Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that will repeal the onerous requirement that federal, state, and local government entities withhold three percent of payments to government contractors. H.R. 674 will also take the first step in passing a piece of the President's American Jobs Act, by providing tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed or disabled veterans, and will help provide servicemembers who are leaving the service with job training and other skills necessary for starting a career outside of the military.

While I support these initiatives, I am disappointed that my friends in the House and Senate are pairing two bipartisan pieces of legislation with legislation that will change the intent of the Affordable Care Act and roll back eligibility for middle-class Americans to qualify for tax credits in the new Health Insurance Exchanges or Medicaid and CHIP.

As a veteran myself, I want nothing more than to help veterans to find gainful employment after the military and I believe that as we draw near the end of our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan the need for this assistance is paramount. I will also gladly help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to repeal their own three percent withholding requirement which we have delayed year after year. What I do not support is how we will pay for this repeal--on the backs of middle class Americans who as a result may find themselves paying more for their health care.

This legislation will add Social Security income back into the calculation of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income or MAGI for purposes of determining eligibility for the premium tax credits in the exchange and for Medicaid and CHIP. Some have suggested that excluding nontaxable Social Security benefits in the MAGI definition was a glitch. This is not so. The Affordable Care Act used the definition of MAGI that excluded nontaxable Social Security benefits because it is typical when determining eligibility for tax benefits.

Changing the MAGI definition to add Social Security income back in will make 500,000 to 1 million people ineligible for Medicaid and Chip and ineligible for premium tax credits. This will impose high costs for health care on low-income and middle-income families, early retirees and the disabled, and consequently could shift them out of Medicaid coverage or require increased out-of-pocket costs for health coverage. This goes against the very intent of the Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the sort of legislating that is before us today as I believe each chamber should be allowed to work its will on separate items, rather than be forced to accept bad policy sandwiched between pieces of bipartisan legislation. This goes against the pledge to openness and transparency my Republican colleagues have claimed to support.

While I will lend my support to the legislation before us, I cannot continue to accept such abuses of procedure.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question. The Great Lakes are 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply. It is endangered, and the fish and the wildlife and the whole ecosystem are endangered by the constant entry of imported species that come in in the ballast water of ships entering the Great Lakes. What we're talking about here is protecting something of enormous value that has been here since geological times and which has provided enormous opportunity for our people--food and all manner of things, including recreation, transportation, fish and wildlife.

This process of trying to give a few bones to a bunch of importers who are bringing these things in from the Black Sea and other places in Europe is a shameful thing if permitted. The United States and the Congress have not done the job that we should have

done to protect our Great Lakes. And already we have a large number of things, including some nasty diseases such as viral hemorrhagic septicemia, sort of the Ebola virus of fish. This is something we have to protect our Great Lakes against, and other waters of the United States.

If foreign shippers are going to be bringing in dirty ballast water, discharging it into our Great Lakes, if the States want to spend the time protecting the States' water and the interest in the Great Lakes, or other bodies of water which are threatened by these practices, they want to do it, the Congress should very well permit them to do it because failure to do it is going to jeopardize 20 percent of the world's freshwater. And more importantly, a resource which is recreational which relates to fish and wildlife values and which provides us with opportunity for transportation, drinking water, and a whole array of other precious and important things. If we don't adopt this amendment, we'll find we're taking care of a bunch of foreign ship owners instead of our people and the future of the United States.

Support the amendment.

My home state of Michigan is blessed with a vast and marvelous natural resource--our Great Lakes. As a steadfast conservationist, I firmly believe that we owe it to future generations to restore and protect this national treasure. In addition to that, however, we also must consider the economic value of our Lakes.

Ballast water, which is used to stabilize freighters, is taken on board before a voyage begins. It can often contain organisms which become invasive species when released in non-native navigable waters. For the reasons outlined above, ballast water represents a significant threat to our Great Lakes.

The language in this bill would restrict states like Michigan from enacting commonsense laws to protect our shores, local economies, and recreation opportunities. The Dingell-Slaughter amendment would strike that language and allow Great Lakes and other coastal states to make the necessary decisions that are in their individual state's best interest in order to keep these invasive species from destroying our waters, fisheries, shorelines, and economies.

