Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, many of our Republican colleagues argue that we can't extend tax relief for middle-class families unless we also extend tax cuts for the wealthiest. They argue without tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent, we will harm job creators and slow the economy. Their arguments rely on faulty assumptions, mistaken beliefs, and misleading statements. Let's get to the facts. It is a fact that every American taxpayer would receive a tax cut under our bill on the first $250,000 of their income. It is a fact that compared to the middle-class tax cut act now before us, the plan the Republicans have put forward would increase the deficit by $155 billion. It is a fact that the bill Republicans have put forward, despite their professed support for tax cuts, would raise taxes on the middle class by failing to extend the 2009 tax cuts for middle-class families, including the American opportunity tax credit and credits that help families with children. What is unfolding on the Senate floor now is the culmination of a rigid Republican adherence to tax cuts for the wealthy as the supreme goal of public policy. Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to risk government shutdowns. They have demonstrated a willingness to risk grave economic damage, to risk rising taxes on the vast majority of Americans in pursuit of their highest priority: lower taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of us. They want to risk all of that in service to an idea that has already proved a failure. When historians look back at the Republican dedication to the tax cuts for the wealthy, they will find it remarkable that so many fought so long and so hard to go back to a failed policy. Income for the typical American family peaked in the year 2000, not coincidentally just before the Republican tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy mania reached its zenith. A June study by the Federal Reserve found that the average middle- class family's net worth had fallen by 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. In 2010, the bottom 99 percent of income earners reaped just 7 percent of total income growth while 93 percent of all growth flowed to the top 1 percent. As David Leonhardt of the New York Times reported on Monday: The top-earning 1 percent of households now bring home about 20 percent of total income, up from less than 10 percent 40 years ago. The top earning 1/10,000th of households--each earning at least $7.8 million a year, many of them working in finance--bring home almost 5 percent of income, up from 1 percent 40 years ago. Perhaps this vast accumulation of wealth would arguably be acceptable if it had resulted in faster economic growth that produced new jobs and helped average Americans prosper. Indeed, since the time of President Reagan, America has been told that the rising tide lifting up the wealthy would lift all boats, and that the benefits would trickle down to all Americans. Our Republican colleagues today argue that we must continue the President Bush tax cuts for the wealthy or risk harm to the ``job creators.'' But the Republican emphasis on policies that are more and more generous to the wealthiest have utterly failed to spark economic growth or create the jobs we need. Their experiment failed. The Bush tax cuts coincided with the slowest rate of job growth in American history. Economic growth, even before the financial crisis, nearly sent our economy into depression and was woefully short by historic standards. The failure of the Bush policies to spur economic growth and job creation underlies the failure of another promise from supporters of tax cuts for the wealthy, the promise that those cuts would pay for themselves. Republicans backing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 painted those grand scenarios that grow so rapidly that it would yield increased tax revenue. But instead of growing Federal coffers, we got a flood of red ink. So the policy of tax cuts for the wealthy failed as a fiscal policy. It added to our deficit. It failed as an economic policy, coinciding with weak growth and economic output and job creation, and it failed as a vital test of public policy in a democratic society because it failed the fairness test. Instead, it facilitated massive accumulations of wealth for a fortunate few while most Americans have struggled just to tread water. Yet our Republican colleagues persist in their pursuit of their failed policy--persist, in fact, to the point that they are willing to force a tax increase on more than 90 percent of taxpayers and potentially send our economy tumbling back into recession in adherence to that failed policy. We are not arguing against this policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest because we seek to denigrate success or to stoke class warfare, as some Republicans allege. We are arguing against these policies because they are broken, they have failed, and they are unfair. We should reject them lest they do even more harm. We should reject the Republican pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs, every other consideration be damned. We should allow middle-class families to keep a few of their hard-earned dollars and pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. At a minimum we should vote tomorrow to overcome the filibuster threat and proceed to debate this singularly important issue. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, 1 week ago yesterday was a fairly typical day in the Senate. The Congressional Record shows Senators used the word ``jobs'' more than 150 times. The following day, a week ago today, the word ``jobs'' appears in the Record 131 times. Just this Monday, a few days ago when the Senate came in at 2 o'clock, ``jobs'' appears in the Record 36 times. So we are talking--and talking a lot--about jobs. Today, Senator Stabenow's bill offers a chance to do more than talk; we can act. The legislation addresses a fundamental flaw in our tax law. At a time when Americans desperately want us to defend American jobs and to give employers the incentives and support they need to hire new workers, our tax law perversely rewards employers for moving jobs to other countries. Today, an American corporation can decide to close a factory in this country, build a new one in another country, claim a tax break for the expense of moving those jobs out of our country, and pay no U.S. taxes on the income that foreign factory earns as long as they leave that income overseas. Our Tax Code, in effect, tells employers: Here is a tax deduction to help you cut your American workforce and move those jobs offshore. That is the effect of our Tax Code. American employers have responded, unhappily. Statistics released in April by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that since 1999, U.S.-based multinational corporations have reduced employment in the United States by about 1 million workers but they have added more than 3 million workers overseas. A recent Gallup Poll found that only 13 percent of Americans believe this trend of shipping jobs overseas is good for our economy. Almost 8 of every 10 Americans believe it does harm. In a poll for the Alliance for American Manufacturing, 83 percent of respondents said they disapprove of companies that move jobs to countries such as China. The people in Michigan and every other State can no longer afford to watch their tax dollars subsidize shipping their jobs overseas. Earlier this spring, along with Senator Conrad, I introduced the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act or the CUT Loopholes Act. Our legislation would cut several loopholes that enable tax avoidance, which adds to the deficit and to the tax burden of those who pay the taxes they owe. Our bill would cut offshore tax loopholes that allow corporations and individuals to avoid paying taxes by concealing their income and assets in offshore tax havens. One provision of the CUT Loopholes Act would ensure that companies aren't taking a tax deduction for the expense of moving jobs overseas. Under our bill, companies couldn't take a deduction for the expense, for instance, of moving a U.S. factory to another country until that company pays U.S. taxes on the income generated by that foreign factory. Senator Stabenow's Bring Jobs Home Act takes a similar approach, ending the taxpayer subsidy that helps firms to move American jobs overseas. In addition, it would offer a 20-percent tax credit to companies that move production back to the United States. Surely it makes sense for us to offer employers a tax cut if they bring jobs back to the United States. Surely it makes sense to reform a law that adds insult to injury, that forces our taxpayers to watch companies move their jobs abroad with the assistance of our taxpayer dollars. We have already seen the enormous benefits to our economy and our workers when American companies make the decision to return jobs to our shores. Ford Motor Company is returning thousands of offshore jobs to Michigan and other States. Companies such as Whirlpool are making the decision to hire American workers for work they once did abroad. American manufacturing has built great momentum in the last 3 years, adding thousands of jobs. We should add to that momentum and adopt the Bring Jobs Home Act. We should end existing tax incentives to export American jobs, and we should provide a tax break for companies that bring jobs back to American workers. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his leadership in dealing with the offshore tax haven problem. This is not a new issue. It is not a new issue for me. In fact, my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been exploring the damage the secrecy of offshore tax havens has caused for the nearly two decades we have been looking at this issue trying to change the situation that exists, and it is not a new issue for Senator Durbin. He has been on this issue a long time. Indeed, when President Obama was a Senator, he joined in an effort to bring tax haven abuses to light. Then-Senator Obama, in 2007, was an original cosponsor of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which I introduced with our Republican colleague Senator Coleman, and he said the following: There is no such thing as a free lunch--someone always has to pay. And when a crooked business or a shameless individual does not pay its fair share, the burden gets shifted to others, usually to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes. It was a bipartisan bill aimed at preventing the loss to taxpayers that results from tax-avoidance schemes that use secret tax haven jurisdictions, such as the Cayman Islands. Those words I quoted remain just as true today as they were in 2007. There is indeed no free lunch. In 2006, our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations estimated that tax havens cost the Treasury in the neighborhood of $100 billion a year, and though we have had some successes in the battle against tax havens since then, tax dodgers and avoiders have continued to exploit every offshore loophole and tax haven they can find. This has significant consequences to the rest of us. Offshore tax evasion and avoidance takes money out of the hands of our military, takes money out of programs that millions of Americans rely on for good schools, roads, health care, protecting the environment or securing our borders. When money is lost to these tax havens that belongs in our Treasury, it adds to our deficits and debt. Ultimately, the rest of us are forced to pay more on our tax bills to make up for those who shirk their tax-paying responsibilities. As I said, we spent years in my subcommittee exploring this problem. In 2001, we heard testimony from the former Cayman Islands banker who said 100 percent of his clients were avoiding or evading taxes. In 2006, we reported on some brothers from Texas, who, over the course of 13 years, stashed more than $700 million in offshore tax havens in a massive tax evasion scheme. When a company incorporates in the Cayman Islands or another tax haven, with a mail drop as their only physical presence in that country, they most likely have one purpose: avoiding taxes. In 2006, we explored the history of the Ugland House, a small building in the Caymans that, remarkably, is listed as the headquarters for nearly 20,000 different corporations. In 2005, we showed how a Seattle securities firm called Quellos devised a scheme of faked stock trades between two offshore companies, creating phantom stock losses used to avoid taxes on billions of dollars in income. In 2001 and 2002, we explored how Enron used offshore tax havens--dozens of them--as part of its deceptive schemes. Just yesterday, in our subcommittee hearing on a global bank called HSBC and money laundering, we saw how the secrecy of tax havens, such as the Caymans, so often used to conceal income, can also be used by criminal enterprises to conceal and launder the proceeds of their crimes. HSBC's Mexican affiliate had an office in the Caymans with thousands of U.S. dollar accounts. The bank had no client information on 41 percent of those accounts, and internal documents, our investigation discovered, showed the bank was aware the accounts were being used by drug cartels and were subject to ``massive misuse . . . by organized crime.'' These tax havens have been a pervasive problem for our Treasury and for our economy and for our security. We can stop them. When it comes to tax avoidance, our Federal fiscal situation demands we stop them. In the past, addressing offshore tax evasion was not a partisan issue. In 2004, Congress stopped companies from taking advantage of what was called inverting. When a company inverts, it will shift its headquarters, on paper, to a low-tax or no- tax country. It is just on paper, though. It was decided we were not going to allow that game to be played by American companies, and we stopped that practice. Since then, every year I have worked with Senator Durbin and colleagues of both parties to ensure that these inverted companies are prohibited from receiving government contracts. If these tax dodgers cannot see fit to pay their taxes, we shouldn't be giving them our tax dollars. Much more needs to be done. We could pass the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which I have introduced again in this Congress, to address some of the worst offshore tax abuses and end the use of these tax havens that cost American taxpayers. We could pass the CUT Loopholes Act, which Senator Conrad and I introduced earlier this year, which includes a number of provisions aimed at stopping offshore tax evasion and closing loopholes that allow companies to dodge their taxes. The Senate, earlier this year, passed one important provision of the CUT Loopholes Act. This provision is known as the special measures provision. This would have given the Justice Department the same tools to combat tax haven abuses they now have to combat money laundering. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives succeeded in stripping this commonsense provision from the surface transportation bill to which it was attached in the Senate. That vote by the House allows the wealthy and powerful to continue dodging the taxes they owe, increasing the tax burden on American families who abide by the law and by their tax obligations. The bill Senator Durbin offered is another way we can combat tax havens, and I thank him for this effort. Simply put, his legislation would bring much needed daylight to the use of offshore tax havens. It would require that officeholders and candidates for public office disclose their financial interests located in tax haven countries. Perhaps there are some who believe individuals and corporations should be allowed to continue concealing their income and their assets overseas, adding to the deficit and forcing the rest of us to carry their own share of the burden and that of tax dodgers as well. But surely we can all agree the American people deserve to know when their public officials are using offshore tax havens. Senator Durbin's bill would ensure that Americans know when their elected representatives and candidates for office are taking advantage of the offshore tax havens. This is not about a political campaign; this is about years of effort to make visible those who shortchange their fellow citizens by concealing their finances abroad and to argue for reforms that make our tax system more fair for the vast majority of hard-working Americans who pay what they owe. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Watergate scandal, which is the single incident in modern U.S. history that most damaged public confidence in honest government, involved burglaries and dirty tricks that were paid for using secret campaign donations. Even by the weak standards of the time, much of the secret money was illegal. More than 20 corporations and organizations were fined and some executives went to jail because their secret payments to the Nixon campaign violated the law. Now a donor can make such secret donation dedicated to who knows what nefarious purpose and spend unlimited amounts in secret with what has, to this point, been the acquiescence of the IRS. Post-Watergate history warns us as well. We are all familiar with the revelations about former Senator John Edwards. His personal failings got most of the media attention, but let's not forget the financial heart of his problem: While running for President, he sought and received secret amounts of cash from a major campaign donor in order to conceal embarrassing facts that might damage the campaign. Yet huge secret payments to campaigns at this moment in our history are rife. We need to look no further than this capital city in which we work to see the dangers of secret money. The residents of Washington, DC, have learned in recent weeks that the current mayor benefited from what Federal prosecutors have called a ``shadow campaign'' of huge secret donations from a major city contractor. The chief Federal prosecutor has said: ``The 2010 mayoral election was corrupted by a massive infusion of cash that was illegally concealed from the voters of the District.'' If true, these charges mean that a campaign donor with a major financial interest in city government decisions sought to influence the election of the city's mayor using huge secret payments that concealed his involvement. Do any of us doubt that individuals and corporations with a vested interest in Federal Government outcomes are spending huge sums of money to influence those outcomes without ever having to disclose their involvement to the public? People may go to jail for such spending in the Washington, DC, election. Yet secret spending is common practice in campaigns for the highest offices in our country. This is not the democracy that men and women have fought to protect throughout our history. It's not the democracy the Founders adopted in our Constitution. As Adlai Stevenson once put it: ``Every man has a right to be heard; but no man has the right to strangle democracy with a single set of vocal chords.'' Yet this torrent of unregulated money threatens to strangle the voice of the people. Mistaken though it may have been, the Supreme Court's decision stands until it is reversed. We are committed to uphold the rule of law even when we disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. But we must be equally committed to the fight for a vibrant, open, representative democracy, one in which elections are determined not by the secret spending of billionaires, but by the will of the people. The bill we seek to vote on would take an important step toward mitigating the damage of the Citizens United decision. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 would help shine the light of day on what has been, since the Court's ruling, an underground sewer flow of hundreds of millions of dollars. It would require nonprofits engaged in partisan political activities to disclose their major donors and their expenditures. It would not stop the flow of unlimited money, because we cannot under the Citizens United ruling, but it would at least ensure that the people know who is trying to influence elections. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that requiring disclosure is constitutional. Even in the Citizens United case, the Court's majority said, ``Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in the proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' Indeed, the majority's reliance on disclosure is key to their argument that unlimited spending from corporations would not create corruption or its appearance. The same Supreme Court that has allowed this flood of money has said Congress can require it to be disclosed. We should do so, and so promptly. It is difficult to understand why Members of the Senate could oppose these simple, straightforward disclosure requirements. It is difficult to imagine that we would be comfortable telling our constituents that we voted to uphold the veil of secrecy that now shields this flood of money from public view. And it is even more remarkable that some of us would vote, not just to maintain that secrecy, but to prevent the Senate even from debating it. The filibuster of this legislation, if successful, will signal shocking acquiescence to a system in which the wealthy, fortunate few can seek to shape the outcome of elections in secret, without the Senate even voting on whether to continue that secret system. There are those in this body who defend the flood of secret cash in our politics. It is hard for this Senator to understand how those Senators explain to their constituents that they do not deserve to know who is spending millions to influence elections. But it is doubly difficult to accept the refusal of my colleagues to allow us to vote on this bill by filibustering the motion intended to let us proceed to that vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me commend Senator Whitehouse, Senator Shaheen, and all those who have worked so hard with them to bring this cause to the public forum. The genius of our Founding Fathers was to establish a system of government in which the governed determine who represents them. It is easy for us, more than two centuries removed from their achievement, to lose sight of just how remarkable that achievement was. They overturned untold centuries of human history during which those with wealth and power made the decisions and everyone else had little or no chance to influence how they were governed. The remarkable system the Founders created has endured through war, crisis, depression, and doubt. But we should not mistake that endurance for automatic permanence. Democracy requires that we maintain the vital connection between the people and their elected representatives. It must be the voters and not the influential few who choose our Nation's leaders. If the people begin to doubt their central role in our government, it will be corrosive to democracy. In recent months, there has been reason for just such doubt. A Supreme Court ruling has opened our system to a flood of unlimited and secret special interest money. Inexplicably, a one-Justice majority of the Court decided in the Citizens United case that such unlimited, anonymous donations ``do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'' Many of us believed from the moment that decision was handed down that the Court's majority was badly mistaken. But events since that day have left little doubt. We have, in recent months, seen the dangerous consequences of the Court's ruling: a deluge of unregulated funds that has threatened to upend the election campaign for our Nation's highest office, a flood whose organizers vow will upend congressional campaigns across the Nation this summer and fall. Through super PACs and through supposedly regulated but, in fact, actually unregulated nonprofit organizations, the conduits through which this flood of secret money flows, millionaires and billionaires already have made massive donations to fund a barrage of attack ads, drenching and smothering the voices of those who are to make the decisions in our democracy--the people. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent watchdog group, as of mid-July, these super PACs have raised more than $244 million to influence elections. Individuals and corporations can make unlimited donations to these super PACs whose donations are supposed to be disclosed. But the Court's decision opened the door not just to individuals and corporations seeking to influence elections with unlimited contributions, this ruling, combined with the IRS's failure to strictly enforce our laws on the operation of nonprofit groups organized as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, allows them to seek this influence with spending that is not only unlimited but is also secret because there is no requirement that donations to those 501(c)(4) organizations be disclosed to the public. Donors can seek to influence an election with huge sums of money and can do so now without even having to disclose their involvement. They do so covered by the figleaf that the nonprofit groups to which they donate are dedicated to ``social welfare,'' rather than partisan politics. That fiction dissolves the moment one looks at these social welfare attack ads that the IRS is, so far, blind to. According to an analysis of TV ad spending data by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, two-thirds of all ad spending by outside groups so far during this election cycle has come from nonprofits subject to no Federal public disclosure rules. Much more is on the way as election day approaches this fall. The organizations now spending millions of dollars to influence elections were set up for that explicit purpose, to campaign for candidates they favored and against candidates they opposed. Yet they preserve their nonprofit status and their secrecy by relying on a contradictory regulation and guidance from the IRS. This is how it works. In order to keep their tax-exempt status and keep donor names and donation amounts secret, organizations are set up as ``social welfare'' organizations under 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, 501(C)(4), which is a very popular section of the Code for these organizations to claim, requires that an organization be operated ``exclusively''--I repeat--``exclusively for the promotion of social welfare''. Yet in the regulation implementing this statute, the IRS says: ``An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare.'' Under this regulation, according to the IRS, to qualify as ``exclusively'' dedicated to social welfare, you need only be ``primarily'' interested in social welfare. That does not fit any reasonable definition of ``exclusively'' that I know of. I have expressed my concern to the IRS about this. I pointed out to the IRS that the IRS took a stand on this issue once before. In 1997, it denied nonprofit status to an organization called the National Policy Forum. The IRS position then was that ``partisan political activity does not promote social welfare.'' Yet the IRS's determination of a group's tax-exempt status can take 1 year. Therefore, even if the IRS determines that these organizations are not legitimately ``social welfare'' organizations, it will likely be too late. The secret money will have already been donated and spent. The elections will be over. The contradiction in the IRS regulation is reflected in IRS literature designed to guide the operation of nonprofits. IRS officials pointed me to information on the agency's Internet that states: ``The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.'' But in the very next sentence on that same Web site, the guidance says, ``A social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.'' So that contradicts the plain assertion in the previous sentence that ``social welfare advocacy does not include campaigning.'' It also then leaves open the question of the definition of ``primary'' activity. An IRS publication on nonprofit organizations contains the same contradiction. It says: Promoting social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However-- It goes on to say-- if you submit proof that your organization is organized exclusively to promote social welfare, it can obtain an exemption [from taxes] even if it participates legally in some political activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office. That makes no sense. If partisan activity does not meet the IRS definition of ``promoting social welfare,'' how can an organization that participates in partisan activity possibly be ``organized exclusively to promote social welfare''? So rather than providing clarity, the IRS is perpetuating ambiguity. It should promptly end this ambiguity. We also have a responsibility to act. The Senate and the Congress should act to prevent these organizations from continuing to benefit from their tax-exempt status and hide their donor information. They should be required to disclose the donor and contribution information and stop hiding behind their nonprofit status. The facade of these TV ads not being partisan politics needs to be swept away. It is that simple. We have seen repeatedly the corrosive effects of secret money on the political process. We need to look to history, including modern history--the Watergate scandal, a single incident in U.S. modern history that most damaged public confidence in honest government involved burglaries----

