Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I call up amendment No. 2022.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. No. 2022 is the amendment, and it is indeed the Specter-Leahy amendment. That is the amendment which was referred to in the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today returns to the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. This bill contains important benefits for our men and women in uniform, including pay raises, targeted bonuses and special pays, and benefits. It also includes funding and authorities needed to provide our troops the equipment and support they will need. Prompt Senate action on this bill will send an important message. Regardless of our position on the war in Iraq, we all support our men and women in uniform. The bill was approved by the Armed Services Committee on a unanimous 25-to-0 vote, and it is my hope it will receive a similarly strong endorsement from the full Senate. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us before that can happen. As of today, more than 300 amendments have been filed. We are working hard to clear as many of these amendments as possible, but some amendments will inevitably require votes. Where that is the case, I hope my colleagues will work with us to develop appropriate time agreements that protect the interests of everybody involved while expediting consideration of the bill. Congress has enacted a Defense Authorization Act every year for more than 40 years. I hope we will build on that record and show our strong support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by working together to pass this bill. On a procedural note, I understand the President signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 into law on Friday. In accordance with the new rules, I am placing into the Record a certification that each congressionally directed item in this bill and the accompanying report has been identified through lists identifying the names of the Senator or Senators requesting the item and that this information has been available on the committee's Web site for more than 48 hours. In addition, the committee is in the process of collecting a certification from each such Senator that neither the Senator nor the Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, and, again, that is consistent with the requirements of the Senate rules now. In accordance with the requirements of the new rules, we will make these certifications available for public inspection on our Web site as soon as practicable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my certification of compliance with the requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are open to amendments. If Senators want to come to the floor now and offer amendments, it will be required we set aside a pending amendment. We are hoping to get unanimous consent to do that. We expect we will be able to get unanimous consent to do that. So Senators who have amendments, if they will come to the floor and discuss and describe their amendments, we will be able to hopefully make some progress, and then at a later time this afternoon hopefully make those amendments in order by a unanimous consent agreement to withdraw the pending second-degree amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Admendment No. 2268

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Leahy has already debated this amendment. I assume he would want to debate this further, but that would, of course, be up to him. But this was the amendment Senator Leahy was debating earlier this afternoon. Now that it is pending, it is open to debate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the Gladstone All-Star 11-12 Girls Softball Team on placing third in the Little League Softball World Series. Their determined and focused efforts throughout the postseason, which began in early July with the district tournament in Escanaba, have brought a lot of joy and pride to the Gladstone community. I am happy to have this opportunity to recognize this impressive achievement. Gladstone capped a marvelous season with a thrilling come-from-behind 5-2 victory over an excellent team from Waterford, CT. The game was tightly contested throughout and was not decided until the first extra inning when Gladstone rallied to score the deciding three runs in the top of the seventh inning to secure a hard fought win. Gladstone displayed resilience in recovering from a loss the previous day to the eventual runner-up from Elgin, TX, to record this victory. It takes poise, determination, and teamwork to achieve this level of success, and I congratulate each member of the team on the way they competed throughout the summer. Gladstone now enjoys the distinction of being the third team from Delta County to reach the Little League Softball World Series. Girls Little League Softball, which began in 1974, has provided countless young women an opportunity to compete at a high level. Through the instruction they receive on and off the field, these young women gain valuable skills that will help them achieve success throughout their lifetime. The 2007 Gladstone All-Star 11-12 year-old Girls Softball Team includes Jordan Schwartz, Ashley Hough, Jammie Botruff, Heather Sanderson, Jordan Kowalski, Nicole Sharon, Shannon Wolf, Neena Brockway, Alison Austin, Nikki Barteld, Averi Kanyuh. The coaching staff includes Manager Andrew Schwartz and Assistant Coach John Nevala. This is a summer these young women will certainly never forget. I know I am joined by their family, friends and supporters, as well as my colleagues in the Senate, in congratulating the entire team on a highly successful and memorable season. I look forward to hearing about many more successes from these young ladies in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Close the Enron Loophole Act to help prevent price manipulation and dampen the excessive speculation that have unfairly increased the cost of energy in the U.S. This legislation is the product of more than 4 years of work examining U.S. energy commodity markets by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. That work has shown that U.S. market prices for crude oil, natural gas, jet fuel, diesel fuel and other energy commodities are more unpredictable and variable than ever before, and too often are imposing huge cost increases on the backs of working American families and businesses. The legislation I am introducing today is essential to help ensure that our energy markets provide prices that reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand for energy instead of prices boosted by manipulation or excessive speculation. It