being available this couple would probably not have qualified for a conventional loan and may have been the target of predatory lenders. Mr. and Mrs. Willie Hunter are a family of seven. Their income consists of a pension, supplemental security insurance and child support. They just purchased their house a little over a year ago and needed to make some improvements. However, they quickly found out the house had more extensive problems then their budget would permit them to fix, including a leaking roof. In addition, while the Hunters were in the process of replacing the kitchen floor, they discovered under the linoleum and deteriorated subfloor that they had structural floor framing problems. Application to the Southfield Home Improvement Program addressed both of these major issues for the Hunters. They are now able to sit all together at the kitchen table to enjoy their meals under a roof that doesn't leak. The focus of SHIP is ``make a difference in the life of a family one house at a time''. Total home inspections are performed to identify housing code violations as well as abate any lead based paint hazards. The entire process is coordinated by the equivalent of 1\1/2\ staff positions. Staff prepares the specifications, reviews bids, communicates with contractors and oversees the actual rehab work in addition to processing the completed loan documents and tracking an average of 800 active loans. The goal is to complete 20-25 loans per year; making a difference one house at a time. Note: Names have been changed to protect the privacy of program participants.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, two quick comments. Mr. Thomas, when you say that the people taken off the rolls a few years ago do not pay any taxes--you did, twice you said that.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I hope in the future Republicans who keep on saying they do not pay taxes will not say that anymore.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.