Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the mortgage foreclosure crisis in Michigan is dire. Nearly 80,000 homes are expected to be lost to foreclosure by 2009. Michigan ranks third in the country in foreclosure rates, and fifth in the country in number of foreclosure filings. Michigan has seen an increase in the number of foreclosure filings of 282 percent since 2005. My State is not alone in this crisis, nor are homeowners facing foreclosure the only ones being affected. The entire housing industry, and by many accounts our entire economy, is being dragged down by mounting mortgage woes. It is urgent that we move forward on this bill to address these problems and provide immediate help across the Nation. We need to keep families in their homes, and we need to keep this crisis from further weighing down our economy. Recently, I convened a series of roundtable meetings in a number of Michigan communities. Leaders from local and State government, as well as organizations who are in the trenches working with families facing foreclosure, came together to discuss practical ways to help homeowners and protect our economy from further damage. When I asked for their feedback on this bill, they thought it would help address a number of the problems they highlighted. Across Michigan, there are communities that would like to rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties so that surrounding property values do not continue to fall. But currently the funds do not exist to do that. This bill provides $4 billion in Federal block grants to areas with the highest foreclosure rates to help rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed properties and prevent further damage to local housing values. Across Michigan, foreclosure prevention counselors are overwhelmed, and a lack of funds is tying the hands of local groups trying to help keep families on track. This bill would provide $200 million for this much needed preforeclosure counseling. There are also many homeowners who are facing the financial pressures of owing more on their mortgages than the current dollar value of their houses, a situation known as being ``underwater.'' There is a critical need for more affordable loans to help these families refinance and stay in their current homes. Most homeowners do not want to uproot their children and leave their community behind, even if the balance of their mortgage is greater than the current market value of their home. This bill would help address this problem by authorizing States to issue $10 billion in new tax-exempt bonds to help homeowners refinance adjustable rate mortgages. States will have the flexibility to use the proceeds of these bonds to refinance mortgages. This is a key component to turning the current mortgage market around. Ameliorating our foreclosure crisis will require a team effort among Federal, State, and local governments, community and neighborhood organizations, and lenders, brokers, and borrowers. This bill recognizes that fact. It provides an opportunity to help keep struggling families in their homes. It provides an opportunity to help restore our housing markets so that families can own a home. It provides an opportunity to help keep declining property values stable. We need to take up this bill now, debate it, consider amendments, and then pass it. To not do so would be to sit idly by while a multitude of Americans needlessly suffer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, unfortunately, history will record February 2008 as a month in which contained six separate high-profile multiple murders by firearms occurred across the country. These shootings occurred in places normally considered safe, including Northern Illinois University, Louisiana Technical College, and a city council meeting inside Kirkwood City Hall. It appears there are few places where the dangers of gun violence can not reach. However, there are some actions we can take to help change this epidemic of gun violence. In 1993, President Clinton signed the Brady bill into law. This law requires a waiting period for handgun sales until records are available to instantly check criminal background of prospective gun purchasers. After the National Instant Check System, NICS, became operational in 1998, the Justice Department maintained background check records on approved purchases for 6 months to ensure that felons and other prohibited buyers were not mistakenly approved. Under the Bush administration, however, Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to require the destruction of the records of approved purchasers within 24 hours. In July 2002, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the potential effects of next-day destruction of NICS background check records. They concluded that destroying these records within 24 hours would prevent the government from auditing the NICS system to ensure its accuracy and ``would have public safety implications.'' Despite these GAO warnings, Attorney General Ashcroft decided to implement the 24-hour record destruction provision. The Brady bill only requires background checks for sales by licensed gun dealers. It does not require them for transfers between unlicensed persons. Approximately 40 percent of all gun sales involve those transfers, such as at gun shows. Only 6 States require background checks on all firearm sales. According to the ATF, almost one-third of trafficked guns are acquired at gun shows and flea markets. These gatherings present the perfect opportunity for unlicensed sellers to offer large numbers of guns for sale with no questions asked. Those who would not pass a background check in a licensed gun store are able to purchase as many guns as they wish at gun shows. In 1994, President Clinton signed legislation into law that banned the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines. Among the banned items was a list of 19 specific weapons as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and accept a detachable magazine. In 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, and bipartisan support in the Senate. Sadly, the tragedies at both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University were inflicted by someone using previously banned high capacity ammunition magazines. On average, 32 people are murdered in this country by firearms every day. By instituting such simple changes in current law, addressing the gun show loophole and passing a new assault weapons ban, we could help reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2008. This bill would reauthorize and modernize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which funds and authorizes health care services and programs to Native American Indians and Alaska Natives and reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that we meet our treaty and legal obligation to provide these communities with access to quality health care. Reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been long overdue. The last time the Congress reauthorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was in 1992, and this act has been up for reauthorization since 2001. The Indian Health Service has not been updated for far too long. As health care evolves and improves programs must be modernized to reflect new advances in the health care system. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has not been modernized since 1992, 16 years ago, and is falling behind. We have a trust responsibility to provide health care to Native American Indians and Alaska Natives. We have not met that responsibility. The disparities that exist between Indian communities and other Americans are overwhelming. The life expectancy for Indians is almost 6 years less than the rest of this country's population and the suicide rate is 2.5 times higher than the national average. Death due to alcoholism or tuberculosis is more than 600 percent more likely; and, Indians are 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes. These statistics are unacceptable and we need to continue to ensure that we close the gap. The passage of this bill brings us one step closer to ensuring that the Indian Health Service is adequately funded and that programs to address the health care needs of these communities are available.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the intelligence authorization conference report which includes a requirement that all Government agencies, including the CIA, comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogations in the treatment and interrogation of detainees. The result will be a single standard of treatment for detainees, a standard consistent with American values and international standards. The Army Field Manual is consistent with our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits subjecting detainees to ``cruel treatment and torture.'' This is the standard to which our soldiers are trained and which they live by. Consistent with this standard, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibits certain interrogation techniques. These include: forced nudity; ``waterboarding,'' that is, inducing the sensation of drowning; using military working dogs in interrogations; subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures; and mock executions. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has insisted that it reserves the right for the CIA to engage in certain ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' It has been reported that these CIA techniques include ``waterboarding.'' While this Justice Department continues to refuse to say one way or the other, let there be no doubt: waterboarding is torture. The Judge Advocates General of all four services have told us unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal. Requiring that all Government agencies comply with the standards of the Army Field Manual is not mushy intellectualism. It is hard-headed pragmatism. When we fail to live up to our own standards for humane treatment, we compromise our moral authority. Our security depends on the willingness of others to work with us and share information, information which could prevent the next attack. When we project moral hypocrisy, we lose the support of the world in the fight against the extremists. Requiring a single standard for the treatment of detainees consistent with the Army Field Manual protects our men and women in uniform, should they be captured. It strengthens our hand in demanding that American prisoners be treated humanely, consistent with values embodied in the Field Manual. I urge my colleagues to support the intelligence authorization conference report with the provision that standards in the Army Field Manual for treatment of detainees will apply to all elements of the intelligence community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last year Congress passed a temporary bill with a 6-month time limit that would give us the opportunity to carry out a thorough, thoughtful examination of how to utilize complicated new technologies in the surveillance of suspected terrorists without invading the privacy of innocent Americans. In the months since we passed that temporary act, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to consider the best course forward for permanent changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite the enormous complexity of these issues, we reached a bipartisan consensus on the key provisions contained in title I of the bill we are considering today. I believe that title I of the bill before us appropriately provides the intelligence community the authority it needs to collect intelligence information on suspected terrorists. The collection of that intelligence is important to our national security and merits congressional support. That is why I helped write the Rockefeller-Levin substitute amendment that we voted on last summer, why I voted in favor of the Leahy substitute amendment that we considered in January, and why I support title I of the bill before us today. In my view, the Rockefeller-Levin substitute, the Leahy substitute, and title I of this bill all provide for the appropriate collection of intelligence information on suspected terrorists. Title I of this bill would provide the needed authority for collection of that information in a responsible manner. Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act which we passed last summer, would not authorize the targeting of U.S. persons for electronic surveillance without probable cause. Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would not authorize the administration to collect communications--including communications to and from U.S. persons--for months without even submitting the collection program for court approval. Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would not authorize the administration to continue to collect such communications for an extended period even after the FISA Court has specifically rejected an application for approval. Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would expressly authorize judicial review of the targeting and so-called minimization procedures in order to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons. Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would require regular inspector general reviews and regular reports to Congress on any authorized collection program. I congratulate Senator Rockefeller and other colleagues on their success in achieving the administration's support for these well- crafted title I provisions, which are significant improvements over the temporary bill hastily adopted last year. Title II of the bill is a different story. Title II would eliminate accountability by granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers that disclosed communications and other confidential information of their customers at the behest of Government officials. They did this despite a law specifically making it illegal to do so. Unlike title I, there is no bipartisan agreement on title II. Title II would require dismissal of lawsuits brought by persons claiming injury from interception and disclosure of their communications, even if the activity resulting in the injury was illegal. It would require dismissal of lawsuits, even if the disclosure violated the constitutional rights of individuals whose personal information was illegally disclosed. It would require dismissal of lawsuits, even if innocent U.S. citizens were damaged by the disclosure or compromise of confidential personal information. Retroactive immunity is not fair. It is not wise. And it is not necessary. Retroactive immunity is not fair because it leaves American citizens who may have been harmed by the alleged unlawful conduct of these providers without any legal remedy. Retroactive immunity is not wise because it precludes any judicial review of that conduct. I am deeply concerned that if we act here to immunize private parties who participated in a program that appears to have been clearly illegal, we may encourage others to engage in such illegal activities in the future. In a free society, illegal activity cannot be excused on the grounds that Government officials asked you to carry it out. There must be accountability for illegal acts. As written, title II eliminates some critically required accountability. Nor is retroactive immunity necessary. Congress has already ensured the future cooperation of the telecommunications providers with the intelligence community in the Protect America Act adopted last August. That act authorizes the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence to direct telecommunications providers to disclose certain information and provides prospective immunity to telecommunications providers that cooperate with such directives. Title I of the bill before us appropriately continues to provide prospective immunity to telecommunications providers. Title I states: Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to the act. In light of the prospective immunity in title I, which is appropriately in this bill, the retroactive immunity of title II is not necessary to ensure the future cooperation of telecommunications providers that receive legitimate requests for information from the intelligence community. The argument has been made that we must provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications providers to ensure the cases against them are immediately dismissed because if the cases are permitted to proceed, vital national security information will be disclosed. But the courts have numerous tools at their disposal to protect such information and have successfully used these tools throughout our history. They can review evidence in a classified setting; they can redact documents; they can even dismiss a case for national security reasons if they deem it necessary to do so. Some have even taken the position that the mere existence of this litigation, even without the disclosure of any information, will somehow help the terrorists. But the President has already disclosed the existence of the collection program at issue. It has been discussed in Congress and in the press. The Director of National Intelligence has publicly discussed the program. There is a way to properly immunize from legal liability telecommunications providers that acted in good faith based on the assurances of appropriate administration officials. The way to do that is by substituting the United States for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in lawsuits based on the actions of those providers. That substitution would safeguard telecommunications providers from liability just as effectively as the retroactive immunity language in title II of the bill. But unlike the retroactive immunity language of title II, it would not leave persons who can prove they were victims of unlawful actions without a remedy. We can ensure that any such innocent victims retain whatever legal rights they have under applicable law, except that the U.S. Government would be substituted for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in such lawsuits. And it is appropriate that the Government be liable rather than the telecommunications providers, since the disclosures were allegedly made by the providers in these cases at the request of senior executive branch officials based on appeals to help safeguard U.S. security and assurances that the providers would be protected from liability regardless of the requirements of law. We had a number of opportunities to provide equity both to the telecommunications providers and to any injured citizens. We had the opportunity to adopt the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would have struck title II from the bill, allowing us to adopt a new approach that protects both the equities of telecommunications providers that acted in good faith and those of people who were allegedly injured by their illegal actions. We had the opportunity to adopt the Specter-Whitehouse substitution amendment, which would have fully protected telecommunications providers, without depriving American citizens who were harmed by unlawful collection of their personal information of a legal remedy. It did so by substituting the United States for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in lawsuits based on the actions of those providers. That substitution would safeguard telecommunications providers from liability just as effectively as the retroactive immunity language in title II of the bill. And we had the opportunity to adopt the Feinstein amendment, which would have limited immunity to those telecommunications providers that are found by a court to have acted in reasonable, good-faith reliance on assurances from executive branch officials. The adoption of these amendments would have made a significant improvement to the bill. With their rejection, I cannot support this bill despite my support for title I, which again, appropriately, authorizes the collection of intelligence. But it is my hope that a bill comes from conference with the House of Representatives that includes appropriate changes to eliminate unfair, unwise, and unnecessary retroactive immunity provisions. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, one of the amendments before us is the Specter-Whitehouse amendment to title II of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. I urge our colleagues to support the Specter-Whitehouse amendment for the following reasons: Title II of the bill, as currently written, provides retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers who disclosed communications and other confidential information about their customers at the behest of administration officials. These provisions in the bill before the Senate require the immediate dismissal of any lawsuit against a telecommunications provider based on such disclosure if the Attorney General certifies that an appropriate Government official indicated in writing to the provider that the activity was, one, authorized by the President, and, two, determined to be lawful. It is the words ``determined to be lawful'' that create the problem. Determined by whom? The way the bill is written, a determination of the Department of Justice or intelligence community officials is sufficient to ensure immunity even if the courts would conclude