is also essential to close an egregious loophole in the law that was championed by Enron and other large energy traders in the heyday of deregulation and that continues to haunt our energy markets and harm American consumers through inflated and distorted energy prices. The ``Enron loophole'' is a provision that was inserted at the last- minute, without opportunity for debate, into commodity legislation that was attached to an omnibus appropriations bill and passed by Congress in late December 2000, in the waning hours of the 106 Congress. This loophole exempted from U.S. Government regulation the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders. The loophole has helped foster the explosive growth of trading on unregulated electronic energy exchanges. It has also rendered U.S. energy markets more vulnerable to price manipulation and excessive speculation with resulting price distortions. This legislation is necessary to close the Enron loophole and reduce our vulnerability to manipulation and excessive speculation by providing for regulation of the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders. A stable and affordable supply of energy is vital to the national and economic security of the United States. We need energy to heat and cool our homes and offices, to generate electricity for lighting, manufacturing, and vital services, and to power our transportation sector--automobiles, trucks, boats, and airplanes. Over 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal. About 50 percent is from oil and natural gas. The U.S. consumes around 20 million barrels of crude oil each day, over half of which is imported. About 90 percent of this oil is refined into products such as gasoline, home heating oil, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. The crude oil market is the largest commodity market in the world, and hundreds of millions of barrels are traded daily in the various crude oil futures, over-the-counter, and spot markets. The world's leading exchanges for crude oil futures contracts are the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX, and the Intercontinental Exchange, known as ICE Futures in London. Futures contracts for gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel are also traded on these exchanges. Presently, regulatory authority over the U.S. crude oil market is split between British and U.S. regulators. Natural gas heats the majority of American homes, is used to harvest crops, powers 20 percent of our electrical plants, and plays a critical role in many industries, including manufacturers of fertilizers, paints, medicines, and chemicals. It is one of the cleanest fuels we have, and we produce most of it ourselves with only 15 percent being imported, primarily from Canada. In 2005 alone, U.S. consumers and businesses spent about $200 billion on natural gas. Only part of the natural gas futures market is regulated. Natural gas produced in the United States is traded on NYMEX and on an unregulated ICE electronic trading platform located in Georgia. The price of natural gas in both the futures market and in the spot or physical market depends on the prices on both of these U.S. exchanges. Trading abuses plague existing energy markets. The key federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, reports that overall in recent years it has issued several hundred million dollars in fines for trading abuses in the energy markets. Several major enforcement actions are pending. Since 2001, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been examining the vulnerability of U.S. energy markets to price manipulation and excessive speculation due to the lack of regulation of electronic energy exchanges under the so called ``Enron loophole.'' Although the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have brought a number of enforcement cases against energy traders, the CFTC's ability to prevent abuses before they occur is severely hampered by its lack of regulatory authority over key energy markets. The Subcommittee first documented the weaknesses in the regulation of our energy markets in a 2003 staff report I initiated called, ``U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Policy Has Increased Costs to Consumers But Not Overall U.S. Energy Security.'' The report found that crude oil prices were ``affected by trading not only regulated exchanges like the NYMEX, but also on unregulated `over-the-counter', OTC, markets which have become major trading centers for energy contracts and derivatives. The lack of information on prices and large positions in these OTC markets makes it difficult in many instances, if not impossible in practice, to determine whether traders have manipulated crude oil prices.'' In June 2006, the Subcommittee issued a staff report entitled, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need To Put the Cop Back on the Beat.'' This bipartisan staff report analyzed the extent to which the increasing amount of financial speculation in energy markets had contributed to the steep rise in energy prices over the past few years. The report concluded that ``[s]peculation has contributed to rising U.S. energy prices,'' and endorsed the estimate of various analysts that the influx of speculative investments into crude oil futures accounted for approximately $20 of the then- prevailing crude oil price of approximately $70 per barrel. The 2006 report recommended that the CFTC be provided with the same authority to regulate and monitor electronic energy exchanges, such as ICE, as it has with respect to the fully regulated futures markets, such as NYMEX, to ensure that excessive speculation in the energy markets did not adversely effect the availability and affordability of vital energy commodities through unwarranted price increases. In June 2007, the Subcommittee released another report, ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our report found that a single hedge fund named Amaranth dominated the natural gas market during the spring and summer of 2006, and Amaranth's large-scale trading significantly distorted natural gas prices from their fundamental values based on supply and demand. The report concluded that the current regulatory system was unable to prevent these distortions because much of Amaranth's trading took place on an unregulated electronic market. The report recommended that Congress close the ``Enron loophole'' that exempted such markets from regulation. The Subcommittee's Report describes how Amaranth used the major unregulated electronic market, ICE, to amass huge positions in natural gas contracts, outside regulatory scrutiny, and beyond any regulatory authority. During