Among the invasive species affecting the Great Lakes are the zebra and quagga mussels. On the beaches of Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, we have seen fish and bird kills numbering in the thousands because zebra and quagga mussels have caused massive botulism outbreaks. Zebra and quagga mussels concentrate nutrients along the bottom of the nearshore area and make the water very clear. The extra food and sunlight promotes the growth of algae that coats the lake bottom in thick mats. As it dies, it becomes infected by botulism. The zebra and quagga mussels eat the dead algae and the botulism, which has no effect on them, and in doing so create higher and more deadly concentrations of botulism. When fish eat the zebra mussels, they die of botulism poisoning and wash up on the beach. There, birds eat them, and they too die of botulism poisoning.

Power and water treatment plants are also at risk. Zebra and quagga mussels attach themselves to hard surfaces including water intake pipes. Gradually these invasive species build and build until they clog the pipes, risking shutdown of these facilities.

Other invasive species include the Spiny Water Flea and the Fishhook Water Flea which fish can't digest. The viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) disease is like the ebola virus for fish. While it's mortality rate in the Great Lakes is still relatively low, it has caused thousands of fish deaths, further polluting the waters and shorelines.

Invasive species are costing Federal, State, and local governments as well as businesses billions of dollars every year. I ask that you vote for this amendment to give states the tools they need to fight invasive species.

If the gentleman will yield, let me express my great respect and affection for the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, and H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act. Just as I remarked earlier this week during the House's consideration of H.R. 1070 and H.R. 1965, I strongly support measures to free up capital for job creation, but such measures must be responsible and protect investors. I lament that the bills we consider here today fail to meet that threshold.

H.R. 2930 has as its goal the facilitation of crowdfunding, a relatively new phenomenon and one the Securities Exchange Commission is beginning to study. Mandating laxer regulatory requirements in statute strikes me as premature, if not irresponsible, in this case. Further, I recognize the potential the Internet holds for the financial services industry but also have grave reservations on the nefarious ways in which it can be used to defraud investors, particularly the more casual kind that might participate in crowdfunding.

The other bill on which we will vote--H.R. 2940--would seem to obviate the regulatory distinction made between private and public securities. The latter are permitted to be solicited publicly in exchange for greater regulatory scrutiny. I am extremely wary of granting the same privilege to private securities without associated reporting requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services for producing bipartisan legislation. Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support either H.R. 2930 or H.R. 2940 because each bill obfuscates transparency for investors and could expose them to new risks that any intelligent person would seek to avoid in this economy.

On a final note, I would add that the financial deregulatory bills considered by the House this week will put more pressure on our country's broken fiduciary system. By waiving registration and reporting requirements, we will be further muddying the distinction between brokers and investment advisers. This will be to the detriment of investors and market integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1070, the Small Company Capital Formation Act, and H.R. 1965, the Increase Shareholder Threshold for SEC Registration Act. While I applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues to help small businesses grow and create jobs, the sting of the effects of financial deregulation is still too strong to allow me to support these bills.

With respect to H.R. 1070, I note that Congress has raised the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation A threshold five times. Each time, however, was a modest increase that was in my mind relative to the rate of inflation and the purchasing power of the dollar. H.R. 1070 would mandate an unprecedented tenfold increase in the current threshold of $5 million to $50 million. Such an increase strikes me as grotesquely large, especially since inflation has risen only 165 percent since 1980, and in my view constitutes a tremendous incitement to perpetrate fraud on investors.