that the activity was illegal. Dismissal would be required even if a court would conclude that the disclosure violated the constitutional rights of individuals whose personal information was illegally disclosed. It would be required even if innocent American citizens were damaged by the disclosure or by the compromise of confidential personal information. The provision in the bill before us granting retroactive immunity is not necessary, it is not wise, and it is not fair. Retroactive immunity is not necessary to ensure the future cooperation of the telecommunications providers who receive legitimate requests for information from the intelligence community. In fact, Congress has already ensured such cooperation in the Protect America Act adopted last August which authorizes the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence to direct telecommunications providers to disclose certain information, and that law provides prospective immunity to telecommunications who cooperate with such directives. Title I of the bill before us appropriately continues to provide prospective immunity to telecommunications providers. Title I states: Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to the act. In light of this prospective immunity, which is appropriately in the bill, retroactive immunity is not necessary to ensure the future cooperation of telecommunications providers with legitimate requests for information from the intelligence community. A retroactive immunity is not wise either because it precludes any judicial review of these important issues. If private parties engaged in illegal activities at the request of senior executive branch officials, that may be an appropriate mitigating factor to be considered in the courts. But to simply grant immunity retroactively may encourage others to engage in illegal activities in the future. That is a bad precedent because it should never be an excuse in a free society that you acted illegally because Government officials asked you to do so. That leaves the question of equity for telecommunications providers who may have cooperated with administration officials in good faith with the assurance that such cooperation was legal and that they were helping to safeguard our national security. If one had to choose between a known equitable interest of the telecommunications providers who was prevailed upon in the aftermath of 9/11 to assist the Government by disclosing private customer communications without first conforming with the clear requirement of the FISA law for a warrant approved by the FISA Court before doing so, if--if--one had to choose between that equitable interest and the perhaps uncertain claims of plaintiffs whose conversations may have been eavesdropped upon without their knowledge and with little, if any, provable damage, one might reach the conclusion that retroactive immunity was an appropriate remedy for the telephone companies. But we do not have to make that choice. We can recognize both the equitable interest of the companies and the possible claims of our citizens, and we can also avoid the terrible precedent of giving retroactive immunity to law violators. We can do that by adopting the Specter-Whitehouse amendment. How can we protect the telecommunications providers from legal liability if they acted in good faith at the request of the administration without taking the extraordinary step of retroactively eliminating any remedy for possible violations of the Constitution and the laws of the United States? The Specter-Whitehouse amendment before us would accomplish that by immunizing telecommunications providers who acted in good faith based on the assurances of appropriate administration officials from legal liability and at the same time substituting the United States for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in lawsuits based on the actions of those providers. That substitution would safeguard telecommunications providers from liability just as effectively as the retroactive immunity language in title II of the bill. But unlike the retroactive immunity language of title II the Specter- Whitehouse amendment would not leave persons who can prove they were victims of unlawful or unconstitutional actions without a remedy. On the contrary, the Specter-Whitehouse amendment would ensure that any such innocent victims retain whatever legal rights they have under applicable law, except that the U.S. Government would be substituted for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in such lawsuits. And it is appropriate that the Government be liable rather than the telecommunications providers since the disclosures were allegedly made by the providers in these cases at the request of senior executive branch officials based on appeals to help safeguard U.S. security and assurances that the providers would be protected from liability regardless of the requirements of law. The argument has been made that we must provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications providers to ensure the cases against them are immediately dismissed because if the cases are permitted to proceed, vital national security information will be disclosed. Some have even taken the position that the mere existence of this litigation, even without the disclosure of any information, will somehow help the terrorists. But the President has already disclosed the existence of the collection program at issue. It has been discussed in Congress and in the press. The Director of National Intelligence has publicly discussed the program. Nor will the continuation into the future of cases against telecommunications providers or the U.S. Government, should the Government be substituted as the Specter-Whitehouse amendment would provide as a defendant, that would not make public sensitive collection methods. That is because the courts have numerous tools at their disposal to safeguard sensitive classified information from disclosure during the course of a trial and courts have used these tools throughout our history. Federal courts utilize these tools without compromising the national security when our Government chooses to prosecute terrorists or spies. Indeed, the recently enacted Military Commissions Act provides the same tools for the protection of classified information in cases brought against alleged terrorists in the military justice system. U.S. citizens who are allegedly damaged at the Government's behest surely should be given as much protection as alleged terrorists. The administration's willingness to utilize these procedures to safeguard sensitive classified information in the prosecution of alleged terrorists, but not in suits brought for the protection of the rights of American citizens, gives the appearance that retroactive immunity is being sought under this bill as it now stands, not to protect classified information but, rather, to protect the administration itself. The bottom line is we can protect telecommunications providers from liability for unlawful or unconstitutional disclosures made in good faith reliance on written assurances by high-ranking executive branch officials without retroactively depriving alleged victims of such disclosures of any remedy, if they can demonstrate they have been damaged by illegal practices. The Specter-Whitehouse amendment would enable us to deal fairly with both telecommunications providers and with persons who can prove they were damaged by illegal disclosures of their personal information. I urge our colleagues to support the Specter-Whitehouse amendment as the fair way of protecting both telecommunications providers but also protecting what should be a very basic principle of our Constitution--you cannot and should not needlessly remove a remedy from people who have been injured. To do that retroactively runs contrary to everything we believe in this Constitution about the rights of American citizens to be protected and to have remedies when they are wronged. amendment no. 3941