the spring and summer of 2006, Amaranth held by far the largest positions of any trader in the natural gas market. According to traders interviewed by the Subcommittee, during this period natural gas prices for the following winter were ``clearly out of whack,'' at ``ridiculous levels,'' and unrelated to supply and demand. At the Subcommittee's hearing in June of this year, natural gas purchasers, such as the American Public Gas Association and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, explained how these price distortions increased the cost of hedging for natural gas consumers, which ultimately led to increased costs for American industries and households. The Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia calculated that Amaranth's excesses increased the cost of their winter gas purchases by $18 million. Finally, when Amaranth's positions on the regulated futures market, NYMEX, became so large that NYMEX directed Amaranth to reduce the size of its positions on NYMEX, Amaranth simply switched those positions to ICE, an unregulated market that is beyond the reach of the CFTC. In other words, in response to NYMEX's order, Amaranth did not reduce its size; it merely moved it from a regulated market to an unregulated market. This regulatory system makes no sense. It is as if a cop on the beat tells a liquor store owner that he must obey the law and stop selling liquor to minors, yet the store owner is allowed to move his store across the street and sell to whomever he wants because the cop has no jurisdiction on the other side of the street and none of the same laws apply. The Amaranth case history shows it is clearly time to put the cop on the beat in all of our energy exchanges. The Subcommittee held two days of hearings relating to issues covered in its 2007 report. Both of the major energy exchanges, NYMEX and ICE, testified that they would support a change in the law that would eliminate the current exemption from regulation for electronic energy markets, in order to reduce the potential for manipulation and excessive speculation. Consumers and users of natural gas and other energy commodities--the American Public Gas Association, the New England Fuel Institute, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America--also testified in favor of closing the Enron loophole. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to end the exemption from regulation that electronic energy trading facilities now have. The bill includes suggestions made by the exchanges, the CFTC, and natural gas users, and I will continue to seek their input as the legislative process moves forward. Essentially, this bill would restore the CFTC's ability to police all U.S. energy exchanges to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation from hiking energy prices. In particular, it would restore CFTC oversight of large-trader energy exchanges that were exempted from regulation in the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by means of the Enron loophole. The bill would require the CFTC to oversee these facilities in the same manner and according to the same standards that currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. Because these energy exchanges currently restrict trading to large traders, however, the bill would not require them to comply with rules applicable to retail trading or trading by brokers on behalf of smaller traders. In all other respects, however, including the rules that create position limits and accountability levels to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation, the bill would apply the same rules to energy exchanges like ICE as currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. The bill also would require large trades in U.S. energy commodities conducted from within the United States on a foreign board of trade to be reported to the CFTC. This provision is intended to ensure that the CFTC has a more complete view of the positions of U.S. energy traders buying or selling energy commodities for delivery in the United States. This provision could be waived by the CFTC if the CFTC reaches agreement with the foreign board of trade to obtain the same information. Preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation in U.S. energy markets is not an easy undertaking. I welcome good-faith comments on how this bill can be improved. I want to make it clear, however, that in my opinion the Enron loophole has got to be closed. Recent cases have shown us that market abuses and failures did not stop with the fall of Enron. They are still with us. We cannot afford to let the current situation continue, allowing energy traders to use unregulated markets to avoid regulated markets. It's time to put the cop back on the beat in all U.S. energy markets. The stakes for our energy security and for competition in the market place are too high to do otherwise. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a bill summary, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Close the Enron Loophole Act to help prevent price manipulation and dampen the excessive speculation that have unfairly increased the cost of energy in the U.S. This legislation is the product of more than 4 years of work examining U.S. energy commodity markets by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. That work has shown that U.S. market prices for crude oil, natural gas, jet fuel, diesel fuel and other energy commodities are more unpredictable and variable than ever before, and too often are imposing huge cost increases on the backs of working American families and businesses. The legislation I am introducing today is essential to help ensure that our energy markets provide prices that reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand for energy instead of prices boosted by manipulation or excessive speculation. It is also essential to close an egregious loophole in the law that was championed by Enron and other large energy traders in the heyday of deregulation and that continues to haunt our energy markets and harm American consumers through inflated and distorted energy prices. The ``Enron loophole'' is a provision that was inserted at the last- minute, without opportunity for debate, into commodity legislation that was attached to an omnibus appropriations bill and passed by Congress in late December 2000, in the waning hours of the 106 Congress. This loophole exempted from U.S. Government regulation the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders. The loophole has helped foster the explosive growth of trading on unregulated electronic energy exchanges. It has also rendered U.S. energy markets more vulnerable