I take a dimmer view of H.R. 1965, which increases the number of shareholders a bank can have before having to register with the SEC. Under current law, that number is 500, and H.R. 1965 would increase it four times to 2,000. I am not at all satisfied this increase is justified and furthermore consider it a sly way to skirt federal reporting requirements that are in place to protect the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concern that not enough jobs are being created and that Congress must take swift action. Where I part ways with them is voting for seemingly innocuous measures like these that unfortunately will decrease transparency for investors and create incentives for all manner of financial rascality.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote in support of H.R. 674, which would repeal the onerous requirement that federal, state, and local government entities withhold three percent of payments to government contractors. Although never put into effect, the requirement would constitute a significant burden on all levels of government, which are presently sorely lacking in resources. Withholding three percent of payments was unsound policy when enacted by the Republican Congress in 2005, and I gladly will help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle correct their mistake.

I am less disposed to be helpful on H.R. 2576, a bill to adjust the definition of ``modified adjusted gross income,'' MAGI, so that fewer Americans qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. This strikes me at best as a solution in search of a non-existent problem. To add insult to injury, H.R. 2576 will cause American families, seniors, and those with disabilities to pay more for their healthcare at a time when they can least afford it. I have spent my entire career fighting to ensure working American families have access to affordable, good-quality healthcare. Supporting H.R. 2576 would be in direct contravention of that goal, and I cannot in good conscience do so. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by noting the rascality underlying the rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576. It allows separate votes on both bills--one non-controversial and the other very controversial--and then requires they be merged for consideration by the Senate. I oppose this sort of legislating and believe each chamber should be allowed to work its will on separate items, rather than forced to accept bad policy in the guise of procedural tricks and faux compromise. This is skullduggery at its finest, Mr. Speaker, and an unnecessary affront to regular order, which your side so consistently claims to cherish.

Mr. Speaker, I have sad news for the House today. I rise to inform the House that we lost a former Member of this great institution. He was our friend, Howard Wolpe, who served in this body for 14 years. He was particularly known for his concern for the poor and unfortunate and about peace in the world.

He was a true patriot, a devoted teacher, and a fine statesman. He was a dear friend of mine and many others with whom he served. He shared our collective love for this great Nation and for our State of Michigan. He had an enormous impact upon public policy in Michigan and our country, as well as across the world, which was a positive one. He contributed most of his life to bringing civility to government relations and to making this world a better place--a passion that I was able to witness during his long and distinguished service here.

He served Michigan ably and honorably and went on to serve as the Presidential Special Envoy to Africa's Great Lakes Region, where he initiated peace talks and helped to end civil wars in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2832, a bill whose consideration by the members of this House is long overdue. It is absolutely unconscionable that working Americans displaced by trade have had no Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits since the beginning of this year. I am ashamed that partisan rhetoric has stalled congressional consideration of TAA, once a reliably non-partisan issue. In more human terms, my home state of Michigan has weathered the ill effects of free trade agreements arguably longer than any other state in the union. Thousands of displaced workers in my district have relied on TAA to start their careers over in fields like nursing, alternative energy, an information technology. These workers have experienced first-hand the benefits of TAA and understand--as I do--the value the program brings to communities across the country.

In closing, I call on my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 2832 and stand up for the American families all over the country to whom free trade has been less than fair. And when we finish voting on this measure, I urge everyone on both sides of Capitol Hill--Republicans and Democrats alike--to take the country's best interests to heart and pass legislation to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia and Korea. I wish, however, to commend my good friend from Michigan and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Sandy Levin, for his hard and effective work with the Obama Administration to improve them. Sandy and the Administration have fought hard to ensure improved market access for American workers and companies, all while insisting that our trading partners' labor protections be improved. Nevertheless, my experience with FTAs has been one of nearly two decades of broken promises and widespread domestic economic dislocation, particularly in my home state of Michigan. With our economy teetering on the edge of recession and the painful memory of millions of lost jobs, I cannot vote in good conscience for more free trade agreements.

With respect to Colombia, I am disappointed by the Administration's decision not to include the Labor Action Plan as a binding and enforceable provision of the FTA. Colombia has a well known history as one of the world's most inhospitable places for labor leaders. While the country was showing some signs of progress under the action plan, there is nothing to prevent Colombia from backsliding once the FTA is in effect and the plan itself does not have the force of law.

