Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in order to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening FISA: Does the Protect America Act Protect Americans' Civil Liberties and Enhance Security?'' on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Witness list: Panel I: The Honorable J. Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC. Panel II: James A. Baker, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School, Formerly Counsel for Intelligence Policy, Department of Justice Washington, DC; James X. Dempsey, Policy Director, Center for Democracy and Technology, San Francisco, CA; Suzanne E. Spaulding, Principal Bingham Consulting Group, Washington, DC; Bryan Cunningham, Principal, Morgan & Cunningham LLC, Greenwood Village, CO.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list: John Daniel Tinder to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit; Robert M. Dow, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, in order to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Persian Gulf Research. The Committee will meet in 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2007 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing. The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Two Years After the Storm: Housing Needs in the Gulf Coast.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the colloquy which we will offer then at a later time refers to two changes that have been made, or will be offered to the amendment by the Senator from Delaware, modifying his own amendment, which he has a right to do. The first suggestion I made, which he has readily accepted, is to make it clear the federalism that is being referred to in his language is the federalism in the Iraqi Constitution as it now reads or as it may be amended. In the event that the Iraqis' constitutional commission makes recommendations on that subject, and if those recommendations are accepted by the people, it is their view of federalism, in the current Constitution or in an amended Constitution, the word he added being ``final,'' that he is referring to. I thank him for that. Also, I thank him for accepting language which makes it clear that the federalism he is referring to is a system of government that allows for the creation of Federal regions. The words that are now added, or would be added when it is modified are ``consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders.'' The reason I propose that is we have to be very clear that what the Senator from Delaware is focusing on is a Federal system which the Iraqi people either have adopted or will adopt. This is something consistent with their wishes, not ours. What we wish them to do is get on with their solutions, their political solutions. What the Senator from Delaware is so properly focusing on, and I think this Nation should be in his debt for it, is the potential of a Federal system as they designed it for addressing their problems. We have seen the value of federalism here, but it is not our version of it that the Senator is talking about. It is the idea of federalism and how you are able to adjust powers between the central government and regions which has such potential for finally ending the violence in Iraq. He recommends it. We all, I hope, will support that as being a potential solution--not imposed on them but one which they have fashioned in their own Constitution, have adopted in their own Constitution, can amend in their own Constitution. That, it seems to me, is a very valuable contribution for which I commend the Senator. He can offer, on our behalf, a colloquy at the appropriate time relative to the modification when it is offered. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud to support this legislation today, which is so important for our Nation's water infrastructure. We need to repair and upgrade our waterways because so many of our businesses--and millions of jobs--depend on them. The bill would also help restore aquatic ecosystems and habitats, and it includes several provisions that are important for Michigan and the Great Lakes. I wish to express my thanks to the chair and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Boxer and Inhofe, for their work on this bill. I also want to thank them for including a number of important provisions for the Great Lakes, one of the world's greatest natural resources. The Michigan and Great Lakes projects that I had requested, and which were included in the Senate bill, were retained in the conference report. Additionally, other important projects included in the House WRDA bill that I asked to be included in the conference report were retained. I am also pleased that a provision that I added as an amendment to the Senate WRDA bill was retained in the conference report. This provision would expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the Great Lakes commercial navigation channels and infrastructure. This is a key provision because the Great Lakes are in the midst of a crisis: Freighters are getting stuck in shipping channels, other ships are carrying reduced loads, and some shipments have simply ceased altogether. This WRDA provision would work to address the very serious dredging backlog in the Great Lakes, which has been exacerbated by historically low water levels. I am also thankful that the bill includes a Sense of the Congress that states that the Corps' budget for dredging should be developed by using all available economic data rather than focusing on a single metric such as the amount of cargo being moved. I worked with the Senate bill managers to address this problem when WRDA was being debated on the Senate floor. At that time, the bill managers agreed to work with me to address this problem in the conference committee, and indeed they did. And for that, I am grateful. Also of vital importance for the Great Lakes navigation system is a provision in the conference report that modifies the authorization to construct a second Poe-sized lock at Sault Ste. Marie, so that it will be constructed at full Federal expense for a total cost of $341,714,000. Two-thirds of the carrying capacity of the U.S. Great Lakes fleet is currently limited to the one large lock, the Poe