to price manipulation and excessive speculation with resulting price distortions. This legislation is necessary to close the Enron loophole and reduce our vulnerability to manipulation and excessive speculation by providing for regulation of the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders. A stable and affordable supply of energy is vital to the national and economic security of the United States. We need energy to heat and cool our homes and offices, to generate electricity for lighting, manufacturing, and vital services, and to power our transportation sector--automobiles, trucks, boats, and airplanes. Over 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal. About 50 percent is from oil and natural gas. The U.S. consumes around 20 million barrels of crude oil each day, over half of which is imported. About 90 percent of this oil is refined into products such as gasoline, home heating oil, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. The crude oil market is the largest commodity market in the world, and hundreds of millions of barrels are traded daily in the various crude oil futures, over-the-counter, and spot markets. The world's leading exchanges for crude oil futures contracts are the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX, and the Intercontinental Exchange, known as ICE Futures in London. Futures contracts for gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel are also traded on these exchanges. Presently, regulatory authority over the U.S. crude oil market is split between British and U.S. regulators. Natural gas heats the majority of American homes, is used to harvest crops, powers 20 percent of our electrical plants, and plays a critical role in many industries, including manufacturers of fertilizers, paints, medicines, and chemicals. It is one of the cleanest fuels we have, and we produce most of it ourselves with only 15 percent being imported, primarily from Canada. In 2005 alone, U.S. consumers and businesses spent about $200 billion on natural gas. Only part of the natural gas futures market is regulated. Natural gas produced in the United States is traded on NYMEX and on an unregulated ICE electronic trading platform located in Georgia. The price of natural gas in both the futures market and in the spot or physical market depends on the prices on both of these U.S. exchanges. Trading abuses plague existing energy markets. The key federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, reports that overall in recent years it has issued several hundred million dollars in fines for trading abuses in the energy markets. Several major enforcement actions are pending. Since 2001, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been examining the vulnerability of U.S. energy markets to price manipulation and excessive speculation due to the lack of regulation of electronic energy exchanges under the so called ``Enron loophole.'' Although the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have brought a number of enforcement cases against energy traders, the CFTC's ability to prevent abuses before they occur is severely hampered by its lack of regulatory authority over key energy markets. The Subcommittee first documented the weaknesses in the regulation of our energy markets in a 2003 staff report I initiated called, ``U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Policy Has Increased Costs to Consumers But Not Overall U.S. Energy Security.'' The report found that crude oil prices were ``affected by trading not only regulated exchanges like the NYMEX, but also on unregulated `over-the-counter', OTC, markets which have become major trading centers for energy contracts and derivatives. The lack of information on prices and large positions in these OTC markets makes it difficult in many instances, if not impossible in practice, to determine whether traders have manipulated crude oil prices.'' In June 2006, the Subcommittee issued a staff report entitled, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need To Put the Cop Back on the Beat.'' This bipartisan staff report analyzed the extent to which the increasing amount of financial speculation in energy markets had contributed to the steep rise in energy prices over the past few years. The report concluded that ``[s]peculation has contributed to rising U.S. energy prices,'' and endorsed the estimate of various analysts that the influx of speculative investments into crude oil futures accounted for approximately $20 of the then- prevailing crude oil price of approximately $70 per barrel. The 2006 report recommended that the CFTC be provided with the same authority to regulate and monitor electronic energy exchanges, such as ICE, as it has with respect to the fully regulated futures markets, such as NYMEX, to ensure that excessive speculation in the energy markets did not adversely effect the availability and affordability of vital energy commodities through unwarranted price increases. In June 2007, the Subcommittee released another report, ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our report found that a single hedge fund named Amaranth dominated the natural gas market during the spring and summer of 2006, and Amaranth's large-scale trading significantly distorted natural gas prices from their fundamental values based on supply and demand. The report concluded that the current regulatory system was unable to prevent these distortions because much of Amaranth's trading took place on an unregulated electronic market. The report recommended that Congress close the ``Enron loophole'' that exempted such markets from regulation. The Subcommittee's Report describes how Amaranth used the major unregulated electronic market, ICE, to amass huge positions in natural gas contracts, outside regulatory scrutiny, and beyond any regulatory authority. During the spring and summer of 2006, Amaranth held by far the largest positions of any trader in the natural gas market. According to traders interviewed by the Subcommittee, during this period natural gas prices for the following winter were ``clearly out of whack,'' at ``ridiculous levels,'' and unrelated to supply and demand. At the Subcommittee's hearing in June of this year, natural gas purchasers, such as the American Public Gas Association and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, explained how these price distortions increased the cost of hedging for natural gas consumers, which ultimately led to increased costs for American industries and households. The Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia calculated that Amaranth's excesses increased the cost of their winter gas purchases by $18 million. Finally, when Amaranth's positions on the regulated futures market, NYMEX, became so large that NYMEX directed Amaranth to reduce the size of its positions on NYMEX, Amaranth simply switched those positions to ICE, an unregulated market that is beyond the reach of the CFTC. In other words, in response to NYMEX's order, Amaranth did not reduce its size; it merely moved it from a regulated market to an unregulated market. This regulatory system makes no sense. It is as if a cop on the beat tells a liquor store owner that he must obey the law and stop selling liquor to minors, yet the store owner is allowed to move his store across the street and sell to whomever he wants because the cop has no jurisdiction on the other side of the street and none of the same laws apply. The Amaranth case history shows it is clearly time to put the cop on the beat in all of our energy exchanges. The Subcommittee held two days of hearings relating to issues covered in its 2007 report. Both of the major energy exchanges, NYMEX and ICE, testified that they would support a change in the law that would eliminate the current exemption from regulation for electronic energy markets, in order to reduce the potential for manipulation and excessive speculation. Consumers and users of natural gas and other energy commodities--the American Public Gas Association, the New England Fuel Institute, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America--also testified in favor of closing the Enron loophole. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to end the exemption from regulation that electronic energy trading facilities now have. The bill includes suggestions made by the exchanges, the CFTC, and natural gas users, and I will continue to seek their input as the legislative process moves forward. Essentially, this bill would restore the CFTC's ability to police all U.S. energy exchanges to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation from hiking energy prices. In particular, it would restore CFTC oversight of large-trader energy exchanges that were exempted from regulation in the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by means of the Enron loophole. The bill would require the CFTC to oversee these facilities in the same manner and according to the same standards that currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. Because these energy exchanges currently restrict trading to large traders, however, the bill would not require them to comply with rules applicable to retail trading or trading by brokers on behalf of smaller traders. In all other respects, however, including the rules that create position limits and accountability levels to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation, the bill would apply the same rules to energy exchanges like ICE as currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. The bill also would require large trades in U.S. energy commodities conducted from within the United States on a foreign board of trade to be reported to the CFTC. This provision is intended to ensure that the CFTC has a more complete view of the positions of U.S. energy traders buying or selling energy commodities for delivery in the United States. This provision could be waived by the CFTC if the CFTC reaches agreement with the foreign board of trade to obtain the same information. Preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation in U.S. energy markets is not an easy undertaking. I welcome good-faith comments on how this bill can be improved. I want to make it clear, however, that in my opinion the Enron loophole has got to be closed. Recent cases have shown us that market abuses and failures did not stop with the fall of Enron. They are still with us. We cannot afford to let the current situation continue, allowing energy traders to use unregulated markets to avoid regulated markets. It's time to put the cop back on the beat in all U.S. energy markets. The stakes for our energy security and for competition in the market place are too high to do otherwise. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a bill summary, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. This bill provides $105.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a number of independent agencies. This legislation will improve road and bridge safety and address past shortfalls in spending on our Nation's infrastructure and housing and economic development needs. This bill provides $41.2 billion to the Federal-aid Highways Program for disbursement to States and local governments to build, maintain, and repair highways, roads and bridges; $1.074 billion of which would go to Michigan. I supported an amendment which will provide increased funding for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. As a result of this amendment, Michigan would get an additional $23,539,287 for bridge replacement, bridge rehabilitation, preventative maintenance, seismic retrofitting, bridge inspections, and activities designed to protect bridges and extend their life spans. Mr. President, 78,000 bridges around the country have been identified as structurally deficient. Given the high number of bridges that are in need of urgent repair, which was made all the more apparent by the recent and tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it is appropriate for the Senate to direct more funding to address the urgency of this problem. The bill also provides $9.59 billion to operate America's public transit systems around the country. Public housing needs have been significantly underfunded over the past few years. I am pleased that this bill increased funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to $38.74 billion. This bill increases funding to $4.2 billion for the public housing operating fund and to $2.5 billion for the public housing capital fund which will help provide assistance to low-income, disabled, senior citizens, and families throughout the country. This bill also provides $735 million for the HUD section 202 program and $237 million for the HUD section 811 program. These programs provide grants to nonprofits and community organizations for the development of rental assistance and supportive housing for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities. This bill would also provide $52 million for fair housing activities through the Fair Housing Initiatives Program and the Fair Housing Assistance Program. Over 4 million fair housing violations occur each year in the United States, and these programs play a vital role in addressing housing discrimination in our country. Since fiscal year 2001, funding for the Community Development