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I extend a hearty congratulations to J. Carl Ganter, director and founder of Circle of Blue in Traverse City, MI, on receiving the 2012 Rockefeller Foundation Innovation Award. Innovation and collaboration are two components critical to solving the challenges we face as a State and as a nation. Organizations like Circle of Blue are leading the charge, helping to inform our discussions and to guide us on a path toward lasting, comprehensive solutions. Circle of Blue has focused its efforts on the global freshwater crisis for more than a decade and has successfully united an international network of leading journalists, scientists, and data experts to shed light on this issue and to illuminate a better path forward. This work has spurred meaningful, dynamic, and workable processes and information that are helping to solve real and pressing problems for communities in need. Through this effort, Circle of Blue has put forth enlightening reports on the nexus between water, food, and energy. Conducted both in China and the United States, this integrated, cross-cutting work demonstrates that current practices are not only environmentally unsustainable, but can be economically disruptive. In both instances, Circle of Blue has utilized this innovative approach to build broad collaborations and solutions-focused processes that are charting a course toward a brighter future. There is little doubt we live in a deeply interconnected world, and the fundamental economic, social, and environmental challenges we face are linked. Under Ganter's able leadership, Circle of Blue has built a breakthrough model of data collection, design, reporting, and convening that places an emphasis on these linkages holistically. By facilitating collaboration between policymakers, scientists, academics, businesses, and the general public, this organization is on the cutting edge of developing processes to creatively implement these solutions. As Mr. Ganter recently stated, ``We are listening better. We are becoming more nimble in how we work and collaborate. We are empowering people at all levels with better information to make better decisions.'' By discerning emerging trends, highlighting solutions, and facilitating meaningful collaboration, Circle Of Blue is a powerful partner in a number of areas. The Rockefeller Foundation Innovation Award is a tremendous honor, one this organization richly deserves. What is most clear to me is that the best has yet to come, and I look forward to the fruits their work will surely bear in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine money laundering and terrorist financing vulnerabilities created when a global bank uses its U.S. affiliate to provide U.S. dollars, U.S. dollar services, and access to the U.S. financial system to high risk affiliates, high risk correspondent banks, and high risk clients, using HSBC as a case study. Witnesses will include representatives from HSBC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. A witness list will be available Friday, July 13, 2012. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provision in question simply accelerates a study of invasive species such as the destructive Asian carp, a study essential to protecting the Great Lakes, a resource that is vital to the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions of Americans. The study was included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 that authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. Since that time, Congress has provided over $13 million to the Corps to conduct this study. The Corps maintains that the study cannot be completed until the end of 2015. The provision included in the conference agreement before us today would accelerate this study and require its completion within 18 months. We should not minimize the threat of the destructive Asian carp entering the Great Lakes. If Asian carp got into the Great Lakes, they would not only pose a very serious threat to the environment but would have a devastating effect on thousands of local jobs and a $7 billion fishing industry. Accelerating this study would put us on a better track to protect one of our Nation's greatest treasures and the thousands of jobs that depend on it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill before us today takes several important steps in several policy areas to move our Nation forward. It prevents a pending student loan interest rate hike that would make college less affordable for American students and their families. It makes important investments in our roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure, investments that will put Americans to work today and make our economy more competitive for years to come. It reauthorizes the Flood Insurance Program that provides security to millions of Americans, while making the program more efficient and more fair to States such as Michigan that for too long have paid more in premiums than they receive in benefits. While this legislation does not include everything I had hoped for or supported, it makes significant progress on issues our constituents need us to address. Millions of Americans will be relieved that this bill avoids a looming increase in student loan interest rates. On July 1, those interest rates are scheduled to double, an increase that Americans already struggling to pay for higher education simply cannot afford. Extending the current 3.4 percent interest rate for another year lifts a significant burden, financial and emotional, from students and their families who were looking to us for aid. I am pleased Senate and House conferees have come to an agreement on a transportation reauthorization. Reauthorization of our Nation's transportation programs is long overdue. Investing in transportation infrastructure creates jobs and improves our international competitiveness. We create more than 35,000 jobs for every $1 billion in Federal funds we spend on transportation infrastructure. The bill will create or preserve an estimated 3 million jobs nationwide. In Michigan, the bill will provide more than $2 billion over the next 2 years for road projects and another $261 million over the next 2 years for Michigan transit projects. Funding transportation infrastructure improvements at robust levels is one of the most obvious things we can do to help boost the U.S. economy. The conference report extends Federal surface transportation programs at current levels, with a small adjustment for inflation, through September 2014. Given the difficult budget climate, this has to be viewed as a victory. Our State transportation agencies need to be able to do long-term planning. This bill helps that cause and is surely better than the short-term extensions we have been living under. Given the negative budget climate and the difficulty we had finding the revenue to offset the highway trust fund shortfall, a 2-year bill is what is possible, although I would have preferred a longer term bill. I am pleased the agreement includes a provision that would direct the Corps of Engineers to accelerate its feasibility study of preventing the inter-basin transfer of aquatic invasive species, such as the destructive Asian carp, between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes basins. While the Corps is planning to produce an interim report at the end of 2013, this provision would require a full feasibility report that would also include a recommendation for implementing preventative measures. Accelerating this study will put us on a better track to protect our $7 billion Great Lakes fishery that supports thousands of jobs. The conference agreement includes a provision regarding harbor maintenance that is based on an amendment to the Senate Transportation bill. This is the first time we have addressed harbor maintenance in a transportation bill, and including this language will help elevate this important issue and strengthen momentum to use trust fund receipts for harbor maintenance. I am disappointed, however, that the provision in the conference agreement does not include the strong enforcement language I urged conferees to include that would ensure that appropriators actually include funding for harbor maintenance that is collected for this purpose. Navigation infrastructure is a vital link in the transportation system, one our economy depends upon. Maintaining our harbors and ports is vital to our economic competitiveness. I will continue to work to ensure that we provide sufficient Federal funds to properly maintain our harbors. The conference agreement also extends for 1 year mandatory PILT funding, or payments in lieu of taxes, that will provide about $4 million to Michigan local governments to help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. These payments can help support a variety of infrastructure and educational needs. I had urged conferees to include this provision in the bill, and I am pleased it was included in the final agreement. The conference report should provide some much needed equity to Michigan and other States through a 5-year reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. Michigan residents have paid more than six times more in premiums than they have received in payouts from the National Flood Insurance Program. We must correct this disparity, and the conference report takes some steps to do so in requiring that premiums be more reflective of the true risk of flooding. The conference report will phase out subsidies for repetitive-loss properties that continue to be rebuilt in high-risk areas. It will also phase out subsidized rates for vacation homes and businesses located in high-risk areas, many of which have received subsidized rates for more than 30 years. This bill will clarify the law to allow property owners to purchase flood insurance from a private insurer, rather than the Federal Government, if they so choose. This means private companies can compete with FEMA to offer consumers a better price. Finally, I am very disappointed that the conference report removes an offshore tax provision that I authored with Senator Conrad to fight against tax evasion. This provision, which was included by voice vote in the Senate bill and is similar to a provision I introduced as part of a broader offshore tax bill, was scored as raising over $1 billion over 10 years and could have helped pay for transportation programs or reduced the deficit. I am disappointed that Congress has yet again missed an opportunity to fight offshore tax evasion, which robs billions of sorely needed dollars from our Treasury each year. The legislation before us today does not include everything I had hoped for or supported, but it is necessary, and we should pass it without further delay.