lock. If the Poe lock should fail, shipping between Lake Superior and Lake Huron would essentially cease, and the steel industry, coal-reliant industries, and agricultural industries dependent on farm exports would be severely harmed. This authorization to waive the non-Federal cost- share requirement is an important step for ensuring the viability of the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure. Another important provision for the health of the Great Lakes that was retained in the bill is a provision that authorizes the completion of the dispersal barrier to prevent invasive species, such as the Asian carp, from moving between the Mississippi River watershed and the Great Lakes. Further, the bill directs the Corps to operate both barriers I and II at full Federal expense and provides credit to those States that provided funds to begin construction of barrier II. The bill also directs the Corps to conduct a feasibility study on other ways to prevent the spread of invasives between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. The bill also retains a Senate WRDA provision that I have been working on for many years: the improvement of Michigan's water and sewage infrastructure. An authorization of $35 million is included in the WRDA conference report for a statewide environmental infrastructure project to correct combined sewer overflows, which is a major source of pollution in the Great Lakes and other waterbodies in Michigan. Combined sewer overflows carry both stormwater and sewage, and these can be discharged into streams, rivers, and lakes during periods of heavy rains. The $35 million provision in WRDA authorizes the Army Corps to partner with communities throughout Michigan to improve their sewer infrastructure. These improvements would not only benefit communities but would also help protect our precious water resources. As the recent tragic collapse of a Minnesota bridge has made all too clear, the repair and modernization of this Nation's infrastructure needs to be a much higher priority. Just as roads and bridges need urgent repairs, we cannot wait further for authorizing important water projects that protect lives and property, support commerce and industry, and preserve and restore our environmental resources. We have waited 7 years for this bill. Now is the time to pass this bill, and it should not be held up by a Presidential veto, which I am confident the Congress would override. While these important provisions, as well as several others that I have not mentioned, provide the authorization for addressing the dredging backlog in the Great Lakes, restoring the environmental integrity of our waters, and providing critical flood protection projects, the appropriations needed to make these provisions a reality are down the road. The next critical step is to appropriate the actual funding for these necessary projects.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I also ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum be equally divided and that apply retroactively.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum and equally divide the time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. There is a lot of disagreement about Iraq policy, how we got into the quagmire we are in there, the failure to plan properly, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, the lack of a plan for the aftermath and a number of other issues which have been the subject of great debate. There is a consensus on a number of issues. It is that consensus which drives the Levin-Reed amendment. There is a consensus that we have an important stake in a stable and independent Iraq. Everyone agrees on that. The opponents of this amendment like to suggest that somehow or other the proponents are not interested in a stable and independent Iraq. It is exactly the opposite. We are as interested in that as are the opponents. The question is, Are we moving in that direction? Is the current policy working or do we need to change course? Do we need to find a way to put pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach political settlement as the only hope of achieving an independent and stable Iraq? That is not the proponents of this amendment who are saying a political settlement is not the only hope of ending the violence and achieving stability, that is not just the proponents, that is a consensus point. General Petraeus acknowledges that very openly. The Iraq Study Group says that. General Jones and his group say that. There is no solution that ends the violence that is not based on a political coming together of the Iraqi leaders. They have to accept responsibility for their own country. They have to meet the benchmarks they themselves have set for themselves. They have missed those benchmarks and the timelines that were set out by themselves for those benchmarks. We have to change course because we have been through now longer than we fought World War II, we have been there longer than we fought the Korean war, we have spent half a trillion dollars or more, we have lost almost 4,000 of our brightest and bravest men and women, seven times that many wounded, $10 billion a month. We have to change the dynamic in Iraq, and that dynamic can only be changed when those Iraqi leaders realize the open-ended commitment is over. If we simply say, as the President says: Well, we will take another look in March, we will see what direction we are going to go in March, whether we are going to reduce our presence below the presurge level, but we will do that in March, that is a continuation of the message which this administration has been delivering to the Iraqi leaders year after year: We are going to be patient. We are going to be patient. The President has, a dozen times, said the American people need to be patient. It is the opposite message that has a chance of working for the Iraqi leaders, that we are mighty inpatient here in America, with the dawdling of the political leaders in Iraq, who are the only ones who can achieve a political settlement. We cannot impose that on them, only they can reach it. If they keep thinking we are not going to put the pressure on them, we are going to be their security blanket, we are going