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, for too long the Federal Government has stood idle as Michigan's unemployment rate has soared, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and working families have felt the squeeze of the rising costs of energy, health care and food. I am glad that we are moving today on these short-term measures to stimulate our lagging economy--heaven knows we can't afford not to. But there is more we must do to fight for American jobs, and I am disappointed that the Republican Leadership blocked our attempt to significantly improve this package. I look forward to addressing the shortcomings of this bill with additional legislation in the near future. At a minimum, we need to pass the provisions that were in the amendment offered yesterday that was based on the work done by the Senate Finance Committee. Unfortunately, that amendment with bipartisan support fell only 1 vote shy of the 60 it needed to overcome the Republican filibuster. I am hopeful that under new circumstances we can get those provisions done. The Finance Committee amendment would have made this a much better package for stimulating the economy. Extending unemployment insurance, raising the cap on mortgage revenue bonds to help keep people in their homes, and funding the LIHEAP program to help people heat their homes are all timely provisions that offer temporary assistance that precisely targets the people who need this help the most. Putting money into their hands is the most effective way to kick-start our economy in the shortest time possible. There are a number of reasons it is important that we ultimately approve the extension of much-needed unemployment insurance, which most economists agree is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, dollar for dollar. Workers who receive these unemployment benefits--which could reach them in as few as 2 weeks from enactment of the stimulus--are likely to spend them quickly, making this one of the fastest ways to infuse money into our economy in the shortterm. In my own State of Michigan, about 145,000 residents have exhausted their unemployment benefits and can't find jobs. Between now and June, 72,000 more people will face the same difficult situation. Extending unemployment insurance during times of recession is nothing new. In the past 30 years, the Congress has acted three times to establish temporary extended unemployment benefits, each time during a recession. Studies indicate that extending unemployment insurance during tough times provides the best return of economic benefits compared to other stimulus options, and this money can be distributed within weeks. Extending unemployment insurance is essential to provide much-needed support to those who have lost their jobs and are struggling to reenter the job market. To achieve success, the second economic stimulus package now being formulated must also help families stand up against the intensifying wave of housing foreclosures. More than 89,000 Michigan home loans are currently in foreclosure and over 40,000 subprime loans have scheduled rate increases this year. Across the Nation, too many families are at risk of losing their homes, with devastating consequences. Beyond the personal impact, rampant foreclosures can decimate communities. Home ownership is a central tenet of the American dream, but with the number of home foreclosures increasing at an alarming rate, that dream is slipping away from Americans across the country. I am pleased that the bill we will pass today will increase the loan limits for the Federal Housing Administration, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are modest moves in the midst of a full-blown crisis, but it is better than nothing. I am hopeful that soon we can also pass the measure included in the Finance Committee amendment that would have raised the volume cap on State-issued tax-exempt mortgage-revenue bonds by $10 billion. The proceeds from these bonds would allow State and local agencies to provide additional mortgage refinancing options to homeowners so that they could keep their homes. It is critical that we help prevent the further deepening of the foreclosure crisis, keep families in their homes, and protect neighborhoods from the blight which results from large numbers of vacant houses. On a positive note, I am glad that we have adopted the Senate's improvements to what we are calling a ``tax rebate'' program. This bill will give a tax credit to be sent out as quickly as possible to provide fast cash for many struggling families, thereby ameliorating their hardship at the same time as giving a boost to spending. Today's bill is a package of inclusion, one that recognizes the importance of giving our Nation's aging citizens and disabled veterans their share of stimulus support. These tax rebates will give $600 to individual taxpayers with at least $3,000 of qualifying income, or $1,200 for married couples filing jointly, and an additional $300 for each qualifying child. A prudent stimulus package should not neglect the elderly and disabled veterans, and the tax rebate program we have adopted includes social security and disabled veterans' benefits as qualifying income for the purpose of determining eligibility for the rebate, thereby putting money directly into the hands of some of our nation's neediest some 20 million seniors and 250,000 veterans. Not only will this help these folks attend to their families' most basic needs, but it will further stimulate the economy for the betterment of the whole Nation. I am also pleased this package includes tax provisions to stimulate small businesses, which are the heart of America's economic strength. It allows small businesses to double the amount they can expense, meaning immediately write off, their taxes for certain capital investments made in 2008 from $125,000 to $250,000. It also provides immediate tax relief for all businesses to invest in new machinery and equipment by speeding up depreciation provisions, so that firms can write off an additional 50 percent depreciation in the first year. However, given the importance of small businesses' contribution to the economy and to job creation, much more needs to be done to help small businesses find access