Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Omnibus Appropriations bill. This bill funds a wide array of vital programs, but this bill does not address a relatively new problem that is affecting the ash tree population in Southeast Michigan. I am talking about the Emerald Ash Borer, an Asian beetle that most likely traveled to Michigan on wooden shipping pallets. An invasive species, the Ash Borer is rapidly destroying ash trees in southeastern Michigan and as it spreads will do so nationwide. In the time that it has been in Michigan, the Ash Borer has already killed 6 million trees. Ironically, this invasive pest has the potential to wipe out the very tree that was planted to replace the elm trees that succumbed to Dutch Elm Disease.

Mr. LEVIN. It is imperative that the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) take a vital role addressing this problem. It is my expectation that APHIS will conducted surveillance into this problem and develop a containment strategy that will lay the groundwork for the eradication of this invasive species.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, January 31 of this year will be the last day that MG Gordon E. Stump serves as the head of the Michigan National Guard. This will bring to a close the tenure of the longest serving adjutant general in the Nation. For 12 years, GEN Stump has embodied the pride, professionalism and dedication that is the hallmark of the citizen soldiers of the National Guard. Increasingly, our Nation's military relies on the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve to serve seamlessly alongside of our active duty military. The ability of these citizen soldiers to pick up, leave their families and serve where they are needed is a tribute to them and to the ability of their leadership to prepare them for service. It is because of the dynamic leadership and vision of men and women like GEN Stump that our National Guard is able to operate with such professionalism. Since I have had the pleasure of first working with GEN Stump, I have witnessed a man who had a clear vision for the future of the Michigan National Guard. To that end, he has tirelessly worked to improve the tools available to the soldiers under his command. He has worked to improve their hardware, facilities and training opportunities, and he has achieved success in each of these efforts. Today, the Michigan Army Guard possesses the UH-60 Black Hawk instead of the Vietnam era Huey Cobra helicopter. Additionally, airlift capacity has been enhanced with the addition of C-130 aircraft, F-16s have been upgraded with the addition of Litening targeting pods, and the Multiple Launch Rocket System is now available for use by the soldiers of the Michigan National Guard. In just over a decade, GEN Stump has upgraded Michigan's Guard facilities by securing $179 million in military construction funds that have been used for 32 projects throughout Michigan. Among these facilities is Selfridge Air National Guard Base, ANGB, a unique base because it is the only Air National Guard facility in the United States with all the branches of the service represented on the base. This is also the base where GEN Stump maintained his aeronautical skills and became qualified as an F-16 pilot. Under GEN Stump's leadership, Michigan became one of 23 States to participate in the Department of Defense's State Partnership program that paired States with nations that were once part of the former Soviet Union. These partnerships sought to teach the militaries of these nations about the standards required by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. GEN Stump worked to develop the Michigan Youth Challenge program, a program that works with at-risk youth enabling them to earn their general equivalency diploma while enabling them to develop the skills needed to succeed in life. Additionally, GEN Stump was able to work with the State of Michigan to initiate a program with 18 colleges and universities in the State that coupled with the Montgomery GI Bill, virtually guarantees a free education for Michigan guard members. These programs have resulted in a manning increase from 84 percent to over 99 percent for the Michigan National Guard. All of these efforts have paid important dividends for Michigan and the Nation. The Michigan National Guard has participated in over 10 Department of Defense missions including Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Joint Endeavor, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom. Forces have also been provided to the 1996 Summer Olympics, humanitarian missions throughout the world, and disaster relief efforts in Michigan. In the days and months following September 11, residents of Michigan saw the Michigan National Guard come to the aid of their fellow citizens. Guard members protected key sites, assisted at airports and aided Customs officials with their duties along the northern border between the United States and Canada. Their hard work helped our Nation remain secure and maintain the free flow of commerce between both nations. GEN Stump's leadership has been recognized by his peers. He has been appointed to serve on the Reserve Forces Policy Board, the Adjutant Generals Association, and for the past 2 years as the president of the National Guard Association of the United States. GEN Stump has left an indelible impression upon the Michigan National Guard. I look forward to working with his successor, GEN Thomas Cutler, and I know that the new Adjutant General of Michigan will agree with me that his job has been made easier because of the hard work and dedication of GEN Stump. I commend GEN Gordon E. Stump for his long and distinguished career of service to the United States Air Force, the Michigan National Guard, and his Nation, and I know my Senate colleagues will join me in wishing him well in the years to come.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I look forward to the Senate's speedy confirmation of Governor Ridge to be the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe that Governor Ridge is the right person for the job, and I strongly support his selection to head the new department. The challenge before Governor Ridge is massive: 22 agencies with over 170,000 people must be reassembled under one umbrella. These agencies and their personnel need to communicate with each other, to work together, and to begin retooling their operations to increase the protections needed to secure America's safety and well-being. Again, it is a massive job. But Governor Ridge is not the only one who needs to roll up his sleeves. The Congress also has work to do on homeland security, first by enacting legislative repairs to the Homeland Security Act. This Act passed at the end of the last Congress using a hastily written bill that discarded many important provisions that had been worked out on a bipartisan basis. My colleagues and I identified a number of these problems during Governor Ridge's confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee last week. First, the Homeland Security Act leaves the intelligence community without clearly defined roles and creates the possibility for unnecessary and costly duplication of effort. Language addressing the coordination and analysis of intelligence issues was included in the bipartisan bill reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, but the key language was dropped from the final Homeland Security Act. The goal of this language was to lay out clearly which agency had primary responsibility for analyzing information about foreign intelligence, and avoid having the new Department of Homeland Security duplicate the work of the Counter Terrorist Center, or CTC, at the CIA. Specifically, the language would have provided that the CTC has the primary responsibility for analysis of foreign intelligence and gave the DHS the primary responsibility of taking that foreign intelligence and mapping it against threats to the U.S. At his confirmation hearing, Governor Ridge indicated that he agreed with maintaining the CTC's primary role on analyzing foreign intelligence. In fact, when I asked Governor Ridge: ``Will you duplicate the CTC?'' he responded: ``It is not our intention to replicate the CTC with respect to foreign intelligence. Our intention is to use foreign intelligence from the CTC to match threats with vulnerabilities.'' When asked which agency was intended to have primary responsibility to analyze foreign intelligence, Governor Ridge responded: ``the CIA.'' Those were precisely the answers in the bipartisan Senate approach. On January 18, the Washington Post reported that President Bush had decided to ``leave responsibility for collecting and analyzing foreign intelligence on terrorists with the CIA, and to have the homeland security agency perform further analysis aimed at protecting U.S. infrastructure.'' Again, this is exactly the approach taken in the earlier, bipartisan Senate bill. I am hopeful that the Department will continue to follow the framework set out by the President and Governor Ridge, and that he and the Congress will take any steps needed to restore the clear language on intelligence responsibilities in the Homeland Security Act. A second problem I have with the Homeland Security Act is the section of the law that exempts the agency from complying with some aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, the key Federal statute helping the public keep track of what their government is doing. Government bureaucrats often don't like FOIA requests because they take time and resources to answer. Many would like to reduce the public's right to know. That's what happened in the Homeland Security Act. Language was added to that law that unnecessarily limits the use of FOIA. Last year, Senators Leahy, Bennett, and I worked out a FOIA compromise which was included in the original Senate Governmental Affairs Committee bill. At the homeland security mark-up, we were told that the Administration supported our compromise language. But this compromise was ultimately dropped. Instead, the Homeland Security Act cuts back on the public's right to know what its government is up to by expanding the types of information that the new department can keep shielded from the public, including unclassified information about ``critical infrastructure'' issues involving such matters as electrical grids, computer systems, or water treatment facilities. There is a related problem with the HSA language barring use of critical infrastructure information in civil proceedings. Suppose the DHS gets information submitted by a chemical company indicating a chemical plant is in danger of releasing a toxic gas due to a vulnerability in its critical infrastructure. The statute ties the hands of the DHS, barring it from disclosing the information in court without the chemical company's consent. The statute even bars the DHS from giving the information to another agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. What's more, a whistleblower within the DHS or the EPA could be thrown in jail for disclosing this unclassified information. Even a member of Congress who releases the information presumably could be, under some circumstances, jailed! I find this to be incredible. Limiting the public's right to know and jailing whistleblowers isn't the direction we should be going and is not necessary to protect America. At the Governmental Affairs hearing, Governor Ridge seemed to agree that criminalizing whistleblower disclosures of unclassified critical infrastructure information was not the intent of the Homeland Security Act. I am hopeful that Governor Ridge will help us to remedy some of the FOIA problems caused by the Homeland Security Act and restore the bipartisan compromise worked out in our committee. Another problem requiring prompt action is to get adequate funding to the agencies charged with homeland security. Because of the failure of Congress to pass appropriations bills, the key Federal agencies at the front lines of protecting our homeland have gone underfunded in the first 3 months of this fiscal year. Now, the Republican majority has come up with an Omnibus Appropriations bill that inadequately funds vital homeland security needs for FY 2003. For example, $362 million is not provided to the INS for the Entry-Exit system, which would track the arrival and departure of non U.S. citizens; $265 million is cut from the INS for construction of border security facilities; $92 million is not provided for FBI information technology enhancements; $8 million is cut from the Customs Service container security initiative; and $132 million is cut from FEMA first responders. I supported an amendment in the Senate that would have provided $5 billion to address these and other homeland security priorities in the Omnibus Appropriations bill which was defeated. By under funding