Although I recognize that significant improvements in terms of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade have been made in the Korean trade agreement, I rather unhappily believe that promises will not translate into reality. In short, I believe the United States is giving up far too much for mediocre market share gains in the short term. This agreement may well boost our exports to Korea over the next few years, but I am firmly convinced that the benefits Korea will reap in the long run--especially

in the auto sector--will eclipse any that the U.S. may achieve. Even the International Trade Commission estimates that our auto trade deficit with Korea will rise by over $700 million in the next ten years if this agreement is implemented.

With due recognition of my colleagues' hard work to improve these agreements, I must respectfully part ways and vote in opposition to them. Lest we be condemned to repeat it, I ask my colleagues to learn the lessons of history and vote ``no'' on these trade deals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my dear friend, the Reverend Doctor Steven D. Riley, who was honored this past weekend for his 30th Anniversary as Pastor of Christ Temple Baptist Church in Ypsilanti, Michigan and his 40 years of teaching the gospel. A large and enthusiastic group of friends from all walks of life, leaders from the community, and people he touched throughout his life all gathered for a service to pay tribute to this wonderful local leader. The greatest message given that evening was seen on the faces of the audience whose love, gratitude, affection and respect for Reverend Riley's service to the church and his community radiated throughout the service.

He has led Ypsilanti and Southeast Michigan by his ministerial example and being steadfast in his mission to shape and mold the present into a better future. He has worked hard to ensure that residents in Southeast Michigan have a friend in faith, are cared for, and have a roof overhead. For that, I would like to say on behalf of the people of Michigan's 15th Congressional District, thank you.

Reverend Doctor Riley has dedicated his career to spreading the gospel in Southeast Michigan. His commitment to serving others has helped my constituents lead healthier, more fulfilled lives. He has been a leader among the church-affiliated groups in Southeast Michigan. I want to thank him for his love of all people and for his tremendous friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that Reverend Doctor Riley chose his career early in life. At the age of 11, he began ministering to his neighbors in Detroit, and stayed focused growing in the faith by earning a bachelor's degree in theology and philosophy. He felt called to continue learning more, going on to get a master's degree in theology and religious studies, and a doctorate of divinity degree along with a doctorate of humane letters.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Doctor Riley is an honorable man who has done many great things for the citizens of Southeastern Michigan. I am honored to have him as friend. I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Reverend Doctor Riley for his tireless support, kindness and leadership to his community and to give him our best wishes for the future.

Mr. Chair, today's debate is deja vu from the debate within the House Energy and Commerce committee. Once again my colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce Committee had the opportunity to address and protect human health and environment, while also promote and encourage innovation and job creation. These are serious issues facing our country and the EPA, issues that require serious solutions. Sadly, this bill does nothing to actually address those issues.

In addition to the lack of a well thought-out strategy, the proposed amendments to this bill would make serious changes to the Clean Air Act without any congressional hearing or testimony. None of these proposals have had serious examination by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter. This is not the open and transparent legislative process that my colleagues have committed to. We cannot responsibly govern in this matter and ignore our Constitutional obligation to hold hearings, hear testimony, and give these matters the in-depth consideration major policy initiatives deserve.

As I said, there are legitimate problems with some of the proposed rules coming out of EPA, and they need to be dealt with. However, this Polish lawyer from Detroit happens to believe we would get further with a more surgical approach to dealing with these matters.

I am particularly concerned with the Utility MACT, which in its current form, could have a devastating effect on the economy of Midwestern manufacturing States, including my home State of Michigan. I am convinced that a balanced, bipartisan solution to this issue was available to us. In fact, I offered to work with all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans on this matter. Sadly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather play political games rather than work on a reasonable solution to a legitimate problem.

I would note to my colleagues that we spent only one day on the failed Continuing Resolution, but will spend two days on this bill. This, I believe, demonstrates the true intention of the GOP. That is not to actually deal with a legitimate and disconcerting problem, but to spend time on their favorite whipping boy, EPA. Now, I have had my share of issues with that particular agency, but I have always sought a solution--not played games to gain political points.