to credit in this slowing economy. For instance, as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have joined some of my colleagues in calling for a temporary reduction of fees on small business loans to help reverse the recent decline in SBA guaranteed lending to small businesses. I think a temporary reduction in the fees charged to borrowers will put more money in the pockets of small businesses by lowering their monthly loan payments. Equally important is reducing the fees SBA charges lenders because we need to take steps to make lending to small businesses more profitable and thus more appealing so that banks will continue to be willing to make these important loans. We should also make a one-time enhancement of $10 million to the SBA microloan program's revolving fund to increase credit availability for very small business concerns, especially those who face additional barriers to economic opportunity. The SBA's microloan program provides funding for small-scale business loans, which banks are typically reluctant to service. When the economy is slowing, the Federal Government should be doing all it can to keep America's small businesses viable so that they can continue to be the economic engine of our economy that they have been in the past. I hope some of these ideas will be included in the longer term stimulus package. I am also disappointed that this stimulus package does not include the 1-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable energy, which was included in the Senate Finance package. Current law provides a 1.8 cent per kilowatt tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources including wind, solar, and biomass, but this provision will expire at the end of 2008. An effort was made to extend it for 2 years in the energy bill last year, but that effort also failed. This tax credit is critical to many developers of renewable energy projects--without an extension, many projects will be put on hold because they will be less financially viable. With the tax credit, these projects can go forward, and provide both investment in the economy and creation of new jobs. Failure to approve yesterday's amendment also means that the stimulus package will not include an additional $1 billion for the LIHEAP program, which provides energy assistance to many low-income families. This program has been seriously underfunded for the current fiscal year, and this additional infusion of LIHEAP funding would have put money quickly and directly into the hands of individuals who need it. LIHEAP funds would be spent quickly and immediately, thus stimulating the economy and providing a vital safety net to families and seniors so they do not need to choose between eating and paying their energy bill. In addition to being targeted to those most in need, LIHEAP funding would provide benefits to the economy. Studies have shown that every LIHEAP dollar distributed generates up to five $5 of economic activity. By helping to offset home heating costs, these low-income households will be able to spend money on other vital essentials that will in turn help to stimulate the economy. Beyond needing to ultimately pass the provisions in the Finance Committee package, it is also important that we take up legislation in the near future to target Federal spending on infrastructure, advanced technology and redevelopment projects that will create jobs. Our long- term economic growth requires investments by the Federal Government to create jobs and help our businesses grow and compete. Infrastructure and advanced technology should be our top priorities. Businesses that are successful are more inclined to hire new workers and expand. In Michigan, we know that success for many of our industries requires good roads, safe bridges, and harbors that are dredged to promote dependable shipping. Immediate Federal spending on infrastructure and dredging projects can put people to work and lay the foundation for future economic growth. Investments in advanced technology can have similar long-term benefits. For example, developing the next-generation advanced batteries for hybrid cars could lead to enormous growth of our auto industry. I have proposed public-private partnerships for research and development of a host of technologies that offer much potential for job creation. No State is struggling more than Michigan in this tough economy, and, unfortunately, evidence is growing by the day to indicate that families and workers all across the Nation are facing tougher economic challenges. I will support this short-term stimulus package as a start, but I will also continue to push for further, stronger efforts to address the problems on a broader level.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate Page Program has been an intregral part of the functioning of the Senate since its inception in 1829. Senate pages are always on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session, helping to ensure that the proceedings in the Chamber run smoothly and efficiently. Pages also are asked to complete a variety of other tasks when the Senate is not in session. We ask a lot of our Senate pages, and they always respond. A page is not only expected to serve the needs of the Senate, which is an important and time-consuming task, but also is expected to attend school and complete the necessary requirements of a high school junior. Senator Daniel Webster selected the first Senate page. In those days, as is the case today, a page was chosen and sponsored by a Senator. There is a long and fine tradition of pages chosen by Michigan Senators, and I am proud to have sponsored many pages that have ably and responsibly served the Senate. Sam Wohns, Michigan's most recent Senate page, completed his service as a Senate page last month with dedication and enthusiasm. Sam is a part of a fine tradition and a select group that has had the privilege to serve as a Senate page. He has proven through his hard work in the Senate and through his many successes in the past that he, like many of his peers, are some of our ation's best and brightest. This experience has prepared him well to meet future challenges, as it has for the many that have preceded him. Each semester the Senate Page School conducts an essay competition. Every page is given the opportunity to submit an essay that reflects their thoughts about their experience as a page. The winner earns the right to deliver that essay at the closing ceremony for his or her page class. Sam Wohn's essay was selected as the winning essay last month, and it is clear from his essay that this past semester has had a positive and inspirational impact on him and his fellow pages. It is a distinct honor to be chosen as a Senate page, and the work that this page class has done is valued by all of us in the Senate. I know my colleagues join me in thanking each Senate page for a job well done. I look forward to hearing about their many successes in the future. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of Sam Wohn's speech at the closing ceremony of his page class last month printed in the Congressional Record.