to protect them in the Green Zone, we are going to continue to lose our lives and squander our resources while they dawdle, they are making the major fundamental mistake which is going to keep the violence going. We have to correct that. We have to change that. We have to force those leaders to accept the responsibility for their own country. Now, the Iraq Study Group pointed to the relationship between putting pressure on the Iraqi leaders and having them reach an agreement. This is what the Iraq Study Group pointed out now almost a year ago: That an open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide the Iraqi Government the incentive it needs--the incentive it needs--to take the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of quelling sectarian violence. I yield myself 1 additional minute. In the absence of such an incentive, the Iraq Study Group said, the Iraqi Government might continue to delay taking those actions. That is the connection this amendment makes. What Levin-Reed says is: We are not going to withdraw precipitously, we are not going to totally withdraw, we have interests there that require us to keep some troops there. But we have the need to change that mission. The President talks about the possibility, but he does not do it now. He does not say: we are announcing we are going to change our mission to a support mission, out of the middle of a civil war. We are going to change our mission to supporting our own people. We are going to change our mission to going after terrorists, a targeted counterterrorism mission, we are going to change our mission so that we are going to, yes, continue to support the Iraqi Army, to supply the Iraqi Army, but we are getting out of the middle of a sectarian battle for our sake and for the sake of the Iraqi people, to force those leaders to take responsibility for their own nation. So it is not precipitous. We provide a reasonable timeline. We say the troops that need to be withdrawn as part of that transition to those new missions will be withdrawn within 9 months. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I have had discussions with our leader, and I assume on their side, and this course of action has been cleared. Here is what we are proposing to do: The Biden amendment is going to be laid down today. There will be perhaps an hour or so on that amendment--perhaps more; there is no time limit on debate today. There will be no more votes today, as the leaders announced. But on Monday, we will make an effort--let me go back. On Tuesday at 10 o'clock, we are going to have a unanimous consent agreement that the Biden amendment will be voted on at 10 o'clock on Tuesday. That is going to be part of a unanimous consent agreement that is being prepared. In addition, in terms of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, there will be some debate on that today, and on Monday, and we will make an effort to see if we can't agree on a time certain on Tuesday, after the Biden amendment is disposed of on Tuesday. But we can't commit to that now. We will make a good-faith effort on Monday to set up that time on Tuesday, after the Biden amendment is disposed of.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I agree with my good friend from Arizona on the need to move forward. We have literally hundreds of amendments we are working on. At some point next week we are going to have to find a way to end this. We have made efforts with unanimous consent proposals to cut off on amendments, but they have been objected to, and then more flood in. We have to get to an end point. However, in reference to the Wounded Warriors legislation, there is a separate bill on which I think appointing conferees has been cleared on this side. I am wondering if the Senator from Arizona might check with his side to see whether the appointment of conferees could be cleared. I think it will be part of this bill at the end. It is important that we move this bill for a lot of reasons, including that one. But we have a fallback. We have a safety valve. We also have a separate bill which we would like to get to conference, and if the ranking member could check on the Republican side and see if we can get the clearance for the appointment of conferees, it may give us some momentum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine commissioned a panel of experts to conduct an independent review of the tragedy and make recommendations regarding improvements to Virginia's laws, policies and procedures. Late last month, the Virginia Tech Review Panel released its report. The panel was given the difficult task of reviewing the events, assessing the actions taken and not taken, identifying the lessons learned, and proposing alternatives for the future. This included a detailed review of Seung Hui Cho's background and interactions with the mental health and legal systems, as well as the circumstances surrounding his gun purchases. Additionally, they assessed the emergency responses by law enforcement officials, university officials, medical examiners, hospital care providers and the medical examiner. Finally, the panel reviewed the university's approach to helping families, survivors, students and staff as they deal with the mental trauma incurred by the tragedy. Among other things, the report points to weak enforcement of and gaps in regulations regarding the purchase of guns, as well as holes in State and Federal privacy laws. It talks about the critical need for improved background checks and the inherent danger the presence of firearms can present on college campuses. Tragically, many proponents of gun safety legislation have previously unsuccessfully attempted to enact the very improvements recommended in the panel's report. The tragedy at Virginia Tech underscores the need to strengthen gun safety laws. I urge Congress to wait no longer in taking up and passing sensible gun legislation. I ask unanimous consent to include the Virginia Tech Review Panel's primary recommendations regarding firearm laws in the Record. VI-1 All states should report information necessary to conduct federal background checks on gun purchases. There should be federal incentives to ensure compliance. This should apply to states