As such, it is my intent to vote against the TRAIN Act and the amendments proposed by the other side of the aisle. The President already indicated his strong opposition and as such, the bill before us is nothing more than veto bait. I would call on my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to work with me on these matters in a reasonable way.

Here we are again.

Yesterday, the House rebuked the Republicans because they came forward with almost as bad a bill as this. They were going to destroy, as they are tonight, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. It's one of the most successful programs we've had. It has made 40,000 jobs for Americans. At a time when Americans are losing their homes, losing their jobs, running out of unemployment compensation, they want to hear us say what we're doing about jobs, what we're doing about opportunity, what we're doing about making the economy grow.

So the Republicans, when they got their heads handed to them yesterday, went back to caucus and made the bill a little bit worse so that they could appeal to their right-wing extremes. The result is that you've got a bill here that has been brought to us that nobody has had an opportunity to see and a bill on which we haven't got any idea exactly what it does.

We hear our good friend from California tell us how the private system of government is working. He says it's working in China because the Chinese have forced GM to work with them to manufacture cars over there so that they can sell them over here. We say that we ought to be manufacturing those cars over here with American workers to sell over there in China and in other countries that are playing the same game with us.

This is an enormously successful program. They're submitting their successes of yesterday by trying now to cut other programs which do this.

They talk about Solyndra. Solyndra went broke for a very simple reason. I sat in on the hearings when I don't think many of the other Members on this side did. I heard that the reason they went under was the trade practices of the Chinese. That's why. They're underselling them in an intolerable way in spite of the fact that we've tried to bring that technology over here and to make it work for the American people in order to provide jobs for the American people.

My Republican colleagues are making a war between the American workers and American industry on the one side and those who have need of relief from the disasters. That's not good. It should not be. It is quite sufficient that we help both. There is no need to have an offset for a disaster, and time after time we have not done it. But not so the Republicans. They are out to kill Department of Energy loan programs. These are programs that create jobs.

Take a look in your district, if they'll give you a copy of this bill, and ask yourself and ask them and ask of the legislation: What are they cutting that is in your district or your State that's going to make jobs and opportunity for your people? You're going to find, when this legislation passes--God forbid it will do so--that you have cut the opportunities and the well-being of your American people who desperately look to us to make the economy go again. You are burning here tonight the seed corn of the American people. You are taking and striking a major blow against the economy and the well-being of this Nation. I say, Shame.

Reject the rule.

Reject the previous question.

Reject the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought to us by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The hard fact of the matter is they've fought two wars on the credit card. This is one of the few times that we've ever found that they have required offsets for emergencies, so now we're trying to fix a bad bill.

I want to make the observation that we have a serious problem. We have a natural emergency, and we have people who have a lasting unemployment situation that is going to destroy the country and destroy families and people in this country.

Having said that, I am baffled as to why we are considering a measure that is going to cut funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a loan program that has created or saved over 40,000 jobs so far, and if it's left alone and not destroyed, as would be done here, it will create another 10,000 more by year's end.

For all the talk in Washington on that side of the aisle about creating jobs, we find that they're out to kill jobs again, and killing ATVM just plain makes no sense. It is going to prevent job creation. The Economic Policy Institute just released a report that my home State of Michigan has lost nearly 80,000 jobs to China since 2001, where they sustain and support their industry and where we do not. If we cripple this loan program, Michigan and the rest of the country can expect to lose even more jobs and their ability to compete globally in the 21st century.

I understand we're living through tough economic times and have to squeeze every penny to make sure it counts, but I want to remind everybody here present that there are more applications in the pipeline than there is money to participate in this particular program. So we are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it is going to come at an enormous cost to the economic future of your constituents and mine.

Now, it comforts me that many of my colleagues have seen through this rascality and have observed it for what it is. Over 100 of them have signed on to a letter by my friends Mr. Peters and Ms. Eshoo in opposition to gutting ATVM.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for what is right by defeating the previous question and by adopting my amendment. If we can't do that, let's vote

this rule down and let's vote this bill down, and let's go about the Nation's business in a wise and sensible fashion which will create jobs and not strangle economic opportunity for our people.