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the International Bridge at Sault St. Marie stands as an enduring, visible reminder of the connection Michigan has with our neighbor to the north. This nearly 2-mile expanse, quite literally, brings communities in Michigan and Canada closer together, forging a mutually beneficial partnership in the process. To commemorate the construction of the bridge, a new, patriotic lighting scheme will be introduced on the American side of the bridge this week. Thousands of vehicles cross this bridge each day. In fact, in 2007 alone, nearly 2 million cars traversed this roadway. This bridge is a pathway for commerce and trade; it is a convenient way for families separated by a short distance, but still a Nation apart to visit; and it supports recreation and tourism, which are central to the economies of many of Michigan's communities. Designed by Dr. Carl Gronquist, this sprawling structure has buoyed a number of industries important to Michigan, including steel, paper and forestry. Before the International Bridge opened to traffic on October 31, 1962, Michiganians crossed the St. Mary's River either by car ferry or by railway. The need for a more efficient means to connect Sault Ste. Marie, MI and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was evident. In response, in 1940, Congress approved an international crossing in Sault Ste. Marie, and in 1955, the Canadian Parliament established the St. Mary's Bridge Company to facilitate and oversee an international crossing. The $16 million construction project that ensued lasted nearly 2 years and gave way to the structure we enjoy today. Connecting Sault Ste. Marie with a city of 75,000 in Ontario that also serves as an important international trade crossing in Northwestern Ontario has been very beneficial. The theme of this celebration--Celebrating 50 years of International Friendship--speaks powerfully to this point. I also would like to recognize the work of the Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Authority and the International Bridge Administration for their tremendous work and dedication. The work that is done each day to ensure an efficient and steady flow of traffic across this bridge has positively impacted the lives of Michiganians and countless businesses for the last half century. As we look toward the future, it is important to preserve and maintain the International Bridge for future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation reached an important milestone over the past few years. In 2010, according to a recent report by the Violence Policy Center, motor-vehicle-related fatalities dropped to their lowest level in decades, a 72 percent decrease in deaths per miles traveled from 1966 levels. But not all of the report's findings are encouraging. While our roads have become safer, other aspects of American life have become more dangerous. Over that same period, firearm-related deaths steadily increased around the country. In fact, in 2009, firearm-related fatalities exceeded motor vehicle fatalities in 10 States, and current trends indicate that firearm violence statistics are only getting worse. Congress has the ability to protect lives with commonsense safety legislation, just as it did with motor vehicle safety measures. But it has recently lacked the will. In the 1960s, this Nation confronted a public health crisis on its streets and highways. Over 40,000 people died from motor vehicle crashes in 1960 alone. A 1999 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that from 1960 to 1966 this crash death rate ballooned from 49.2 to 55 deaths per billion miles of travel. In response, Congress took action by creating the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, which it charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing vehicle safety initiatives. In the decades since, the NHTSA has spearheaded numerous efforts that have saved and will continue to save countless lives. Today, we take things like vehicle head rests, energy-absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and seat belts for granted. We expect our roads to have clearly delineated lanes, guardrails, and adequate lighting. But many of these things would not exist if Congress hadn't taken action to protect the public from the dangers of unregulated motorways. Just like congressional action made our roads safer, countless studies have shown that commonsense gun safety legislation would protect our homes, our schools, and our families from violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2009, guns killed more than 30,000 Americans and injured over 65,000. But despite these statistics, Congress has done little to address this public health crisis. Today, almost anyone, including convicted felons or the mentally ill, can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from a private dealer without any background check. Others can walk into a gun shop and walk out with military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, weapons with no sporting purposes. Legislation has been introduced in this Congress that would address both of these issues and would make our society safer. I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2011, S.35, and the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices Act, S.32, bills that would close this gun show loophole and prevent the sale of military-style ammunition cartridges. Congress should take up and pass these measures. We should act, like we did in the 1960s, to protect American lives with commonsense safety legislation. The price of doing nothing is just too high.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today is the culmination of several days of activities across the Nation in recognition of the oldest known observance of the ending of slavery--``Juneteenth Independence Day''. It was in June of 1865, that the Union soldiers landed in Galveston, TX, with the news that the war had ended and that slavery finally had come to an end in the United States. This was 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued on January 1, 1863, and months after the conclusion of the Civil War. This week and specifically on June 19, when slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our Nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. I was very pleased that on June 19 of this week the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution, S. Res. 496, recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day to the Nation. The resolution, which I sponsored along with Senators Hutchison, Cardin, Landrieu, Cornyn, Sherrod Brown, Boxer, Stabenow, Harkin, Begich, Durbin, Wicker, Leahy, Bill Nelson, Casey, Warner, Akaka, Webb, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer expresses support for the observance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and recognizes the faith and strength of character demonstrated by former slaves, that remains an example for all people of the United States, regardless of background or race. All across America we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith, and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19, we celebrate ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' Lerone Bennett, Jr., writer, scholar, lecturer, and acclaimed Executive Editor for several decades at Ebony Magazine, has reflected on the life and times of Dr. Woodson. Bennett tells us that one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African American history is the story of Woodson's struggle and rise from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement: At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received his bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history--Black history. In keeping with the spirit and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to two courageous women, claimed by my home State of Michigan, who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. These are two women of different times who would change the course of history. The contributions of Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, and Rosa Parks whose dignified leadership sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the civil rights movement are indelibly etched in the chronicle of the history of this Nation. Moreover, they are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a ground breaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan has honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI, on September 25, 1999. In April 2009, Sojourner Truth became the first African American woman to be memorialized with a bust in the U.S. Capitol. The ceremony to unveil Truth's likeness was appropriately held in Emancipation Hall at the Capitol Visitor's Center. I was pleased to cosponsor the legislation to make this fitting tribute possible. Sojourner Truth lived in Washington, DC for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. On May 4, 1999, legislation was enacted which authorized the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. I was pleased to coauthor this tribute to Rosa Parks--the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. I was also pleased to be a part of the effort to direct the Architect of the Capitol to commission a statue of Rosa Parks, which will soon be placed in the U.S. Capitol, making her the second African American woman to receive such an honor. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Over 55 years ago, in Montgomery, AL, the modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people, but the entire world. The boycott which Rosa Parks began was the start of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. In addition, the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in sponsoring legislation authorizing the Congressional Gold Medal to be presented to Dr. King, posthumously, and Coretta Scott King in recognition of their contributions to the Nation. Companion legislation was led in the House by Representative John Lewis. We have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. We still however have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle of civil rights and human rights. Mr. President, I was also pleased to join Senator Hutchison and other Members of the Senate this week, in sponsoring another measure introduced on June 19th in recognition of Juneteenth Independence Day, which will require further action in the Senate. It is a Joint Resolution, S.J. Res. 45, requesting the President to issue a proclamation each year designating Juneteenth Independence Day as a National Day of Observance, encouraging Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds to celebrate freedom and the end of slavery in the United States. In closing, I would like to commend the Juneteenth directors and event coordinators throughout my State of Michigan. They have worked tirelessly in the planning of intergenerational activities in observance of Juneteenth, heading up a wide range of activities over several days in Detroit, Flint, Holland, Lansing, Saginaw, and other areas around the State.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if sequestration comes to pass at the end of this year, many of us believe it could derail the economic recovery and do immense damage to important programs throughout the government, making our Nation less safe and our government less responsive to the needs of the people we serve. But at this point, while our concern is deep and widespread, it is not specific. We know only in the most general terms what impact sequestration might have. And while that is enough to encourage many of us to seek the compromises needed to avoid sequestration, the Congress and the American people deserve a more complete picture of what we face. That is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators Murray and McCain, which would help give us and all Americans that more complete picture. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Murray for the leadership and hard work, on a bipartisan basis, that produced this amendment. It deserves broad bipartisan support, and not only because it will provide valuable information to us and our constituents. We must find ways to work across party lines more often and compromise for the common good. I hope this amendment can serve as one step toward the larger and more difficult compromises we must accomplish to avert the deep and lasting damage of sequestration.

Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased to vote for passage of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act. The bill before us makes important reforms to farm programs by helping agricultural producers manage their risk, invests funding to protect our natural resources, and provides food assistance to families in need. America's agricultural economy is responsible for 16 million jobs. There are over 2 million farms in this country that contribute nearly $80 billion to the Nation's economy. Americans and people all over the world depend on America's farms to feed their families. So passage of a farm bill that protects the food supply, gives farmers the support they need, and combats hunger is of high importance. I want to congratulate Senator Stabenow, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and my Michigan colleague, for managing this important legislation so skillfully. This bill marks important change in how we assist our Nation's farmers. Instead of making direct and countercyclical payments to farmers, sometimes for crops they haven't even grown, this bill ends those practices and instead focuses on working with farmers to manage risks. My home State of Michigan is second only to California in the number of crops grown and second to none in tart cherry production. Unusually warm weather in March resulted in an early bloom for many of our fruit crops, including tart cherries. These crops were then heavily damaged by a series of freezes during April and May. I visited a cherry orchard in northern Michigan last month and viewed the damage. The damage from these freezes is severe; many trees and entire orchards will bear no fruit at all. Growers still need to maintain their orchards, spraying for bugs and disease, but can expect no payment for their crop. I am particularly concerned about tart cherry growers as they cannot currently purchase crop insurance. The bill we are voting on today directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board to develop new crop insurance policies for underserved crops, including specialty crops like cherries. The bill also increases funding to help develop these policies. These new policies are sorely needed in Michigan. The bill also includes $58 billion over a 10-year period for conservation programs that protect our Nation's waters, soil quality and wildlife habitats, prevent erosion, and help alleviate other natural resource problems. These programs have benefitted Michigan by protecting sensitive lands and waters and preventing polluted runoff and sediments from getting into our precious Great Lakes, where they can create problems such as harmful algae blooms. Preventing runoff and controlling erosion can also lower costs for water treatment and dredging of Great Lakes harbors. To create a more efficient system for accessing and implementing these conservation programs, the bill consolidates more than 20 existing programs into 10 programs. One new program in the bill, the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, in particular could benefit the Great Lakes. This program would provide funding through a competitive process for conservation projects that improve soil quality, water quality or quantity, or wildlife habitats on a regional or watershed scale. Because the Great Lakes region already has a regional plan in place, our region should be able to effectively compete for the $250 million in annual funding that would be provided for this program. We have made some solid progress in cleaning up our Great Lakes and other waters in Michigan, but there is still much more to be done. The conservation funding provided in the farm bill would help with the efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes, as well as protect sensitive lands and wildlife, conserve open space and forests, and provide economic benefits.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Johnson in making sure that our Nation's religious leaders are able to have expanded opportunities for their retirement plans, while also ensuring that we don't create any unintended consequences. To remove any potential ambiguity, we want to make clear that H.R. 33 is intended to make clear that the offer and sale of a bank collective trust's securities that are exempt from the Securities Act of 1933 if sold to employee benefit plans described in Section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code, such as 401(k) plans, would not lose such exemption solely on the basis that such securities are sold to church plans described in 403(b)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code (church plans described in Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code already receive such exemptive relief) or to plans that include self-employed ministers. H.R. 33 is not intended to expand the exemption to any interests, participations or securities that are sold to a person other than such church plans and plans that include self-employed ministers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, our country's economy and competitiveness in global markets depends on access to affordable energy resources, including electricity that powers our manufacturing plants and keeps businesses operating throughout the Nation. Additionally, affordable electricity is vital to the health, safety, productivity, and quality of life of American families, as well as keeping their budgets in check. Generating this vital power, however, has come at a cost to our public health and to the environment. Coal- and oil-fired powerplants account for about half of the Nation's mercury emissions and more than half of the country's acid gases. Powerplants also contribute about one-quarter of our Nation's particle pollution. These emissions from powerplants can cause damage to brain development, premature death, asthma, heart attacks, and other health complications with the heart and lungs. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, on December 21, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, announced its final rule to establish technology-based emission limits for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired powerplants, which are estimated to number about 1,400 units nationwide. About half of the electric generating units affected by this rule have already installed equipment to meet these emission limits, and many have expended large sums to get there. The other units that need to install pollution control equipment within the next 3 to 4 years could potentially have a competitive market advantage over the companies that have installed the technology if we simply override the EPA. The emission reductions expected as a result of the rule are projected to improve our Nation's air quality, resulting in a reduction annually of approximately 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 nonfatal heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, 5,700 hospital and emergency room visits, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 3.2 million restricted activity days. The EPA estimates the value of these health benefits is between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. Additionally, the rule will also prevent mercury from contaminating vital water resources. All of the Great Lakes and all of Michigan's inland lakes have fish consumption health advisories due to mercury. This rule should help clean up these lakes and make fish from any lake safer to eat. In contrast to the benefits that will be provided by this rule, the annual cost of installing and operating the pollution control equipment is estimated at about $10 billion annually. These costs are expected to translate into higher electricity costs of about $3 to $4 per month, although those costs would vary regionally. Senator Inhofe's joint resolution of disapproval would completely overturn this EPA rule that limits harmful pollutants from powerplants. Additionally, under the Congressional Review Act, which is the statute that provides the authority for Senator Inhofe to move this measure under expedited procedures, this disapproval resolution would also prevent the EPA from issuing any regulations that are ``substantially the same'' as the disapproved standards. Thus, this prohibition would effectively require Congress to pass a law creating a new authorization before EPA would be able to do anything about this pollution. I support congressional oversight and, in fact, believe Congress should exercise more oversight. But this rule protects the health of Michigan residents by requiring commercially available technology to be installed at powerplants that currently do not have these controls in place. The rule will result in significant air quality improvements, protecting public health and our lakes from harmful pollution. Its payback is significant in health and in economics. For these reasons, I will oppose this measure.