homeland security, and promising billions of dollars in tax cuts instead, we have delayed the delivery of urgently needed dollars to the very agencies charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks. The administration's priorities are misplaced and need to be corrected. Finally, the Homeland Security Act authorizes funding for various homeland security grants, such as grants for first responders and grants for new science and technology equipment. People in Michigan and all our States are eager to gear up to fight terrorism, but it must be a Federal/State partnership. It is unacceptable for us to simply tell the States what they must do and then expect them to somehow find the money to take on new and vast responsibilities. One central office has to be designated as the place to find out about the Federal grants that will be awarded and administered by the Homeland Security Department and all of its many components. And in the interim, it would be helpful for the Department to provide numbers to call and people to contact who can give out this information. In a meeting in my office, Governor Ridge indicated that he agreed that an interim number would be helpful. I look forward to a quick confirmation of Governor Ridge. I also call on my colleagues to begin the work needed to remedy the remaining problems with the Homeland Security Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the amendment that has been introduced by our distinguished Democratic leader. This amendment reflects the disaster assistance packages that the Senate passed three times last year, but in each of these cases the House of Representatives failed to go along with these measures. Most convincingly, this amendment last passed the Senate by a vote of 79-16. I cosponsored that amendment as well because it provided much needed assistance to our Nation's farmers who have suffered significant crop losses during the past 2 crop years. Farmers throughout the Nation have suffered great losses, and farmers in my home State of Michigan have been among those who have suffered most. Two years of statewide crop failure have threatened the viability of many of Michigan's farmers, and this amendment strives to address the losses suffered by growers in the 2001 and 2002 growing years. Over the past 2 years, some farmers faced early warm temperatures followed by freezing conditions. For others, torrential rains came early in the growing season and were followed by long droughts. Still other farmers faced drought conditions at the start of the crop year and heavy rains at harvest time. Last year, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman recognized the atypical weather conditions that greatly diminished crop production in Michigan by designating all of Michigan's 83 counties as disaster areas. If that was not bad enough, Secretary Veneman designated 82 of Michigan's 83 counties as official disaster areas in 2001. Michigan is one of the Nation's most diverse States in terms of the sheer breadth and number of crops grown in it, and growers of many crops have been affected by adverse weather conditions. Total losses for Michigan farmers for both 2001 and 2002 are roughly estimated at $314 million. For 2 years, I have met with many farmers who want to know if they will receive assistance. Assistance is what farmers in Michigan and throughout the Nation need. Last year, cherry farmers in Michigan lost upwards of 95 percent of their crops, a level that threatens to devastate Michigan and the Nation's cherry industry, given that Michigan produces over 70 percent of the tart cherries in the Nation. Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit with cherry growers in Michigan and listen to them as they told me how this year's crop losses were the worst that the industry had ever suffered since crop records have been kept. Additionally, 80 percent of all Michigan apple farmers have lost upwards of 40 percent of their crop this year. In 2001, farmers in just one area of Michigan, which is one of the leading dry bean producing regions in the Nation, lost 85 percent of their bean crop. Due to severe drought, bean growers who export every other row they grow, lost 85 percent of their crops. Across the state, in the southwest corner of Michigan, Labrusca grape growers lost 80 percent of their crop and they suffered similar losses this year. While the losses suffered by bean and grape growers are particularly severe, they are not the only crops to have suffered drastic losses. Approximately 25 percent of apple growers in Michigan and across the Nation are in danger of going out of business in the next 2 years, and in Michigan that means that our cherry, peach, and asparagus crops, which are often grown on the same orchards as apples, will be greatly decreased. Orchard communities around the country have been devastated. Orchard operators still have very high operating expenses even if they do not harvest a crop. Orchards must be tended to all year long. Activities such as pruning and spraying are expensive to conduct, but they must be done even when there is no crop. As farmers have left the business, small businesses and cooperatives that have been around for generations have also gone out of business, and local governments have lost significant tax revenue. This assistance will allow many growers to reduce debt and get private bank or USDA loans for the next growing season. This assistance for will give farmers the shot in the arm they need to recover from several years of low prices. This aid is the economic stimulus package for rural America. Our Nation's farmers have not shared in the prosperity which many Americans have experienced over the past decade. No one, least of all America's farmers, likes the fact that annual emergency agriculture supplementals have seemingly become routine. Yet, we must provide this assistance if we are to address the problems facing farmers throughout the Nation. Several growers have told me that the crop losses they suffered this past year were so severe that without emergency assistance they will most likely lose their farms. This assistance is not the answer to the problems facing our farmers and rural America, but it is an important part of an effort to keep families on their farms. I thank the Senator for South Dakota for his efforts in offering this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Canadian Waste bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Canadian Waste bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, all across America preparations are being made to commemorate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On Monday, January 20, we will memorialize a man who sought to protect the dignity of a people and awaken the conscience of a Nation. Dr. King's death is 35 years behind us now. To some extent, deeply felt passions and the frustration, anguish, and bitterness with which the Nation was consumed during the tragic year of 1968 have cooled. But what remains with us and what is indelibly woven into the fabric and history of our Nation is the vision which Dr. King lived for and the dream for which he died. Dr. King embraced all Americans in his quest to make a living reality of equality of opportunity and economic and social justice for all humankind, those fundamental principles in our Constitution. This great warrior, whose battlefield was the hearts and minds of those who did not feel that justice and dignity were meant for all people, whose shield and armor was a strong determination and an unassailable character and whose ammunition was moral conviction and self-sacrifice, continues to deserve the fullest honor of this Nation. Dr. King gave a number of famous speeches during his time, most notably in Montgomery, Birmingham, Selma, Chicago, Detroit, and several other cities. He came to Detroit on June 23, 1963, the day after his first meeting with President Kennedy. Introduced as ``America's beloved freedom fighter,'' he called the ``Freedom Walk'' that day in Detroit ``the largest and greatest demonstration for freedom ever held in the United States.'' Dr. King went on to say, `` . . . I can assure you that what has been done here today will serve as a source of inspiration for freedom-loving people of this nation.'' Dr. King spoke about Birmingham and the vision that had been broadcast to the entire world just two months earlier, when dogs and fire hoses were turned against peaceful marchers. He said, and I quote, ``Birmingham tells us something in glaring terms--it says that the Negro is no longer willing to accept racial segregation in any of its dimensions.'' It is said that the Freedom Walk in Detroit was in many respects a rehearsal for the upcoming March on Washington and Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech, two months later on August 28, in our Nation's Capital. Dr. King gave the people of this Nation an ethical and moral way to engage in activities designed to perfect social change without bloodshed and violence; and when violence did erupt it was that which is potential in any protest which aims to uproot deeply entrenched wrongs. Dr. King preached, ``Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'' He believed in a united America. He believed that the walls of separation brought on by legal and de facto segregation and discrimination based on race and color, could be eradicated. His quest was to make a living reality our fundamental principles, that ``all men are created equal,'' and with a right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Few have dedicated their life so tirelessly in the struggle for equality as Dr. King. From the bus boycott in Montgomery to the sanitation workers in Memphis, his unyielding commitment to improve the lot of all Americans was demonstrated--he achieved significant goals by peaceful and nonviolent actions. To Dr. King, those means were beneficial to those in the struggle as the ends they were seeking. With reference to the 11-month long successful Montgomery bus boycott, he said: Nonviolence had tremendous psychological importance to the Negro . . . This method was grasped by the Negro masses because it embodied the dignity of struggle, of moral conviction and self-sacrifice. The Negro was able to face his adversary, to concede to him a physical advantage and to defeat him because the superior force of the oppressor had become powerless . . . I am convinced that the courage and discipline with which Negro thousands had accepted non- violence healed the internal wounds of Negro millions who did not themselves march in the street or sit in the jails of the South. One need not participate directly in order to be involved . . . to have pride in those who were the principals . . . to restore to them some of the pride and honor which had been stripped from them over the centuries. We have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. When the Supreme Court order to end segregation on buses was delivered to Montgomery, Dr. King proudly told an overflow crowd at a local church: We came to see that, in the long run, it is more honorable to walk in dignity than ride in humiliation. So in a quiet dignified manner, we decided to substitute tired feet for tired souls, and walk the streets of Montgomery until the sagging walls of injustice have been crushed. We have come a good distance in fulfilling Dr. King's dream, but there is still a ways to go. Let us rededicate ourselves today, in his name, to continuing the struggle for human rights for all, for which he lived and died.