Block Grants, CDBG, has been reduced by 15 percent, and the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 would have reduced funding for this important program by another 20 percent. I am pleased that this bill includes $4.1 billion for CDBG, which provides State and local governments with block grants to fund local community development programs. Mr. President, the Senate has done its work in funding the important transportation systems that keep our vehicles and people moving safely and efficiently and our economy humming as well as funding the housing and economic development programs on which so many of our citizens rely. This is despite the President's threat to veto this bill. I hope the President will have a change of heart and support our effort to invest in America's future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to read the key section of our bill. It says that: A court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located in the United States, for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States, or the surveillance device is located within the United States. That is the heart of the matter. That is what Admiral McConnell has requested. That is what both bills provide, both bills cure the problem that exists. There is a problem. We have to cure it. Our bill, in addition to the Bond bill, both bills do that. Now, what are the major differences between the bills? What Admiral McConnell has indicated to us in a statement: The intelligence community should not be required to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence, from foreign targets, located overseas. That is in both bills. Except our bill is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill, which does not have that key limitation and which, it seems to me, very clearly applies to U.S. citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to U.S. citizens, we obviously will permit that. That is not the problem. It is called minimization. We do not try to affect that. But the key difference between the Rockefeller-Levin bill and the Bond bill is that we carry out what Admiral McConnell has said repeatedly, not just in the statement I read but also in newspaper articles that he has written in the Washington Post. What does he say there? He says that: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, our bill does that. But what does the Bond bill do? The Bond bill goes beyond that. In its first section it says: Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States. Any person. Does not say a foreign person. Admiral McConnell has been very precise. We have all heard him over and over again. He has been precise in his written statements, he has been precise orally. They want access, and we have to give them access. When foreign persons communicate with foreign persons, even though, as our bill says, the communications might be routed through the United States, that is the problem that must be cured. It is cured in both bills. But we avoid doing, in our bill, what the Bond bill does, which is to say, as it very explicitly does: That if surveillance is directed at a person, which means any person--it could be a U.S. person, reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States--then it is permitted, it is authorized, in that first section of the Bond bill, 105(a). That is one of the critical differences, the most important difference, between Rockefeller-Levin, which does what the Admiral says we must do, find a way with the new technology where calls may be routed through the United States, to get to those communications by foreign persons to foreign persons. We must do that to defend the country. We must do it. We do it. But we avoid doing what Admiral McConnell says he does not want to do, which is to get to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant. That is what he says we should continue to do. He says it eloquently, in writing and orally. We protect that very vital interest. There are a number of other differences. To give you one: What the Bond bill does is it says that: In terms of reviewing and auditing, the way this works, the audit will be carried out by the Attorney General of the United States, in effect auditing his own work, reviewing his own work. On a semiannual basis, it says in section 4, the Attorney General shall inform the Select Committee, et cetera. The Attorney General shall give us a report concerning acquisitions--that is the intercepts--during the previous 6-month period. Each report shall include--then it describes all of the reports--a description of any incidents of noncompliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence; incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to whom the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence--so the Attorney General, under the Bond provision, is reporting to Congress about his own activities. What kind of an independent report is that? So in the Rockefeller-Levin bill, we do not say to the Attorney General: Report on your own activities. We say to the inspector generals, three of them, they all have access here and all have a role: We want the independent assessment from you. We want a report to Congress not by an Attorney General reporting on his own activities but by the inspectors general who have that independence, which is so critically important. I understand my time is up. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I have worked for many years to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reform. In 1995, I helped lead the effort to pass the Lobbying Disclosure Act which helped to open up the world of lobbying, and the billions of dollars spent in it, to the light of day. By requiring paid lobbyists to register and disclose whom they represent, how much they are paid, and the issues on which they are lobbying, this act was a real step forward. A number of scandals over the past few years have illustrated the importance of taking these reforms a step further and this bill does just that. This bill includes much needed lobbying and ethics reforms, some of which I sought to include in the Lobbying Disclosure Act 12 years ago. It includes provisions to ensure greater transparency and disclosure of lobbyist activities by requiring lobbyists to file their reports quarterly and electronically in an online, public, searchable database. This bill requires lobbyists to disclose to the Federal Election Commission when they bundle or gather over $15,000 in campaign contributions for any Federal elected official, candidate or political action committee. Additionally, lobbyists will be required to disclose their own campaign contributions