I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for her leadership on this matter; but I want to denounce the behavior that I see on the other side, where they are walking into one of the most important issues that this country confronts with their eyes completely closed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in unequivocal opposition to H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This devious legislation carries on in my Republican colleagues' fine tradition of masking hard truth with pithy and inaccurate turns of phrase. H.R. 2587's goal is not to protect jobs, but rather to neuter the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the protections it affords America's working men, women, and their families.

In point of fact, H.R. 2587 will prohibit the NLRB from reinstating production lines closed as retaliation for union activities. The bill will also prevent the Board from issuing any order that rescinds any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, or outsourcing of work by a company as retribution for union activities. As I have said, this bill does nothing to offer increased protections to American workers. It will, however, protect union-busting activities by businesses that are still sitting on billions of dollars and asking for a tax holiday for repatriated profits, yet all the while making precious little effort to add new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are using a pending dispute between the NLRB and a certain airplane manufacturer to justify the supposed need for this abominable legislation. H.R. 2587 is explicit proof of the Republican Party's strong desire to wipe out the very unions that built this country's middle class and make sure American workers have no better protections that their brethren in third-world countries.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 77, a resolution disapproving of President Obama's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit. The recent decision by the President to raise the debt ceiling was not one made in haste or taken lightly, but rather it is one that absolutely must be made. The consequences of not acting are so grave that we could not let it be an option as it would do great irreparable damage to our economy. We played with fire last month, and although we ultimately approved an increase, we spooked world markets and caused an unprecedented downgrading of our country's heretofore sterling credit rating. In brief, we must raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on our Nation's obligations, avert an international economic crisis, and prevent further harm from being visited upon middle class families.

My colleagues have failed to recognize the damage their political posturing is doing to our economy. We have wasted plenty of floor time on theater, and in the meantime have let our Nation dangle on the precipice of default. Instead of rehashing old arguments and playing the same political blame games, we should come together and focus on the main problem facing Americans today: jobs. When I was back home in Michigan during the August recess, I heard firsthand from my constituents about the urgent need to create jobs, regenerate our economy, and get America going again. People across our Nation are hurting and are sick of the inaction in Washington.

President Obama should be commended for taking the initiative on this important issue by unveiling the American Jobs Act. While we may disagree on the specifics of his proposal, it should be considered on merit alone and Congress should come together to reach consensus on what can be done to improve the economy. Resolutions such as this one are nothing but a distraction from this important mission, which is why I am voting against it today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city-wide response to bullying behavior in Dearborn, Michigan. Today, September 14, 2011, marks the first annual anti-bullying day in Dearborn. I am proud to have a city like this in my district, where they will not sit back and allow bullying behavior to go unnoticed and unpunished.

On this day, Dearborn Public Schools are also celebrating Diversity Day, a day for accepting and respecting everyone for who they are, and treating them all equally; a day to bring our wonderful community together. I ask, what better day is there for acknowledging the fight against bullying? Bullying doesn't only create rifts between families, students, and schools, but it is also detrimental to our local communities. We must not let individuals or groups be allowed to engage in misbehavior without punishment, rather it is important to send the message that such behavior will not be tolerated in our communities. Community leaders holding a public forum such as this one to raise awareness on the societal costs of bullying is an important first step to combating this problem.

Bullying can take on various forms and affect children and young adults of all backgrounds. With the vast use of online resources by children and young adults, more and more young people are being emotionally and physically victimized on a daily basis. In order to stop bullying we all need to do our part, this includes both students and teachers maintaining a vigilant lookout for this abhorrent behavior. Additionally, it is crucial that the victims of bullying have strong moral support from friends and family alike. Aside from lending emotional support, parents, friends, peers and teachers have a responsibility to report these incidents to their school in order to help prevent further incidents.

I commend the effort being made by the Dearborn community to end bullying. This is the all important first step in a fight to keep our children safe from the ridicule and abuse of bullies. I ask all of my colleagues to rise and join me in recognizing the magnificent work being done by the entire community of Dearborn, Michigan on the occasion of the first annual anti-bullying day.