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to add my praise for the job done by Senators Bond and Mikulski and associate myself with the comments just made by Senator Gregg. I am also familiar with the mobility device which Senator Gregg mentioned. I also believe that some of the veterans with service connected spinal cord injuries could benefit from, and should be assisted by, making these devices available to them. Therefore, it is also my expectation that the Department will aggressively pursue, within available funds and current policy, making this mobility device and other state of the art assistive technologies available to disabled veterans as medically appropriate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the recent accomplishments achieved by Grand Valley State University's, GVSU, football team who on December 14, 2002, became the 2002 National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Division II Football Champions. This championship was the first in Grand Valley's history, and completes a perfect season in which the GVSU Lakers went 14-0 maintaining their position atop the Division II football rankings for the entire season. Even more impressive is the fact that the Lakers are 33-1 in their last 34 games with their only loss coming in the 2001 title game. Preceding their National Championship, the GVSU Lakers won the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, GLIAC, Football Championship with a perfect record in league play. The Laker's depth was evidenced by their placing 18 players on the All-GLIAC team. Quarterback Curt Anes was named the GLIAC Player of the Year for the second straight season, and received the Harlon Hill Trophy as NCAA Division II's most outstanding player. In addition, head coach Brian Kelly was recently named the American Football Coaches Association Division II Coach of the Year. Coach Kelly has led the GVSU Lakers to a 104-34-2 record during his 12 years as head coach, and includes five GLIAC titles and five NCAA Division II playoff appearances. The championship game, which I was lucky enough to see on television, was a true nail-biter. The game matched the top ranked Grand Valley State Lakers against the second ranked Valdosta State University Blazers. After marching through the playoffs with relative ease, the Lakers found a formidable opponent in Valdosta State, and the game was appropriately close to the very end. GVSU sealed the game when All- American quarterback Curt Anes tossed a 10-yard pass to fellow All- American wide receiver and his primary target David Kircus with 1 minute and 4 seconds remaining securing a 31-24 victory. Over the last 2 years, the GVSU Lakers have demonstrated great strength, skill, unity, and perseverance. Their ability to regroup after last season's loss and maintain their top ranking all season bears witness to the focus and common purpose shared by the entire team. I commend them for their hard work and dedication. I know that my colleagues will join me in congratulating the GVSU Lakers on winning the 2002 NCAA Division II Football Championship. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the players and coaches be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in partnership with the Million Mom March and State gun safety groups, released its 6th Annual Report Card on State Gun Laws Protecting Children. According to the report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showed a welcome decrease in the number of children killed by guns. However, children continue to be at great risk from gun violence. The Brady Campaign State Report Cards evaluate each State on several criteria: Does the State have juvenile possession laws or juvenile sale and transfer laws? Does the State have child access prevention laws? Does the State have gun safety lock and safer design standards? Does the State allow cities to regulate guns? Does the State provide secondary private sales background checks? Does the State have carrying concealed weapons laws? In addition to these criteria, States can also receive extra credit and/or demerits for a variety of gun safety measures such as permits for handguns. This year, according to the Brady Campaign, 11 States were awarded Sensible Safety Stars. These States resisted efforts to weaken gun safety laws and/or enacted gun safety laws that protect children from guns. I am disappointed to report that my home State of Michigan was not among them. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Brady Campaign, seven states, all of whom received poor grades, were major sources of crime guns. Further, the ATF found that gun traffickers seek out States that allow criminals to purchase firearms without background checks at gun shows. The Congress has the ability to pass legislation that will further reduce child firearm deaths and automatically improve the grade of many States. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass commonsense gun safety legislation that will close the gun show loophole and improve child gun access prevention laws so that we might prevent kids from gaining access to guns, and improve the quality and safety of our communities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today on behalf of myself and Sen. McCain two separate bills relating to stock options. Stock options are unfinished business from the last Congress. They are the 800-pound gorilla that has yet to be caged by corporate reform. Stock options allow a company's employees, usually its top executives, to purchase company stock at a set price for a specified period of time, perhaps 10 years. If the stock price rises after the option is issued, the executive can exercise the option, buy the stock at the set price, and then sell it on the open market at a profit. Today, most CEOs of U.S. publicly traded companies receive a large percentage of their pay from stock options. Despite their widespread use, stock options remain a stealth form of compensation because, under current accounting rules, they never have to appear on the company books as a compensation expense. In fact, they are the only form of compensation that companies do not have to book as an expense at any time. In addition, stock options are the only form of compensation that a company can claim as a deductible business expense on its tax return, even when no expense is ever recorded on the company books. These stock option accounting and tax rules are inconsistent and illogical. The two bills we are introducing today, the Stock Option Accounting Review Act, and the Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act, were introduced in the last Congress to address this problem. Each bill tackles a different aspect of the stock option issue. One addresses stock option accounting; the other addresses the stock option tax deduction. Last year, Senator McCain and I proposed the accounting provision as an amendment to the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform bill that was before the Senate in July. There appeared to be sufficient support to pass it at the time, but we were unable to obtain a vote on it or on any other stock option legislation. That is why we are back this Congress. Congress failed to resolve the issue last year, even though stock option abuses were repeatedly linked to serious corporate abuses and dishonest accounting. In fact, virtually every corporate disaster that has struck in recent years has had a stock option component. Enron, of course, was the poster child. Congressional investigations, including by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on which I sit, showed that, at the same time Enron investors and employees were losing their shirts, Enron executives were cashing in their stock options for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Ken Lay, the Chairman of the Board, took home $123 million from stock options in 2000 alone. Jeff Skilling, the CEO, took home over $60 million. Another executive, Lou Pai, topped them all by cashing in Enron stock options, in 2000, for $265 million. Stock options also contributed to Enron's inflated earnings, since despite providing the lion's share of executive pay, this compensation never appeared on the company books as an expense nor was it ever deducted from earnings. And many have blamed stock options for encouraging Enron management to rig the company's financial statements through other accounting deceptions to help boost apparent income and, in turn, the company stock price, so they could sell their Enron stock at enormous profit. Still others have noted that Enron used about $600 million in stock option tax deductions to avoid paying any corporate income taxes in four out of the last five years before its bankruptcy while, at the same time, touting record amounts of corporate income. What is now only beginning to be understood is that Enron's stock option tax deductions played a central role in much of its wrongdoing, after all, Enron was able to inflate its corporate income with impunity, in part, because its stock option tax deductions allowed it to avoid paying taxes on any of its phony inflated income. Enron was the poster child for stock option abuses, but it was far from the only company in that category last year. Worldcom, Tyco, Qwest Communications, and many others have stock option stories that are equally disturbing. And the problems did not stop with companies engaged in accounting deceptions or other corporate misconduct. Even companies that never appeared on the 2002 rollcall of corporate deception have been excoriated in media reports for giving huge stock option pay to executives while socking employees and investors with lower stock prices, mounting losses, and lousy corporate performance. High tech companies that have been the biggest promoters of stock options have been some of the biggest culprits. Company after company in Silicon Valley paid their executives big bucks via stock options while laying off employees, losing money or market share, and stiffing investors. One example frequently cited in the media is Lawrence Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corp., who exercised options in 2001 to obtain profits of $706 million, while his company's stock price dropped by more than 50 percent. Aggregate stock option statistics are also sobering. Business Week, for example, has estimated that stock options now account for ``a staggering 15 percent of all shares outstanding.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan estimated that stock options have been used to overstate reported company earnings by an average of 6 to 9 percent. Perhaps that is why Chairman Greenspan has picked honest stock option accounting as his number one post-Enron reform. Stock option abuses have been linked to inflated company earnings, dishonest accounting, and executive misconduct. These abuses have been facilitated by existing accounting and tax rules which allow stock option compensation to never appear on a company's books as an expense, even when a company claims this compensation as a business expense on its tax return. This double standard is fueling Enron-style abuses, and it is time for it to end. Many in the U.S. business community apparently agree and, unlike the Congress, have taken direct action on the stock option issue. In fact, over the last year, there has been significant movement in the business world to end dishonest stock option accounting. Over 120 companies, including such American giants as Coca-Cola, General Motors, General Electric, Dow Chemical, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot have announced that they will begin expensing options in 2003, joining longtime expensers like Boeing and Winn-Dixie. Standard and Poors has created additional pressure for honest stock option accounting by announcing a new ``core earnings'' calculation for companies which requires stock option compensation to be subtracted from a company's earnings. Accounting experts are also moving. The International Accounting Standards Board in London has announced that, by the end of 2003, it will issue accounting standards requiring companies to expense stock options. The U.S. equivalent, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, has announced that it will decide by the end of the first quarter of this year whether it will issue stock option accounting standards similar to those of the International Board. While there has been a major shift in the U.S. business world toward honest stock option accounting, not all companies are on board. Some companies, especially those in the high tech sector, have announced that they will not expense stock options until forced to do so. That means, until FASB acts, there will be a discrepancy between those companies that are voluntarily expensing options and those that are not, when there ought to be a level playing field where everyone plays by the same accounting rules. It is this discrepancy that continues to make our stock option legislation relevant and necessary for Congressional action this year. Let me describe both bills. First is the Stock Option Accounting Review Act. This bill is very simple. It would direct FASB to conduct a fresh review of the current accounting treatment for stock options and, within one year, establish what it deems to be the appropriate stock option accounting standards. The bill does not specify the stock option accounting standards that FASB should issue; that matter is left to the experts where it belongs. But the bill does put the Senate on record as urging FASB to review the existing rules and take appropriate action within one year. This legislative directive is important, because the only other time the Senate has spoken on this issue, in 1994, the Senate majority urged FASB to keep allowing companies to exclude stock option expenses from their financial statements. The Senate's position contradicted FASB's position at the time which was to require stock option expensing. It is long past time for the Senate to rescind its mistaken advice. The second bill we are introducing today is the Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act. This bill would not address the accounting treatment of stock options. Instead, it