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, Monday marked the 1-year anniversary of the tragic death of Mone Little. On January 28, 2007, 19-year-old Mone, granddaughter of late Motown legend and lead singer of The Temptations, David Ruffin, was gunned down in a drive-by shooting while walking with three friends in Detroit. While Mone was not the target, she was the only one in the group who was shot. Those responsible for this heinous crime have not been caught. Mone, a student at Oakland Community College, was in the process of exploring her dreams. The community continues to grieve the senseless loss of this young woman. Unfortunately, we experience too many of these tragedies. Each year approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by a firearm, an average of 10 children and 74 adults each day. Many of us continue to urge the Senate to pass sensible gun legislation. Law enforcement officers have requested help in their difficult task of keeping our streets safe. Those that have been personally impacted by gun tragedies have called for change in the hope of protecting others from the pain they have endured. The American people have a right to expect better protection against gun violence. Until Congress acts, many more lives will be lost. I once again urge my colleagues to take up and pass sensible gun legislation so that we can help prevent such tragedies.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me commend Senator Webb for the leadership on the issue he talked about. I am going to speak very briefly on that same issue--the signing of the statement by the President yesterday--but before I do that, I wish to commend him and the other sponsors of this legislation. It is critically needed. It is long overdue. But for the leadership of Senator Webb and a few other Senators, we would not have had that provision in the bill which was finally signed yesterday. Yesterday, the President did sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which is essentially the same bill the President vetoed last month. In his signing statement, the President identified a few provisions of the act and stated that they: Purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations. The President's statement went on to say that: The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. The specific provisions the President cited relate to a commission to study and submit reports to Congress on wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cited a provision that enhances the protections from reprisal for contractor employees who disclose evidence of waste, fraud or abuse on Department of Defense contracts. He objected--or at least raised a question--about a requirement for offices within the intelligence community to respond to written requests from the chairman or ranking member of the Armed Services Committees for intelligence assessments, reports, estimates or legal opinions within 45 days, unless the President asserts a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States; and he also made reference to at least a limitation on the use of funds appropriated pursuant to the act to establish a military base or installation for the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. Now, I understand the President's statement did not say these specific provisions or any other provisions of the act are unlawful, nor that the executive branch would not implement these provisions. I also understand similar statements have been included in signing statements on a number of laws by this President and that those statements did not result in the refusal to enforce the law as written. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to come to the floor as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to express the view that Congress has a right to expect the administration will faithfully implement all the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008--not just the ones the President happens to agree with. As I noted at the outset, the President vetoed an earlier version of this act which contained the same specific provisions he singled out in his signing statement yesterday. The President did not choose to exercise his veto over those provisions and, as a result, they have not changed in any way whatsoever in the version of the bill the President chose to sign. With his signature, these provisions become the law of the land. Congress and the American people have a right to expect the administration will now faithfully carry them out. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 90 minutes, with the time equally divided.

Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Michigan Technological University's recent decision to offer in State tuition to the children or spouse of anyone on active military duty, regardless of their State of residence, deserves our recognition and praise. We are all deeply indebted to our men and women in uniform for their bravery and sacrifice. Michigan Tech is expressing thanks and showing support for the families of those serving in our armed services in a way that will make a real difference. While out-of-State students at Michigan Tech pay over $21,000 for tuition, in State tuition is less than $10,000 each year. This savings will be available to the families of the 1.3 million men and women who are on Active Duty in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines, Navy, National Guard and Reserve, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and United States Public Health Service Corps. We believe that Michigan Tech is the first college or university in the Nation to extend in State tuition to the families of all military personnel serving on Active Duty. The idea developed after an applicant to a State university in Michigan received an admission offer but was denied in State tuition even though he graduated from a Michigan high school. His father was serving on Active Duty and had been stationed in Michigan but was moved out-of-State, prompting the tuition decision. Michigan Tech's new policy would allow this student, along with many others, to receive in State tuition if admitted. Hopefully this decision will be followed by other colleges and universities as well. The university's fight song, ``Fight Tech, Fight!'' includes the line: ``From Northern hills we'll sound our cry, we'll ring your praises to the sky!'' This is an important decision by Michigan Tech that deserves praise and, from the hills of Michigan's upper peninsula, it is a decision that will undoubtedly be heard and appreciated by military families across the country and our brave men and women stationed around the world.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to vote on the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. The bill before us today is the same bill we passed by a 90-to-3 vote a little more than a month ago, except for minor changes. This bill will provide essential pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform. It includes a 3.5-percent pay raise for the troops. It includes the Wounded Warrior Act, the greatest reform in the law relative to medical care for our troops in more than a decade. It will address the substandard living conditions, poor outpatient care and bureaucratic roadblocks and delays faced by injured soldiers. These provisions will dramatically improve the management of medical care, disability evaluations, personnel actions, and the quality of life for service members recovering from illness or injuries incurred while performing their military duties and begin the process of fundamental reform of DOD and VA disability evaluation systems. The Wounded Warrior Act will require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work together to develop a comprehensive policy on the care, management, and transition of severely injured service members, including Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve members, from the military to the Veterans Administration or to civilian life. It will require the use of a single medical examination where appropriate, and require and fund the establishment of centers of excellence for the signature wounds of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. To improve the disability evaluation system, the bill will require the military departments to use VA standards when making disability determinations, authorizing deviation from these standards only when it will result in a higher disability rating for the service member, and will require the services to take into account all medical conditions that render a member unfit for duty. The bill will also increase the severance pay for