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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week people all across our Nation are engaging in the oldest known observance of the ending of slavery-- ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' Although passage of the 13th Amendment, in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the delayed dissemination of this news across the country. It was in June of 1865, that the Union soldiers landed in Galveston, TX, with the news that the war had ended and that slavery finally had come to an end in the United States. This was 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued on January 1, 1863, and months after the conclusion of the Civil War. This week and specifically on June 19, when slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our Nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. Today, I am very pleased that the Senate has unanimously adopted a resolution, S. Res. 496, recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day to the Nation. The resolution, which I sponsored along with Senators Hutchison, Cardin, Landrieu, Cornyn, Sherrod Brown, Boxer, Stabenow, Harkin, Begich, Durbin, Wicker, Leahy, Bill Nelson, Casey, Warner, Akaka, Webb, and Lautenberg, expresses support for the observance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and recognizes the faith and strength of character demonstrated by former slaves, that remains an example for all people of the United States, regardless of background or race. All across America we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith, and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19, we celebrate Juneteenth Independence Day. Lerone Bennett, Jr., writer, scholar, lecturer, and acclaimed executive editor for several decades at Ebony magazine, has reflected on the life and times of Dr. Woodson. Bennett tells us that one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African American history is the story of Woodson's struggle and rise from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement: At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received his bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history--Black history. In keeping with the spirit and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to two courageous women, claimed by my home State of Michigan, who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. These are two women of different times who would change the course of history. The contributions of Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, and Rosa Parks whose dignified leadership sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the civil rights movement, are indelibly etched in the chronicle of the history of this Nation. Moreover, they are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a groundbreaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan has honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI, on September 25, 1999. In April 2009, Sojourner Truth became the first African American woman to be memorialized with a bust in the U.S. Capitol. The ceremony to unveil Truth's likeness was appropriately held in Emancipation Hall at the Capitol Visitor's Center. I was pleased to cosponsor the legislation to make this fitting tribute possible. Sojourner Truth lived in Washington, DC for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. On May 4, 1999, legislation was enacted which authorized the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. I was pleased to coauthor this tribute to Rosa Parks--the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. I was also pleased to be a part of the effort to direct the Architect of the Capitol to commission a statue of Rosa Parks, which will soon be placed in the U.S. Capitol, making her the second African American woman to receive such an honor. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Over 55 years ago, in Montgomery, AL, the modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people, but the entire world. The boycott which Rosa Parks began was the start of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. In addition, the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in sponsoring legislation authorizing the Congressional Gold Medal to be presented to Dr. King, posthumously, and Coretta Scott King in recognition of their contributions to the Nation. Companion legislation was led in the House by Representative John Lewis. We have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. We still however have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle of civil rights and human rights. I am also pleased to join Senator Hutchison and other members of the Senate in sponsoring another measure introduced today in recognition of Juneteenth Independence Day, which will require further action in the Senate. It is a Joint Resolution requesting the President to issue a proclamation each year designating Juneteenth Independence Day as a National Day of Observance, encouraging Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds to celebrate freedom and the end of slavery in the United States. In closing, I would like to pay tribute to the Juneteenth directors and event coordinators throughout my State of Michigan. They have worked tirelessly in the planning of intergenerational activities in observance of Juneteenth, heading up a wide range of activities over several days in Detroit, Flint, Holland, Lansing, Saginaw, and other areas around the State. S. Res. 497 (Congratulating the Los Angeles Kings on winning the 2012 Stanley Cup Championship) Whereas, on June 11, 2012, the Los Angeles Kings were crowned National Hockey League champions after defeating the New Jersey Devils by a score of 6-1 in Game 6 of the 2012 Stanley Cup Finals; Whereas this is the first Stanley Cup title that the Los Angeles Kings have won since the team entered the National Hockey League in 1967; Whereas the Los Angeles Kings are the first 8th seeded playoff team to win the Stanley Cup; Whereas the Los Angeles Kings never allowed an opposing team with a higher seed or home-ice advantage to intimidate them; Whereas, en route to their first Stanley Cup appearance since 1993, the Los Angeles Kings quickly dispatched the defending Western Conference Champions, the Vancouver Canucks, dominated the upstart St. Louis Blues, and defeated the Phoenix Coyotes, who were the Pacific Division Champions; Whereas Los Angeles Kings forward Dustin Brown is the first American team captain of a Stanley Cup champion since 1999; Whereas Los Angeles Kings goalie Jonathan Quick performed admirably in each playoff game, totaling 125 saves and maintaining a .946 save percentage during the Stanley Cup Finals, and winning the Conn Smythe Trophy, which is awarded to the player considered most valuable to his team during the Stanley Cup Playoffs; Whereas each of the 26 players on the Los Angeles Kings playoff roster should receive recognition, including Most Valuable Player of the Stanley Cup Playoffs Jonathan Quick, team captain Dustin Brown, Jonathan Bernier, Jeff Carter, Kyle Clifford, Drew Doughty, David Drewiske, Colin Fraser, Simon Gagne, Matt Greene, Dwight King, Anze Kopitar, Trevor Lewis, Andrei Loktionov, Alec Martinez, Willie Mitchell, Jordan Nolan, Scott Parse, Dustin Penner, Mike Richards, Brad Richardson, Rob Scuderi, Jarret Stoll, Slava Voynov, Kevin Westgarth, and Justin Williams; and Whereas team owners Philip Anschutz and Edward Roski, General Manager Dean Lombardi, and head coach Darryl Sutter admirably assembled the team that comprised the 2012 Los Angeles Kings and led them through one dominant performance after another in the 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the Los Angeles Kings on winning the 2012 Stanley Cup Championship; and (2) commends the Los Angeles Kings fans in California and across the Nation for showing the team support throughout its 45-year history.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as they have for generations, libraries across our Nation and my home State of Michigan enable people to gain access to a sea of information and facts. They serve as a gateway for exploration. Libraries allow young people to journey back in time with great authors and experience the world as it was for past generations. They allow them to travel across the globe and experience life in other areas of the world, and they allow them to dream and imagine ways to make our collective future better. These are places where the only limitation is your imagination and your willingness to read and learn. For the past 125 years, one such library in Fife Lake has played this unmistakably important role, and it is with great pride that I pay tribute to the Fife Lake Public Library on its Quasquicentennial. This wonderful institution has surely helped to cultivate and nurture the interests of individuals seeking to broaden and deepen their understanding of a variety of pursuits. The Fife Lake Public Library was established in 1887 with a $17 grant from Grand Traverse County. Since then, this library has been a mainstay of the community and has met the diverse and growing needs of residents of Fife Lake. The library's quaint but much-cherished building was outgrown in 2006. To accommodate this growth, the library's resources were moved to a newer, more modern building. Impressively, the Library's circulation has quadrupled in the last decade. In addition to books, its patrons now have access to DVDs, albums, audiobooks and the Internet by way of several public computers. In our increasingly technologically advanced world where information and answers are but a click away and devices such as computers and smart phones are a part of many of our lives, it could be easy to undervalue the importance and impact of libraries. The opposite is true. Fife Lake Public Library has transformed with the digital age and continues to hold a central yet evolving role in the lives of residents. One resident aptly stated, ``The library is not a quiet place anymore but a social gathering place for the community.'' Residents come to access the Internet and learn computer skills, and through partnerships with local organizations they enjoy activities ranging from fitness classes to grief support to tot-time. There is something for residents from all walks of life. I am delighted to commend all those affiliated with the Fife Lake Public Library on its 125th anniversary. Through the hard work, collaboration, and financial generosity of many within the Fife Lake community, this library has served the needs of Fife Lake residents for a century and a quarter. With commitment and sustained effort, this piece of living history in Fife Lake will continue to inspire and educate for many years to come.