would address the tax treatment of stock option compensation, ending the costly double standard in federal law which allows a company to take a tax deduction for stock option compensation, even if the company does not show that compensation as a business expense on its financial statements. Essentially, our bill would prevent a company from claiming a stock option expense on its tax return unless the company also includes that expense on its books. It would require companies to be consistent in how they treat stock options, and take a corporate tax deduction that mirrors the expense shown on the company books. If a company took the position that it incurred no expense from stock option compensation on its books, the bill would allow the company to take that position, but would also require it to take the same approach on its tax return and forego any deduction. The bill would stop companies from telling stockholders one thing, that it has no stock option expenses, while telling the opposite to Uncle Sam. And to add insult to injury, in 2001, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2001-1 which determined that companies whose tax liability was erased through stock option expenses were not subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax. That revenue ruling meant that our most successful publicly traded companies, if they doled out enough stock options to insiders, could arrange their affairs to escape paying any taxes. That absurd result leaves the average taxpayer feeling like a chump for paying his fair share when a company like Enron can use its success in the stock market to apparently end up tax free. One last point. Some opponents of stock option reform argue that reining in stock options would hurt the average worker, but this contention is nothing more than a red herring. While many average workers are eligible for stock options, few actually receive them. Stock options are overwhelmingly reserved for top corporate executives. A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics survey did the research. This nationwide government survey found that in 2000, a banner year for stock options, only 1.7 percent of non-executive workers actually got any stock options. The BLS survey also looked at corporate executives and found that only about 5 percent of these corporate executives received any stock options. These results are consistent with the findings of a private sector group not associated with the government called the National Center for Employee Ownership, which favors stock options. Looking at a small sample of companies, the Center reported that 70 percent of all stock options were given to managers rather than other employees, and about 50 percent were given to the most senior executives. The reality is that stock options are a perk mainly reserved for a very small group, and neither average workers nor most executives would be affected by honest accounting or consistent tax and accounting treatment for stock options. It is also important to understand that neither of our bills would bar any company from issuing stock options. Companies would still be able to issue stock options to their executives and other employees. The goal of this legislation is not to stop the use of stock options, but to promote honest accounting and consistent treatment of stock options on federal corporate tax returns. Stock option abuses have damaged investor confidence in American business. I hope our colleagues will support enactment of these bills to help restore investor confidence and end stock option abuses. I ask unanimous consent to have reprinted in the Record after my remarks the text of both bills.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with stronger administrative authority to detect, investigate, and punish corporate and individual misconduct. This legislation, the SEC Civil Enforcement Act, among other measures, would provide the SEC with new authority to impose administrative civil fines on those who violate federal securities laws. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Bill Nelson, Corzine, and Biden. The SEC has repeatedly requested the new enforcement tools that this bill would provide, and I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record after my remarks a copy of a letter from SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt supporting enactment of this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today on behalf of myself and Sen. McCain two separate bills relating to stock options. Stock options are unfinished business from the last Congress. They are the 800-pound gorilla that has yet to be caged by corporate reform. Stock options allow a company's employees, usually its top executives, to purchase company stock at a set price for a specified period of time, perhaps 10 years. If the stock price rises after the option is issued, the executive can exercise the option, buy the stock at the set price, and then sell it on the open market at a profit. Today, most CEOs of U.S. publicly traded companies receive a large percentage of their pay from stock options. Despite their widespread use, stock options remain a stealth form of compensation because, under current accounting rules, they never have to appear on the company books as a compensation expense. In fact, they are the only form of compensation that companies do not have to book as an expense at any time. In addition, stock options are the only form of compensation that a company can claim as a deductible business expense on its tax return, even when no expense is ever recorded on the company books. These stock option accounting and tax rules are inconsistent and illogical. The two bills we are introducing today, the Stock Option Accounting Review Act, and the Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act, were introduced in the last Congress to address this problem. Each bill tackles a different aspect of the stock option issue. One addresses stock option accounting; the other addresses the stock option tax deduction. Last year, Senator McCain and I proposed the accounting provision as an amendment to the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform bill that was before the Senate in July. There appeared to be sufficient support to pass it at the time, but we were unable to obtain a vote on it or on any other stock option legislation. That is why we are back this Congress. Congress failed to resolve the issue last year, even though stock option abuses were repeatedly linked to serious corporate abuses and dishonest accounting. In fact, virtually every corporate disaster that has struck in recent years has had a stock option component. Enron, of course, was the poster child. Congressional investigations, including by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on which I sit, showed that, at the same time Enron investors and employees were losing their shirts, Enron executives were cashing in their stock options for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Ken Lay, the Chairman of the Board, took home $123 million from stock options in 2000 alone. Jeff Skilling, the CEO, took home over $60 million. Another executive, Lou Pai, topped them all by cashing in Enron stock options, in 2000, for $265 million. Stock options also contributed to Enron's inflated earnings, since despite providing the lion's share of executive pay, this compensation never appeared on the company books as an expense nor was it ever deducted from earnings. And many have blamed stock options for encouraging Enron management to rig the company's financial statements through other accounting deceptions to help boost apparent income and, in turn, the company stock price, so they could sell their Enron stock at enormous profit. Still others have noted that Enron used about $600 million in stock option tax deductions to avoid paying any corporate income taxes in four out of the last five years before its bankruptcy while, at the same time, touting record amounts of corporate income. What is now only beginning to be understood is that Enron's stock option tax deductions played a central role in much of its wrongdoing, after all, Enron was able to inflate its corporate income with impunity, in part, because its stock option tax deductions allowed it to avoid paying taxes on any of its phony inflated income. Enron was the poster child for stock option abuses, but it was far from the only company in that category last year. Worldcom, Tyco, Qwest Communications, and many others have stock option stories that are equally disturbing. And the problems did not stop with companies engaged in accounting deceptions or other corporate misconduct. Even companies that never appeared on the 2002 rollcall of corporate deception have been excoriated in media reports for giving huge stock option pay to executives while socking employees and investors with lower stock prices, mounting losses, and lousy corporate performance. High tech companies that have been the biggest promoters of stock options have been some of the biggest culprits. Company after company in Silicon Valley paid their executives big bucks via stock options while laying off employees, losing money or market share, and stiffing investors. One example frequently cited in the media is Lawrence Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corp., who exercised options in 2001 to obtain profits of $706 million, while his company's stock price dropped by more than 50 percent. Aggregate stock option statistics are also sobering. Business Week, for example, has estimated that stock options now account for ``a staggering 15 percent of all shares outstanding.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan estimated that stock options have been used to overstate reported company earnings by an average of 6 to 9 percent. Perhaps that is why Chairman Greenspan has picked honest stock option accounting as his number one post-Enron reform. Stock option abuses have been linked to inflated company earnings, dishonest accounting, and executive misconduct. These abuses have been facilitated by existing accounting and tax rules which allow stock option compensation to never appear on a company's books as an expense, even when a company claims this compensation as a business expense on its tax return. This double standard is fueling Enron-style abuses, and it is time for it to end. Many in the U.S. business community apparently agree and, unlike the Congress, have taken direct action on the stock option issue. In fact, over the last year, there has been significant movement in the business world to end dishonest stock option accounting. Over 120 companies, including such American giants as Coca-Cola, General Motors, General Electric, Dow Chemical, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot have announced that they will begin expensing options in 2003, joining longtime expensers like Boeing and Winn-Dixie. Standard and Poors has created additional pressure for honest stock option accounting by announcing a new ``core earnings'' calculation for companies which requires stock option compensation to be subtracted from a company's earnings. Accounting experts are also moving. The International Accounting Standards Board in London has announced that, by the end of 2003, it will issue accounting standards requiring companies to expense stock options. The U.S. equivalent, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, has announced that it will decide by the end of the first quarter of this year whether it will issue stock option accounting standards similar to those of the International Board. While there has been a major shift in the U.S. business world toward honest stock option accounting, not all companies are on board. Some companies, especially those in the high tech sector, have announced that they will not expense stock options until forced to do so. That means, until FASB acts, there will be a discrepancy between those companies that are voluntarily expensing options and those that are not, when there ought to be a level playing field where everyone plays by the same accounting rules. It is this discrepancy that continues to make our stock option legislation relevant and necessary for Congressional action this year. Let me describe both bills. First is the Stock Option Accounting Review Act. This bill is very simple. It would direct FASB to conduct a fresh review of the current accounting treatment for stock options and, within one year, establish what it deems to be the appropriate stock option accounting standards. The bill does not specify the stock option accounting standards that FASB should issue; that matter is left to the experts where it belongs. But the bill does put the Senate on record as urging FASB to review the existing rules and take appropriate action within one year. This legislative directive