military personnel who are separated for medical disability with a disability rating of less than 30 percent and will eliminate the requirement that this severance pay be deducted from VA disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone or combat-related operation. The bill also includes essential management reforms for the Department of Defense, including the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007. Some of the reforms included are: establishment of a defense acquisition workforce development fund to ensure that DOD has the people and the skills needed to effectively manage its contracts; strengthening of statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD contracts; and tightening of the rules for DOD acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements. These and other provisions should go a long way toward addressing the contracting waste, fraud and abuse that we have seen altogether too frequently in recent years. Our legislation will also address a major failure in Iraq--the failure to exercise control over private security contractors. It will require for the first time that private security contractors hired by the State Department and other Federal agencies to work in a war zone comply with directives and orders issued by our military commanders as well as with DOD regulations. On December 17, 2007, we sent the defense authorization act to the President for his signature. The following weekend, the White House staff notified us that they had identified a problem with one provision that would lead the President to veto the bill. While the administration had previously expressed concerns about this provision, no administration official had ever indicated that the President would consider a veto. Quite the opposite, this provision was not on the list of potential veto-causing problems. I remain disappointed by the administration's failure to work with us to address this provision until after the bill had passed both Houses of Congress and was sent to the President for signature. It does not serve anybody's interest when we fail to address issues like this in a timely manner. The veto of the National Defense Authorization Act sent the wrong message to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at a time when many of them are risking their lives on a daily basis in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I am pleased that we have been able to work out language to address the administration's concerns on a bicameral and bipartisan basis. The bill that is before us today contains modifications that have been agreed upon by the White House and by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. I understand that these changes are also acceptable to Senator Lautenberg and other Members who worked with him to put together the provision in the earlier bill. Let me briefly explain the White House's problem, and how we have addressed it. Section 1083 of the bill clarifies the law that permits U.S. nationals and members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are victims of terrorist acts to sue state sponsors of terrorism for damages resulting from terrorist acts in the U.S. courts. The provision also strengthens mechanisms to ensure that victims of terrorism can collect on their judgments against such State sponsors of terrorism. U.S. courts have previously entered such judgments against Iran, Libya, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After the bill was passed and sent to the President for signature, the administration informed us that Iraq currently has more than $25 billion of assets in this country that could be tied up in litigation if section 1083 were enacted into law and that such restrictions on Iraq's funds could take months to lift. The White House stated that restrictions on Iraqi funds would interfere with political and economic progress in Iraq and undermine our relations with Iraq. We have addressed these concerns with new language which authorizes the President to waive the applicability of section 1083 to Iraq, if he determines that a waiver is in the national security interest of the United States; that the waiver will promote Iraqi reconstruction, the consolidation of democracy in Iraq, and U.S. relations with Iraq; and that Iraq continues to be a reliable ally of the United States and a partner in combating international terrorism. The revised language also expresses the sense of Congress that the President, acting through the Secretary of State, should work with the Government of Iraq on a state-to-state basis to ensure compensation for any meritorious claims based on terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Hussein regime that cannot be addressed in the U.S. courts due to a Presidential waiver. We expect that the Department of State will actively pursue such compensation from Iraq. As one of the authors of the new section 1083, I want to assure the Senate that the new language authorizes the waiver of section 1083, only as it applies to Iraq. The new subsection (d), which we have added to the bill, specifies that the President may waive any provision of section 1083 ``with respect to Iraq'' and not with regard to any other country. We explicitly reaffirm in this bill that other cases against state sponsors of terrorism, including both Iran and Libya, may proceed to judgment and collection under section 1083, unaffected by any Presidential waiver. Over the last 2 weeks, concerns have been expressed about the possible impact of this provision on innocent third parties entering joint ventures with Libya or Iran. The concern was that these companies would find their own property seized to satisfy judgments against those countries. Our language does not allow for that result, because that is not our intent. This is not a new issue: the question has been raised by the language of the Lautenberg amendment ever since it was first approved by the Senate last fall. We specifically addressed the problem of joint ventures in our conference on the Defense authorization bill, previously approved by the Congress. We added language to the bill making it clear that the courts are authorized to compensate victim of state-sponsored terrorism out of Libya's--or other states'--assets, while separating and shielding the assets of companies engaged in joint ventures with those States. In the accompanying statement of managers, we specifically urged the courts to make use of this authority. This language was the strongest action that we could take to protect innocent third parties without also shielding the offending governments from liability for their own actions. We have included a provision to ensure that the statement of managers on our previous conference report will apply to this new bill in this and all regards. Outside of the modification of section 1083, the bill remains virtually unchanged. We have, however, taken steps to ensure our men and women in uniform will not lose a penny as a result of the delayed enactment of this bill. Toward that end, we have revised a number of provisions in the bill to make pay increases and bonus provisions retroactive to January 1 and avoid any gap in these authorities. These changes have been worked out with the Department of Defense and agreed to by the two Armed Services Committees on a bipartisan basis. Other than these few changes, the bill before us today is identical to the conference report that the Senate overwhelmingly passed last month. It is my hope that the bill will receive similar support when we vote on it again later today.

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 will hold a hearing entitled, ``United Nations Development Program in North Korea: A Case Study.'' In early 2007, reports surfaced of significant management failures in the operations of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in North Korea. Several months later, the UNDP took the unprecedented step of suspending its North Korean operations. The Subcommittee's hearing will examine UNDP operations in North Korea, reviewing such issues as inappropriate staffing, inadequate administrative and fiscal controls, inaccessible audits and insufficient whistleblower safeguards. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives of the Department of State and the Government Accountability Office. The Subcommittee will also receive a public briefing from representatives of the United Nations. A final witness list will be available Tuesday, January 22, 2008. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, January 24, 2008, at 10 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Alaska yield for a unanimous consent request?