whose requirements are different from federal law. States should become fully compliant with federal law that disqualifies persons from purchasing or possessing firearms who have been found by a court or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others as a result of mental illness. Reporting of such information should include not just those who are disqualified because they have been found to be dangerous, but all other categories of disqualification as well. In a society divided on many gun control issues, laws that specify who is prohibited from owning a firearm stand as examples of broad agreement and should be enforced. VI-2 Virginia should require background checks for all firearms sales, including those at gun shows. In an age of widespread information technology, it should not be too difficult for anyone, including private sellers, to contact the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program for a background check that usually only takes minutes before transferring a firearm. The program already processes transactions made by registered dealers at gun shows. The practice should be expanded to all sales. Virginia should also provide an enhanced penalty for guns sold without a background check and later used in a crime. VI-3 Anyone found to be a danger to themselves or others by a court-ordered review should be entered in the Central Criminal Records Exchange database regardless of whether they voluntarily agreed to treatment. Some people examined for a mental illness and found to be a potential threat to themselves or others are given the choice of agreeing to mental treatment voluntarily to avoid being ordered by the courts to be treated involuntarily. That does not appear on their records, and they are free to purchase guns. Some highly respected people knowledgeable about the interaction of mentally ill people with the mental health system are strongly opposed to requiring voluntary treatment to be entered on the record and be sent to a state database. Their concern is that it might reduce the incentive to seek treatment voluntarily, which has many advantages to the individuals (e.g., less time in hospital, less stigma, less cost) and to the legal and medical personnel involved (e.g., less time, less paperwork, less cost). However, there still are powerful incentives to take the voluntary path, such as a shorter stay in a hospital and not having a record of mandatory treatment. It does not seem logical to the panel to allow someone found to be dangerous to be able to purchase a firearm. VI-4 The existing attorney general's opinion regarding the authority of universities and colleges to ban guns on campus should be clarified immediately. The universities in Virginia have received or developed various interpretations of the law. The Commonwealth's attorney general has provided some guidance to universities, but additional clarity is needed from the attorney general or from state legislation regarding guns at universities and colleges. VI-5 The Virginia General Assembly should adopt legislation in the 2008 session clearly establishing the right of every institution of higher education in the Commonwealth to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires. The panel recommends that guns be banned on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law. VI-6 Universities and colleges should make clear in their literature what their policy is regarding weapons on campus. Prospective students and their parents, as well as university staff, should know the policy related to concealed weapons so they can decide whether they prefer an armed or arms-free learning environment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Boxer offers an amendment related to the subject matter of the pending Cornyn amendment, the Boxer and Cornyn amendments be debated concurrently for 20 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Boxer and Cornyn or their designees; that no amendments be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Boxer amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment; that each amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold, and if the amendment does not achieve 60 votes, the amendment then be withdrawn, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEVIN. I so modify the request.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a moment, on that point I agree totally with what he just said about the importance of this bill. We are circulating a request to our Members on this side that no amendments be in order to this bill--that no amendments be filed after a certain point this afternoon, which I believe we have tried to identify as 3 o'clock. I don't know, I didn't have a chance to talk with my friend from Arizona about that, but hopefully on your side something similar could be hot-lined so we could bring this to an end. We have literally 250 amendments already. We have disposed of a lot. We disposed of 50. We can dispose of more today at some point, but we can't have more amendments coming in than we are able to work out. I hope on both sides we can get a unanimous consent agreement that no amendments will be in order to this bill in the first degree if they are filed later than a fixed time this afternoon.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me also add one comment to Senators. We have already, on this side, hotlined a unanimous consent agreement that no amendment would be in order to this bill, unless it is filed by 4 p.m. this afternoon--no first-degree amendment would be in order. We don't know what the response is. We hope all of the Democrats will agree to that. We believe that a similar unanimous consent request has been hotlined on the Republican side, but the ranking member would know that. We hope that works, for the reason the Senator gave, which is that this bill is extremely important. We have been on it a long time. We are going to need a number of days, obviously, to resolve the hundreds of amendments that are still filed and have not been resolved. We are working to clear amendments, and we need the cooperation of everybody.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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