is important, because the only other time the Senate has spoken on this issue, in 1994, the Senate majority urged FASB to keep allowing companies to exclude stock option expenses from their financial statements. The Senate's position contradicted FASB's position at the time which was to require stock option expensing. It is long past time for the Senate to rescind its mistaken advice. The second bill we are introducing today is the Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act. This bill would not address the accounting treatment of stock options. Instead, it would address the tax treatment of stock option compensation, ending the costly double standard in federal law which allows a company to take a tax deduction for stock option compensation, even if the company does not show that compensation as a business expense on its financial statements. Essentially, our bill would prevent a company from claiming a stock option expense on its tax return unless the company also includes that expense on its books. It would require companies to be consistent in how they treat stock options, and take a corporate tax deduction that mirrors the expense shown on the company books. If a company took the position that it incurred no expense from stock option compensation on its books, the bill would allow the company to take that position, but would also require it to take the same approach on its tax return and forego any deduction. The bill would stop companies from telling stockholders one thing, that it has no stock option expenses, while telling the opposite to Uncle Sam. And to add insult to injury, in 2001, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2001-1 which determined that companies whose tax liability was erased through stock option expenses were not subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax. That revenue ruling meant that our most successful publicly traded companies, if they doled out enough stock options to insiders, could arrange their affairs to escape paying any taxes. That absurd result leaves the average taxpayer feeling like a chump for paying his fair share when a company like Enron can use its success in the stock market to apparently end up tax free. One last point. Some opponents of stock option reform argue that reining in stock options would hurt the average worker, but this contention is nothing more than a red herring. While many average workers are eligible for stock options, few actually receive them. Stock options are overwhelmingly reserved for top corporate executives. A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics survey did the research. This nationwide government survey found that in 2000, a banner year for stock options, only 1.7 percent of non-executive workers actually got any stock options. The BLS survey also looked at corporate executives and found that only about 5 percent of these corporate executives received any stock options. These results are consistent with the findings of a private sector group not associated with the government called the National Center for Employee Ownership, which favors stock options. Looking at a small sample of companies, the Center reported that 70 percent of all stock options were given to managers rather than other employees, and about 50 percent were given to the most senior executives. The reality is that stock options are a perk mainly reserved for a very small group, and neither average workers nor most executives would be affected by honest accounting or consistent tax and accounting treatment for stock options. It is also important to understand that neither of our bills would bar any company from issuing stock options. Companies would still be able to issue stock options to their executives and other employees. The goal of this legislation is not to stop the use of stock options, but to promote honest accounting and consistent treatment of stock options on federal corporate tax returns. Stock option abuses have damaged investor confidence in American business. I hope our colleagues will support enactment of these bills to help restore investor confidence and end stock option abuses. I ask unanimous consent to have reprinted in the Record after my remarks the text of both bills.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with stronger administrative authority to detect, investigate, and punish corporate and individual misconduct. This legislation, the SEC Civil Enforcement Act, among other measures, would provide the SEC with new authority to impose administrative civil fines on those who violate federal securities laws. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Bill Nelson, Corzine, and Biden. The SEC has repeatedly requested the new enforcement tools that this bill would provide, and I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record after my remarks a copy of a letter from SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt supporting enactment of this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Rhode Island speaks for up to 10 minutes, the Senator from New York then be recognized for 10 minutes, and then I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous- consent request?

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as we begin the 108th Congress, I want to talk about the situation in Iraq and our response to it, because I believe there may be a fundamental misunderstanding as to the process that is underway to bring about Iraq's disarmament. Pursuant to U.N. resolution 1441, the U.N. Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency are to provide updates to the U.N. on the results of their inspections to date. These updates are intended to be interim reports, not final conclusions. I think we all, particularly the administration and the press, need to be very aware of that fact. The January 27 report will only be one of a number of such reports that will be presented to the Security Council over the weeks and months to come. It is not a determining date on the issue of whether or not Iraq has materially breached U.N. resolution 1441, or whether we will use force against Iraq. We are not in the fourth quarter of some football game. In fact, we have just begun to share a small quantity of the large amount of information that we have relative to Iraqi suspect sites. Let us look at the events that led up to the unanimous decision by the United Nations Security Council on November 8 of last year to set up an enhanced inspection regime to afford Iraq an opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. Iraq, as we all remember, invaded Kuwait on August 1, 1990. After numerous demands and diplomatic, economic, and political action by the international community, on November 29, 1990, almost 4 months after the attack, the U.N. authorized member states ``to use all necessary means'' to liberate Kuwait. Iraq's defeat at the hands of a United States-led coalition in 1991 was followed by a U.N. Security Council resolution in April 1991 that established a number of conditions for a cease fire, notably including a demand for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, and Iraq accepted that resolution. In the intervening years, Iraq repeatedly obstructed and failed to cooperate with the weapons inspectors of the United Nations and of the atomic energy agency that were charged with the responsibility of disarming Iraq. With this historical background, the Security Council adopted resolution 1441 on November 8 of last year to set up an enhanced inspection regime. Under resolution 1441, Iraq is required to provide the United Nations inspectors and the IAEA ``immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom the inspectors of the IAEA wish to interview,'' and that includes outside of Iraq. Resolution 1441 also requires Iraq to provide a complete, accurate, and full declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems programs. In order to assist the U.N. Security Council in its oversight of implementation of Iraq's disarmament, resolution 1441 set out a time line of events. Using November 8, 2000, the date the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1441, Iraq was required to accept the resolution within 7 days. It did so. Iraq was required to provide a full declaration of weapons of mass destruction within 30 days of November 8. It said that its declaration was a full one and it did it on the 29th day. The inspectors were to start within 45 days of November 8; the inspections began on November 25th. The inspectors were to provide an update on their inspections to the Security Council within 60 days of the date that the inspections commenced. They have announced their intention to provide these first interim progress reports on January 27, within that time limit. The inspection process was begun with reasonable speed. The inspectors have already inspected a Presidential palace that had heretofore been subject to special rules, and they are inspecting on weekends and holidays. Their principal job right now is to establish a baseline for future inspections and testing Iraq's willingness to cooperate. This is the key, the inspection process is at its beginning. As of the end of December, virtually all of the arms inspections had taken place in the Baghdad area as the U.N. inspectors only had one of its eight helicopters in Iraq and had just opened a headquarters in Mosul in northern Iraq. Again and most significantly, the United States and other nations with sophisticated intelligence capabilities have only just begun to share intelligence with the arms inspectors and are proceeding cautiously in light of the reported Iraqi infiltration of the inspectors during the 1990s. In fact, today's Washington Post reports that Secretary of State Powell stated in an interview yesterday that the administration was holding back much of the information in its possession, waiting to see if the inspectors ``are able to handle and exploit'' the information that we did give them. The inspection process is estimated to take months, not weeks, and this timetable was understood by the Security Council from its inception. That is why the U.N. resolution refers to the January 27th reports from the inspectors as ``updates,'' and that is why January 27 is not a deadline for deciding whether to use force. British Foreign Secretary Straw noted on December 19, with respect to the declaration filed by Iraq on its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems: that [``What we've got today is a further step in a very calm and deliberate process to try by every means possible to get Iraq to comply with its international obligations peacefully and therefore and thereby to resolve this crisis in a peaceful manner.''] In an interview at Crawford, TX, on December 31, President Bush seemed to agree with the British Secretary when he stated that he hoped the Iraqi situation will be resolved peacefully. And in answer to a reporter's question, President Bush said: ``You said we're headed to war in Iraq--I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq.'' On that same day, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said ``Obviously they [the inspectors] are carrying out their work and in the meantime Iraq is cooperating and they are able to do their work in an unimpeded manner, therefore I don't see an argument for a military action now.'' And, in a press conference at the Pentagon just yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said ``I don't know why anyone would use the word 'inevitable.' It clearly is not inevitable.'' The arms inspections in Iraq are at an early stage. The United States has just begun to provide information to the inspectors about suspect sites. Barring a dramatic development, the interim progress reports that the inspectors will make to the U.N. Security Council on January 27 will only be one of a number of such reports that will be presented to the council over the months to come. Earlier today, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, at a press conference at the United Nations stated ``We will provide an update report on the 27th of this month. However, that report, we should emphasize, is an update report, it is not a final report. It's a work in progress. And this simply would register where we are on the 27th of January, but we obviously continue to we'll our work afterward, and we still have a lot of work to do.'' In the absence of the U.N. inspectors finding that Iraq currently possesses or is developing weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq is not cooperating with the inspections, we need to give the inspectors the needed time to complete their work. In the meantime, we need to provide targeted intelligence to inspectors to facilitate their effort, without disclosing sources and methods, of course. That is our best chance of bringing about Iraq's voluntary disarmament or, failing that, obtaining broad international backing, including U.N. authorization for a multilateral effort to forcibly disarm Iraq. If we prejudge the outcome of the inspections or if we don't furnish the arms inspectors with targeted intelligence, we will not be able to obtain the international support, as represented by U.N. authorization for the use of force, that is so highly desirable and advantageous to us. Forcibly disarming Iraq without international support would be perceived as a unilateral attack by the United States and a few allies. International support is critical to reducing the short-term risks, such as a loss of regional cooperation with resulting increased probability of U.S. casualties and reduced likelihood of international contributions in a postconflict environment. International support is also important to reducing long-term risks, such as a loss of international cooperation in connection with the war against al-Qaida, and increased probability of terrorist attacks against us. In summary, January 27 is the first interim report. It is not D-Day, decision day, as to whether to attack Iraq. We must not prejudge the outcome of the very inspection process that we worked so hard to put in place as being highly relevant to the question of whether we launch attack on Iraq. We must share all the information we can on suspect sites. And finally, if we don't share our information with the U.N. inspectors, or if we prejudge the outcome of these inspections, we will increase the likelihood that we will go to war and increase the risks, short term and long term, to our troops and our Nation in doing so. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, late last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released its annual report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted in 2001. According to the report, there were 136 law enforcement officers killed in 30 States. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, claimed the lives of 72 officers. Excluding these 72 lives, the number of officers killed in 2001 increased over 37 percent, from 51 officer fatalities in 2000 to 70 in 2001. A closer examination of data shows that firearms were used in 61 of the officer murders, and of those, handguns were responsible for 46. The handgun of choice was the 9 millimeter. In my home State of Michigan, Clinton Township, the city of Detroit, and the Federal Protective Service in Detroit each lost an officer in 2001. One of these officers worked in the building in which my Detroit office is located. In 1994, the Brady law established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. The creation of this check system allows federally licensed gun sellers to quickly determine whether an individual is eligible to purchase a firearm. Since its inception, NICS checks have prevented more than 156,000 felons, fugitives, and others not eligible from purchasing a firearm without infringing upon any law- abiding individual's ability to buy a firearm. However, a loophole in the law allows unlicensed private gun sellers to sell guns without conducting a NICS background check. During the last Congress, Senator Reed introduced the Gun Show Background Check Act. I cosponsored that bill because I believe it is a critical tool in preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals and other ineligible buyers. This bill would simply apply existing law governing background checks to individuals buying firearms at gun shows. As reflected in the FBI report, preventing easy and unchecked access to guns is critical in preventing police deaths and gun violence. That is why it is supported by major law enforcement organizations including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Major Cities Chiefs, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association. We must stand by our Nation's law enforcement community and take this commonsense step to reduce gun violence. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation when it is reintroduced during this Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of creating a new department for homeland security, and I was glad to be able to cosponsor the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee in July of this year. But this legislation, now, falls so short of the promise of that committee- passed bill, that I am compelled to vote no. The legislation the Senate will pass tonight has numerous unrelated and inappropriate special interest provisions, omits numerous related and appropriate homeland security provisions, and fails to address probably the most central question to our security the coordination and sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI. The homeland security bill that we are debating today is a dramatic departure from the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The new bill now has numerous provisions that no one had seen until the Thompson amendment was presented to the Senate late last week, and too many of the provisions have less to do with homeland security and more to do with the access of special interests. One of these provisions provides liability protection for pharmaceutical companies that make a mercury-based vaccine preservative that may cause autism in children. Another provision guts the Wellstone amendment, which would prohibit Federal agencies from contracting with corporations that have moved offshore to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes--taxes that are used for important security agencies such as the FBI, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the INS, and the Border Patrol. Another provision provides an earmark to Texas A&M University for research. At the same time the Thompson amendment added weakening and special interest provisions like these, it deleted important provisions that would enhance our homeland security--including a grant program for additional firefighters, a program to improve the security and safety for the Nation's railroads, and a program to improve information flow amongst key Federal and State agencies with responsibility for homeland security. The bill completely removes key areas that we had come to bipartisan agreement on at the committee level such as important language relative to foreign intelligence analysis and the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Finally, it hands the President a blank check with regard to so- called reforms of the civil service. The over-reaching by the Republicans to include special interest provisions and to exclude strong bipartisan provisions is nothing less than shocking. The exclusion of strong bipartisan provisions addressing key issues with respect to homeland security is nothing less than dangerous to our security. Let's back up and look how we got to where we are today. Senator Lieberman initiated legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security last year shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. We had hearings on the proposal and the first committee markup, and at that time, President Bush opposed the creation of a new Department. As a result, the vote to report the bill we reported from Governmental Affairs was along party lines, with all of the Democrats, including myself, voting for it and the Republicans voting against it. In the spring, President Bush changed his mind and put forth his own proposal for a new department. We in the Governmental Affairs Committee then worked on a compromise committee amendment, merging most of what the President wanted with the committee-passed bill. We reported that to the floor at the end of July. A great deal of time went into crafting that bill. Chairman Lieberman held 18 hearings on various issues dealing with homeland security. We had a two day mark-up; we considered dozens of amendments; and we passed the bill out of the Governmental Affairs Committee by a 12-5 vote. We ultimately came up with what I believe was a good bill. However, the bill before us today takes some major step backwards. For one, this bill muddles the issue of responsibility for foreign intelligence analysis at precisely the time we should be clarifying it. The intelligence issues we face are some of the most important issues in this reorganization. Many of us on the Intelligence Committee have been taking a hard look at possible intelligence failures before 9/11. Whether or not these failures, if they hadn't occurred, could have avoided 9/11 could be the subject of endless speculation, and that is not the point. The point is, we need to do a better job of coordinating our intelligence. We need to give those who do coordinate our intelligence the resources that they need, and we need to better define their roles and responsibilities. The Governmental Affairs Committee passed bill contains language I offered with respect to the new Department's role in gathering and analyzing intelligence on possible terrorist attacks in the United States. My language clarified the intelligence gathering functions and assigned responsibility. The language in the Thompson amendment leaves the intelligence community without clearly defined roles and creates the possibility for unnecessary and costly duplication of efforts. We cannot afford that kind of situation post 9/ 11. Let me explain. Right now we have an office at the CIA called the Counter Terrorist Center or CTC, where all information, regardless of source, about international terrorism is sent and analyzed. Whether it is obtained overseas or in the U.S., the CTC is the central place for counter terrorism intelligence. The CTC, which has 250 analysts, receives 10,000 incoming intelligence reports a month about international terrorism from the State Department, Customs, local law enforcement, FBI, INS, and a range of other sources. Representatives from the FBI, Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice and other agencies that are involved in collecting and receiving information about international terrorism, work at the CTC with CIA analysts. One of the questions we faced in the Governmental Affairs Committee was how the responsibilities of the new Department in terms of intelligence gathering and analysis related to the ongoing role of the CTC. My language in the Governmental Affairs passed bill kept the principal responsibility for analyzing information about international terrorism at the CTC. Under my language, the CTC would receive all foreign intelligence, regardless of source, and would be primarily responsible for its analysis. As defined by the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 401(a), ``foreign intelligence'' is ``information relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.'' My language makes it clear that the principal responsibility for collecting and analyzing information about international terrorism would be at the CTC. Under the Committee-passed bill the new Department of Homeland Security would have a directorate of intelligence that would be responsible for the receipt and analysis of all information relating to acts of terrorism in the United States including the foreign intelligence analyses from the CTC, as well as information and analyses relating to terrorist activities of U.S. persons or organizations. The new directorate would be responsible for linking all that information and analyses to an assessment of vulnerabilities to acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. Under the Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the new Department would, therefore, not only be responsible for the domestic terrorism intelligence analyses, but it would fuse foreign intelligence analyses with the domestic intelligence analyses and obtain an assessment of vulnerabilities to terrorism existing in the U.S. In other words, the new Department would, as many have used the phrase, ``connect the dots''--intelligence analyses, foreign and domestic, and U.S. vulnerabilities. By maintaining the role of the CTC in international intelligence and adding the role of the new Department in the overall analytical responsibility with respect to terrorism in the United States, we would avoid duplication and redundancy. The Thompson amendment includes language that would appear to duplicate the CTC at the new Department, and I cannot support that. Duplicating the responsibility of analysis of foreign intelligence would only waste valuable and limited resources and undermine our objective of getting the best counter terrorism intelligence we can get. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of experienced and trained analysts ``tends to be in short supply.'' We just don't have the resources or the people to duplicate analyses of foreign intelligence. It is important not to duplicate the CTC's capability, but to strengthen it and keep the primary responsibility for the analysis of information about international terrorism, from wherever obtained, in one place. Another reason that I am voting against this bill is because the Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise with respect to the Freedom of Information Act, a compromise that the administration supported at the Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up, is not in this bill. One of the primary functions of the new Department will be to safeguard the Nation's infrastructure, much of which is run by private companies. The Department will need to work in partnership with private companies to ensure that our critical infrastructure is secure. To do so, the homeland security legislation asks companies to voluntarily provide the new Department with information about their own vulnerabilities, the hope being that one company's problems or solutions to its problems will help other companies with similar problems. Some companies expressed concern that current law did not adequately protect the confidential business information that they may be asked to provide to the new Department from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. They argued that without a specific statutory exemption they would be less likely to voluntarily submit information to the new Department about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. We crafted a compromise to put into statute important protections established in case law. The resulting compromise would protect from public disclosure any record furnished voluntarily and submitted to the new Department that: First, pertains to the vulnerability of and threats to critical infrastructure, such as attacks, response and recovery efforts; Second, the provider would not customarily make available to the public; Third, are designated and certified by the provider as confidential and not customarily made available to the public. The Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise made clear that records that an agency obtains independently of the Department are not subject to the protections I just enumerated. Thus, if the records currently are subject to disclosure by another agency, they would remain available under FOIA even if a private company submits the same information to the new Department. The language also allowed the provider of voluntarily submitted information to change a designation and certification and to make the record subject to disclosure under FOIA. The language required that the new Department develop procedures for the receipt, designation, marking, certification, care and storage of voluntarily provided information as well as the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality of the voluntarily provided records. The Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise is not included in the Thompson amendment. Instead, the bill cuts back on FOIA access by the public by expanding the type of information that the new department can keep from the public. The language in this bill could result in the issuance of rules by the new Department based on information not included in the rule making record. It could prevent the Federal Government from using critical infrastructure information in a civil suit seeking to protect public safety. Finally, the language in the Thompson amendment could result in a criminal penalty against a whistle blower who leaks the kind of information presented to the new Department on critical infrastructure. The principles of open government and the public's right-to-know are cornerstones upon which our country was built. With this bill, we are sacrificing them in the name of protecting them. The Bennett-Levin- Leahy compromise would have balanced the need between openness and security to protect these principles. I will also be voting against this bill because of the civil service provisions that President Bush is calling ``flexibility'' but that I consider an unnecessary blank check. There are really two issues here, one concerns collective bargaining, and the other concerns the civil service in general. Under existing law, the President can issue an executive order excluding any agency or subdivision of an agency from collective bargaining if it is involved in a matter of ``national security.'' For example, in January of this year, the President issued an executive order which took collective bargaining rights away from hundreds of Department of Justice employees, many of them clerical workers involved in civil issues under the label of ``national security.'' But even without the national security exception, under current law, in an emergency, the new Department could waive collective bargaining rights, because under 5 U.S.C. 7106, ``nothing, in the chapter establishing collective bargaining rights, shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency . . . to take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the agency mission during emergencies.'' In addition, current law prohibits federal employees from striking under any circumstances. The Thompson bill would allow the President to waive collective bargaining rights, whether or not there is an emergency, as long as he gives 10 days notice and sends a written explanation to Congress. This provision does not provide a standard under which the President's authority is to be exercised. So in the most extreme example, under this provision, the President could remove the collective bargaining rights of every single employee who was transferred into the new Department. That is unacceptable. What we tried to do in the Governmental Affairs Committee bill was to allow workers with collective bargaining rights transferred into the new Department to maintain those rights if their job descriptions did not change. Given the President's authority to act in an emergency under current law, I believe that protected our national security without unnecessarily trampling on rights of employees. The Thompson amendment also allows the Secretary of the new Department to alter civil service rules. If the Secretary does so, then the employee unions would have 30 days to review the changes and make recommendations to the Secretary. If the Secretary doesn't agree with those suggestions, he or she could declare an impasse and send the dispute to federal mediators. After another 30 days, the Secretary could go ahead with the changes, regardless of what the mediator suggests. The President argues that this process gives the unions a say in any changes, but the reality is that the unions have no real substantive remedy to the Secretary's proposed changes. No matter how much the employees and unions oppose the new rules, how much they fight against them, in the end, the Secretary has unilateral power to issue the rules under the Thompson amendment. I supported creating a Department of Homeland Security from the beginning--like many of my Democratic colleagues well before the President came on board. It's disheartening that the President and the Republican leadership couldn't accept the bipartisan bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee and work with that to develop a bill without the major flaws described above. It's also distressing indeed that the President and the Republican leadership chose to use the Homeland Security Department legislation as a vehicle for unrelated special interest legislation while leaving behind a number of very important security-related provisions. I would have been happy to stay here to work out the differences in this legislation and develop the strongest legislation possible. But with this vote, now, that is an impossibility. So, I hope in the next Congress to work with my colleagues who share my views on some of these provisions to make some needed changes to this legislation. Let me add one more thing about how far astray we have gone with this legislation. While the President has been holding out on passage of this legislation in order to get the authority to waive collective bargaining rights for employees at the new Department, the key agencies in the Federal Government that are at the front lines of protecting our homeland have gone underfunded in this fiscal year. According to the House Appropriations Committee Staff: while we have authorized $38 billion for homeland defense, we have actually appropriated only $640 million to the new Department and other agencies; while we have authorized an additional 200 immigration inspectors and 200 immigration investigators, to date we have appropriated no money for these positions; and while we have authorized $520 million for hospital emergency rooms, we have only appropriated $135 million. The Republican leadership in the House has failed to send us the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003 that would increase funding for the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, the FBI, the CIA--all of the agencies we need to have additional resources to stave off or adequately respond to a terrorist attack. That is the unfortunate final chapter to this story. By not taking up the appropriations bills for next year, we are delaying the delivery of desperately needed dollars to the very agencies charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks. The misdirection of priorities involved is harrowing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the confirmation of Dennis Shedd to be a United States Judge for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Shedd's record as a judge on the United States District Court raises a number of concerns about both his approach on the bench and his commitment to equal justice--leading me to the conclusion that he should not be promoted to the second highest court in the land. Of particular concern to me are Judge Shedd's extreme view on the limits of Congressional authority and his record of hostility to plaintiffs in civil rights and employment discrimination cases. This combination is extremely dangerous given the critical role that Congress plays in passing laws to ensure that Constitutional protections are afforded to all Americans. Further, I am troubled by what appears to be a lack of thorough consideration in Judge Shedd's approach. This is particularly unsettling given the significant Constitutional issues that have been at stake in his courtroom. With respect to Judge Shedd's view of the Constitutional role of the Congress, two cases stand out, Condon v. Reno and Crosby v. South Carolina. I voted for, and Congress enacted, the Drivers Privacy Protection Act in 1994 to limit the availability of personal information--such as photographs, social security numbers, addresses and telephone numbers, and even some medical information--contained in motor vehicle records. In Condon v. Reno, the state of South Carolina challenged the law, claiming that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the state's rights because it restricted South Carolina from setting its own standards for releasing State motor vehicle records. In Condon v. Reno, Judge Shedd ruled that the law was unconstitutional and in the process endorsed a view that--if permitted to stand--would have severely limited Congress ability to legislate under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Judge Shedd's decision endorsed a view of congressional authority so far out of the mainstream that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn him in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Judge Shedd's decision in Crosby v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control also deeply troubles me. In Crosby, Judge Shedd adopted a magistrate's recommendation granting defendant's summary judgement--agreeing with the magistrate that the 11th Amendment doctrine of state sovereign immunity should prevent the plaintiff from suing the state for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act because he believed that Act was an improper exercise of Congress's enforcement power under the 14th amendment. Despite the obvious and profound implications of this decision for Congress's authority, Judge Shedd offered virtually no analysis to support his decision. This is despite the absence of directly controlling precedent and the presence of a split among other Federal district courts on the issue. Acts of Congress are entitled to a presumption of Constitutionality. Ruling to overturn a Federal law should not be taken lightly. In a case of this import, Judge Shedd's failure to articulate a rationale for his decision is deeply disturbing. The fact that other judges may have reached the same conclusion as Judge Shedd is not the point here. Parties before the court on an issues of this magnitude are entitled to a judge's reasoning. Judge Shedd offered none. The Crosby decision is not the only example of Judge Shedd's tendency to accept magistrate recommendations with little or no comment on important matters. In South Carolina, all cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are automatically referred to magistrates for pretrial matters. In important employment discrimination cases, Judge Shedd has often adopted magistrates' recommendations in favor of summary judgement. And he has done so without comment in many instances where it appears to me that comment was warranted. In fact, Judge Shedd has done so in cases where a party has raised an objection to one of the magistrate's recommendations and he was required to conduct a de novo review. In a number of these cases, Judge Shedd's rulings do not address the objections at all. Instead, his decisions simply adopt the magistrate's recommendations and pay lip service to his obligation by including a statement that he has conducted the required de novo review. Given the concerns I have about this approach in the Crosby case, this practice deeply concerns me. Mr. President, nothing is more important for a judge than a commitment to equal justice. A review of Judge Shedd's record also raises the question whether this ideal is being upheld. In a number of civil rights cases, Judge Shedd appears to have intervened in a manner that has tilted toward defendants. He has granted summary judgement for defendants on grounds not even raised by the defendants. He has ordered a defendant to file a motion to dismiss a case and later granted the motion. And Judge Shedd even granted summary judgment against a petitioner even though it appears that the defendant never filed a motion for summary judgement. These decisions raise serious questions about whether plaintiffs are getting a fair hearing in Judge Shedd's courtroom. I was particularly struck by the Judge's answer to a question from Senator Edwards in his Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year. Senator Edwards asked Judge Shedd whether he had ever granted relief to a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. Judge Shedd could not recall a single instance where a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination was granted relief in his courtroom. Judge Shedd's inability to recall such a case is actually not surprising as a review of his published opinions failed to reveal even one such instance. Eleven years on the bench and not one of his published opinions reflects a favorable ruling for an employee in a discrimination case. Mr. President, I'm afraid Judge Shedd's record simply does not support his promotion to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will miss my friend and colleague Robert Torricelli, the senior Senator from the State of New Jersey when he leaves the Senate at the end of the 107th Congress. Bob Torricelli first served from 1982-1996 in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1996, he joined us in the U.S. Senate, and since getting here, has been a committed advocate for the people of New Jersey. He has worked tirelessly to protect New Jersey's natural resources, to improve air quality, and to protect drinking water. He has also worked hard to provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors, and make college more affordable for parents and students alike. I have worked with Senator Torricelli in his tireless and ongoing efforts to close the gun show loophole and to pass commonsense gun safety legislation. That is a battle that I want to assure him many of us that he leaves behind in the Senate will continue to wage. Bob Torricelli served as an effective chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and has earned a reputation as one of the most eloquent orators in the U.S. Senate. His books, ``In Our Own Words: Extraordinary Speeches of the American Century'' and ``Quotations for Public Speakers: A Historical, Literary, and Political Anthology'' have become valuable resources for all of his colleagues in public life. I know my colleagues will join me in thanking Senator Robert Torricelli for his years of service in the Congress and wish him the best. Jesse Helms Mr. President, I recognize the service of Jesse Helms. Before coming to the Senate, Jesse Helms served his country in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He was a Senate staffer, broadcast executive, radio personality, and banking executive. Senator Helms, throughout his career, has been a tireless voice for his conservative beliefs. Whether one agrees with Senator Helms' views or not, no one can deny the imprint he has made on the deliberations and actions of the United States Senate. Jesse Helms has always had the knack for carefully crafting legislative language which would put his supporters and opponents clearly on the record on the most difficult issues of conscience. In his capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms was a powerful force in reorganizing the Department of State. In the United States Senate we are called upon to work with colleagues of many differing points of view. While a fierce battler for his conservative convictions, Jesse Helms was often willing to reach across party lines to work with Democrats on issues like adoption and increased funding for AIDS research. While Jesse Helms and I have frequently disagreed, I respect the straight forwardness which he brought to the public policy debate. And, Jesse Helms was always a gracious gentleman. As this Congress comes to an end, I know that I am joined by my Senate colleagues in wishing Jesse Helms and his wife, Dorothy , and their three children, the very best in the years ahead. Phil Gramm Mr. President, at the end of this session of Congress, Senator Phil Gramm, the senior Senator from Texas will leave the Senate. For 18 years, Senator Gramm has been a leader among the Republicans and a strong voice in the Senate. Phil Gramm is a hard worker and effective advocate. Before coming to the Senate, Senator Gramm was an economics professor at Texas A&M University and member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1978 until 1984. After being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, Senator Gramm quickly became recognized as one of its most articulate members. As a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Finance Committee, and the Budget Committee, he has applied his boundless energies and extensive knowledge of the Senate rules and precedents to his efforts to reduce federal taxes. While Phil Gramm and I disagree on many issues, I deeply respect his willingness to stand up and fight for his convictions and the good humor with which he approaches those battles. For example, on the issue of federal prisoner industries reform, Senator Gramm and I have locked horns on several occasions, but he has always been a worthy and agreeable adversary. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in wishing him every success as the vice chairman of UBS Warburg and in wishing our best to Wendy, his wife, and their two children. Fred Thompson Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Fred Thompson. Senator Thompson joined the U.S. Senate in 1994 after a successful career in law and even some starring roles on the silver screen. But he was no stranger to this body, even then, having previously served as Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 and 1974 at the age of 30. Once he joined as a Senator, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee seeking to make our government more sensible, more responsive, and more cost effective. In 1997, he became the Chairman of the Committee and has served in that capacity during the 105th, 106th and 107th Congresses. Over the years, Senator Thompson helped oversee some dramatic investigations, including the campaign finance investigation in the 105th Congress and the Enron investigation this past year. He also worked on many less well known issues, including one close to my heart the effort to improve the way the Federal Government issues regulations. For several Congresses, Senator Thompson and I teamed together on regulatory reform issues, including a major regulatory reform bill. This legislation would have required federal agencies to consider cost- benefit analysis when issuing major regulations and state publicly whether the agency found that the benefits of a regulation justified the costs. If they did not, then the agency would have to explain why it was issuing the regulation despite that finding. We also required federal agencies to conduct risk assessments where appropriate. We had a heck of a battle on that legislation, and in the end we failed to pass it. But the fight was worth it; I believe we were right; and it was great to have Senator Thompson fighting with me at my side to bring common sense to our regulatory process. During his years at the Senate, Senator Thompson has made his mark as a legislator by supporting bipartisan efforts to enact reforms in the areas of campaign finance, sensible government regulation, and corporate accountability. While he will no longer be ``In the Line of Fire,'' Senator Thompson's legacy in the Senate will ``Die Hard.'' I hope his future roles will be as lively as those he played here for the last eight years. It is a pleasure to join all of my colleagues today in honoring and thanking him for his years of public service to his country. Jesse Helms

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring the attention of my colleagues to a report released in October by the Violence Policy Center, VPC, entitled Credit Card Armies--Firearms and Training for Terror in the United States. This report analyzes the ease with which members of terrorist organizations and criminals gain access to powerful firearms and ammunition. According to the VPC report, terrorist groups with little more than a credit card and a driver's license, can easily obtain military grade firepower, including 50 caliber sniper rifles, assault weapons, and extraordinarily powerful ammunition. In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for information on individuals detained. However, according to a New York Times article, the Department of Justice ordered the FBI to stop using NICS records for investigating suspected terrorists even after the FBI found that at least two individuals detained in relation to the terrorist investigation had been cleared to buy firearms. Further evidence gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and reported by the New York Times determined that 34 firearms used in crimes had at some point been purchased by an individual on the same list of people detained after 9/ 11. The VPC report provides several examples of terrorist groups, from al-Qaida to the Irish Republican Army, using our loopholes in our gun laws to purchase 50 caliber sniper rifles and other military style firearms. We need to pass the Schumer-Kennedy Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act and also Senator Reed's ``Gun Show Background Check Act. These bills would assist law enforcement in identifying prohibited gun buyers and recognizing patterns of illegal purchases and misuse. In January 2001, regulations issued by the Department of Justice directed the FBI to retain NICS information for a 90-day period. This 90-day period allows local law enforcement and the FBI to check NICS for illegal gun sales to criminals, terrorists and other prohibited buyers, identify purchasers using fake identification, and screen for gun dealers misusing the system. However, in June 2001, the Attorney General proposed reducing the length of time that law enforcement agencies can retain NICS data to 24 hours. This is simply an insufficient amount of time for law enforcement to review the NICS database. The Attorney General's action concerns me greatly. I was pleased to cosponsor the Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act introduced by Senators Kennedy and Schumer. This legislation would codify the 90-day period for law enforcement to retain and review NICS data. The need for this legislation was highlighted late last year when the Attorney General denied the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to the NICS database to review for gun sales to individuals they had detained in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks and refused to take a position on an amendment which would authorize that access. Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act, which is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, would extend the Brady Bill background check requirement to all sellers of firearms at gun shows. I cosponsored it because it is vital that we do all we can to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists. I urge my colleagues to consider these important pieces of gun safety legislation not only to protect our children from gun accidents and criminal use, but also to limit easy access to dangerous weapons by people who would seek to threaten our Nation's security.

Mr. LEVIN

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