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is once again attempting to move forward with the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation would strengthen and modernize the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new tools to combat gender-based wage discrimination. Among other things, this bill would require employers to demonstrate that wage differences between genders for comparable work are due to business decisions, and not gender. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who inquire about wage practices or share salary information with their colleagues. And it would strengthen penalties for equal pay violations. Closing the gender pay gap is always an important and worthwhile goal, but this is the case especially in the current tough economic climate where it is increasingly common for women to be the primary or even sole bread winner in a family. For example, in Michigan, over a third of families with dependent children rely on a working mother's salary for their primary income. This represents the families of over half a million children. And here is the important part--while the averages have varied, current figures indicate that women still only make 77 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts. These are prolonged, tough, economic times, and there is no justifiable reason for the U.S. Senate not to do everything in its power to support policies that can help women in this country support themselves and their families by ensuring they are being paid the same wage as their male counterparts for comparable work. This is not just an issue of gender equality; it is one of economic equality and fairness. It is deeply discouraging for our Republican colleagues to be filibustering this measure.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, a few weeks ago I met a remarkable group of young people. They call themselves the Fighting Pi, and they are the FIRST Robotics Competition team from the Macomb Academy of Arts & Sciences in Armada, MI. FIRST is an annual, international robotics competition for high school students. Teams have 6 weeks to design, build, and test robots to compete in a game, which changes every year. For this year, teams competed in the ``Rebound Rumble,'' which required them to design robots capable of shooting small basketballs into baskets as high as 8 feet off the ground. This competition demands many things of its teams. They must demonstrate the ability to plan and work together, to follow a budget, and to meet demanding timelines. They must master complex technical fields such as computer-assisted drafting, electrical engineering, radio control systems, pneumatic systems, and sensors and signals. So the intellectual demands are great. But just as great is the demand for vision for the foresight to look at a stack of diagrams and a pile of electronic parts and see what it can all become. Thirty-six teams from Michigan traveled in April to St. Louis for the national championship, the Fighting Pi among them. Representing Michigan were three teams from Bloomfield Hills, two from Detroit, two from Ann Arbor, two from Grandville, two from Pontiac, and teams from Allen Park, Auburn Hills, Berkley, Birmingham, Clarkston, Fremont, Holland, Hopkins, Lansing, Milford, Niles, North Oakland County, Northville, Novi, Okemos, Ortonville, Richmond, Rochester Hills, Sterling Heights, Temperance, Waterford, and Zeeland. All of them have reason to be proud of their accomplishments. But I want to especially thank the Fighting Pi, whose members and adult leaders were kind enough to spend an hour with me a few days ago. At the Michigan State Championships, the Fighting Pi had won the prestigious State Engineering Inspiration Award. I was deeply impressed by the vision, enthusiasm, and brainpower of the Fighting Pi during my visit. They demonstrated to me their robot design, and they let me drive a robot around a little. They helped me understand the technical aspects of their work and the intense planning and preparation and staying power required. In addition to their robotics responsibilities, team members participate in public service. Team members volunteer regularly at Ronald McDonald House, where they help the families of ill or injured children. They participate in local adopt-a-road and adopt-a-trail cleanup programs. And they have raised money for St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital and Toys for Tots among other worthy charities. They are, in their schoolwork, their robotics work, and their volunteer work, exceptional young people. Americans spend a lot of time worrying about the next generation. We worry over our dinner tables, in our conversations at work, and in this very Chamber. There are plenty of reasons to worry. But we should not lose sight of the reasons for optimism. Every day, all over this great country, young people are accomplishing extraordinary things. They are studying hard, learning new skills, and even building sophisticated robots. They are preparing to write the next chapter in the American story, and I have no doubt it will be as stirring as the story so far. So let me extend my congratulations and my gratitude to the students of the Fighting Pi, and the students who helped them on their way: team members Michael Graham, Melissa Mikolowski, Nicholas Fitzsimons, Eric Bytner, Trevor Goolsby, Alysa Brice, Zeke Fetty, Michael Scaglione, Steven Scaglione, Stephen Kline, Kurt Wieber, Andrew Graham, Amanda Fulghum, Michael Patrick, Laurel Payne, Collin Tobey, Riley Yaxley, Eric Tobey, Jack Sabelhaus, Andrew Binkowski, Lauren Grobbel, Alex Kesek, Sabrina Tibaudo, Ron Kyllonen, Vince Ragap, Rachel Kosek and Krystal Diel; and adults Craig Roys, Tom Line, Richard Wahl, Craig Tobey, Shawn Graham, Judy Tobey, Michael Mroz, Andrea Mroz, Paul Gianferrara, John Antilla, Jacob Caporuscio, and Eric Kosek.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will support final passage of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act which will reauthorize the user fee agreements that govern the fees paid by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries to the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to expedite the drug and device approval process. These fees are an important funding source that provides the FDA with resources necessary to ensure potentially lifesaving drugs and medical devices can be reviewed and ultimately brought to market quickly and safely. I understand this legislation is the product of a tremendous amount of work by the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee, in conjunction with various stakeholders, and enjoys broad support from industry, the FDA, and consumer groups. For the first time, this bill will also create new user fee agreements for generic drug manufacturers; manufacturers of biologics; and would make permanent the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. These two laws together help improve the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals for children. Of particular interest, the bill aims to address drug shortages by requiring all manufactures of certain drugs to provide advance notification of possible supply disruptions and any permanent discontinuance of these products to the Health and Human Services Secretary. In addition, it will also require HHS to establish a task force to address possible drug shortages and will grant the secretary the authority to expedite the inspection and review process of substitute products that could mitigate a shortage. The bill will allow the FDA to continue to collect fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers through 2017. I am pleased to join with colleagues from both sides of the aisle in voting in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today is passing legislation that would allow the Senate to continue its leadership of our country toward a clean-energy future. This bill provides the authority for the Architect of the Capitol to provide for charging of batteries for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the Senate and, of great importance, at no cost to the Federal Government. Plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles offer great potential in meeting our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and auto manufacturers are moving toward developing a broad choice of electric-drive vehicles. Batteries and components are now being manufactured in the U.S., and we are developing the supply chain necessary to support these home-grown technologies. But in addition to making the vehicles and components available, we also need to take steps to ensure the infrastructure exists to make these vehicles desirable and accessible to consumers. Increased use of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles will bring changes in how we think about cars and driving. Instead of looking for gas stations, drivers will need to have places where they can replenish the batteries that power their vehicles. This bill will ensure that the Senate leads by example as we transition to that cleaner-energy future. It will ensure that the capability to charge plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles will exist in the Senate--at no cost to the taxpayer. I am a proud owner of a Chevrolet Volt, but I also want to ensure that the taxpayers do not subsidize the cost of my or anyone else's use of electricity to power these vehicles. I appreciate the efforts and support of the cosponsors of this bill-- Senators Alexander, Schumer, Kerry, Murkowski, Bingaman, Stabenow, and Merkley--and the great assistance of the staffs of Senators Schumer and Alexander on the Rules Committee in getting this bill passed. It has been our explicit intention to ensure there would be no cost to the taxpayer in providing access to electricity for those wishing to charge their vehicle batteries in the parking areas of the Senate, but I am pleased that we were able to include language to clarify any questions in that regard.