as well as payments they make to Presidential libraries, inaugural committees or other organization controlled by or named for Members of Congress. This bill also includes an important provision I authored to require reporting by foreign lobbyists. Foreign lobbyists file their disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registry Act. The forms are difficult to find and hard to understand. This bill will require a publicly accessible, electronic database containing FARA disclosures in the same format that will be in place for registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Also included is a strict ban on gifts from lobbyists or their clients to Members of Congress and congressional staff. These perks have no place in Government and I am glad that this legislation will eliminate them. Strong travel restrictions are also an essential component of this bill. The new rules will ensure that Members traveling on corporate jets would have to pay for them at the charter rate, not at the current level of a first class commercial ticket, which is but a fraction of the cost. This bill strengthens restrictions on lobbying for former Senators and former senior Senate staff by prohibiting Senators from lobbying Congress for 2 years after they leave office and prohibiting senior Senate staff from lobbying any Senate office for 1 year after leaving Senate employment. Also included is a provision that prohibits Members and their staff from influencing the hiring decision of private organizations in exchange for political access. This bill strengthens penalties for Members of Congress who are convicted of crimes that involve violations of the public trust by revoking Federal retirement benefits. It also increases the penalties for Members of Congress, senior staff and senior executive officials who falsify or fail to file financial disclosure forms. I am also pleased that this bill includes earmark reforms to ensure transparency in the legislative process. Requiring that earmarks included in bills and conference reports are available to the public on line will allow the average American the opportunity to know where their tax dollars are going and it is my hope that it will help ensure the quality of the projects which are funded. I commend my colleagues in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for working in a bipartisan way to pass this important legislation. Though this bill is not perfect, it is a significant improvement over current law. Some will continue to find ways to circumvent it and undermine the safeguards we put in place. Standing for honesty, openness and accountability in Government will forever be an unfinished task. We must continue to be aware of abuses and understand that further legislation may be necessary in the coming years to ensure the integrity of the legislative process.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud that we have produced a bipartisan bill to continue to provide health care insurance to children of low-income parents. The Children's Health Insurance Program, which we created 10 years ago, has been a great success, but it is set to expire on September 30. This bill to reauthorize and expand the program deserves our strong support. I urge the President to approve the bipartisan compromise my colleagues worked so hard to achieve and not to carry out his threat to veto a bill, a veto which could result in denying health care coverage to many uninsured children from working families. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a children's health insurance program under title XXI of the Social Security Act. This program allows states to insure children whose families are above Medicaid eligibility levels through block grants, and it allowed states flexibility in designing how CHIP would be implemented. Since 1997, CHIP has received about $40 billion in appropriations and has been widely successful. Currently, 6.6 million children are enrolled in CHIP. Seventy percent of those children came from families with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level, and more than 90 percent were from families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level. CHIP coverage leads to better access to preventative and primary care services, better quality of care, better health outcomes and improved performance in school. Some experts estimate that families with insured children are five times less likely to delay health care because of costs than families with uninsured children. Michigan has had particularly impressive results from CHIP and currently has the second lowest rate of uninsured children in the nation. Although CHIP has been successful, it still fails to address the problem fully. Too many children qualify for the program but are unable to receive insurance because of inadequate funding. There are still 9 million uninsured children nationwide, 6 million of which are eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP. In Michigan, while 55,000 children are covered under CHIP, 90,000 Michigan children are currently eligible for Medicaid or MIChild, Michigan's CHIP program, but are not receiving services. In addition, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the recent decline in employer-sponsored health care coverage is threatening the access to private health care coverage for many more children. With CHIP set to expire this year, the path we need to take is clear we need to reauthorize and to also expand CHIP. This bill before us was reported by the Senate Finance Committee with a bipartisan majority of 17-4. It will reauthorize CHIP and increase funding for the program by $35 billion over 5 years. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 would ensure that there is sufficient funding to cover the children currently enrolled and to expand the program to additional children in need. This plan would increase outreach and enrollment for uninsured low-income children of the working poor, enhance premium assistance options for low-income families, and improve the quality of health care for our Nation's children. This reauthorization would also provide $200 million in grants for states to improve access to dental coverage; require that states providing mental health services provide those services on par with medical and surgical benefits under CHIP; and allow states to use information from food stamp programs to find and enroll eligible children. This bill would also help to reduce racial and ethnic health care disparities by improving outreach to minority populations and provide new funding for state translation and interpretation services. The additional $35 billion in funding is expected to reach an estimated 3.2 million additional uninsured American children from low- income families. Up to 50,000 more Michigan children would be covered over the next 5 years. There are two aspects of the bill that are disappointing. The current CHIP program allows for flexibility at the State-level in how the program is implemented. The administration has encouraged this flexibility by approving waivers to some States that would allow them to cover services to other needy populations after ensuring that it is not at the expense of enrolling eligible children into CHIP. Michigan has had a waiver that allows it to cover adults who make less than $3,500 a year--adults who are the ``poorest of the poor.'' But under the bill we passed today, some of these waivers will be phased out The second disappointment is that this bill does not go as far as we could have to fund and expand CHIP. In the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, the Senate included an increase of $50 billion for CHIP. However, the bill, as a result of compromises made, provides $35 billion. I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Kerry that would have provided the additional $15 billion that would have taken us back to $50 billion. With this additional funding, the Kerry amendment would have provided more incentives to increase the enrollment of uninsured children. Unfortunately, this amendment was not agreed to. On balance, however, this is a strong bill. President Bush's approach would be far worse. The President wants to add only $5 billion over 5 years, which many believe will not even sustain the current levels of coverage and certainly would not help the millions of children still living without health insurance. President Bush has threatened to veto the Senate's CHIP reauthorization bill, but I hope the Senate's action today will send a strong message to the President that this program has broad bipartisan support. Here are just a few examples of the way in which CHIP fills a need. A courageous and hardworking mother from Royal Oak, MI, wrote: As a single working mother, I could not afford the family insurance that my employer offered, and definitely could not afford private pay. Without this insurance I do not know what I would have done. [SCHIP] offered us options, doctors instead of emergency rooms, less time missed at work and school. Please continue and increase funding for this valuable program. Thank you. A registered nurse from Berkley, MI wrote: I work in Detroit with impoverished, uninsured and underinsured adolescents and the SCHIP program has helped tremendously in getting them the health care they so desperately need. And a registered nurse from Pleasant Ridge, MI, wrote: It is an imperative to continue to support, and expand, health care services to children. These services are the building blocks of personal health leading to healthy, active adults. Health promotion and disease prevention programs have been shown to save significant healthcare dollars later in life by assuring that each individual grows and develops to their fullest potential. Healthy children become healthy adults who then support the growth of communities and the economy. We have a moral obligation to provide Americans access to affordable and high quality health care. No person, young or old, should be denied access to adequate health care, and the expanded and improved Children's Health Insurance Program is an important step toward achieving that goal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I was in a similar situation. I would have voted no had I been here. I was also in the same committee meeting.

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. Madam President, despite the outcry for change in the wake of the deadliest shooting rampage in our Nation's history, too many schools continue to be plagued by gun violence. True prevention requires reducing the likelihood of death or injury before an incident occurs. Unfortunately, we have still not done enough to prevent dangerous guns from falling into the hands of those who may intentionally or unintentionally use them to harm themselves or others. Earlier this month, a group of engineering students at Kettering University, in Flint, MI, gathered in an apartment to celebrate the beginning of their 3-month job co-ops, part of their degree requirements. One of the students stumbled across a 9mm handgun lying on a dresser in one of the apartment's bedrooms. He picked up the weapon, and, after seeing himself in a mirror, made a sudden spin move with it. As he spun around, the gun accidentally discharged. Karl Joseph Hansen, 21 years old and asleep at the time, died of a single gunshot wound to the head. Because a loaded handgun was present in an otherwise unremarkable celebration, one student was left dead and another has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Such an event is extremely difficult to comprehend. For the people and families directly involved, it is nearly impossible. Shortly after the tragedy at Kettering University, following a heavy night of drinking, an undergraduate student at Yale University decided it would be a good idea to fire one of his pistols in the basement of his fraternity house. When he heard the shots, a visitor to the school ran downstairs to investigate. The student responded to the visitor's requests for him to put the gun down by firing two rounds of blanks at the ceiling. When the visitor then tried to convince the student even blanks could be dangerous, he is reported to have responded by asking ``Why don't I point it at your head and find out?'' When the student was subsequently arrested, police discovered an AK-47 assault rifle, AR-15 assault rifle, two rifles, a shotgun, several other pistols and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition in his bedroom. He has been charged with two counts of illegal possession of an assault rifle, unlawful discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment in the first degree, threatening in the second degree, and breach of peace in the second degree. Time after time, we see these tragedies reported in the news. Yet Congress has not taken the necessary steps to help control these acts of violence or ease the anxiety that many parents and families feel each day as their children head off to school. By removing firearms from potentially dangerous situations, we can prevent these types of tragedies from occurring. Congress should take up and pass sensible gun legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act required that DHS triple the number for border patrol agents at the northern border, the Trade Act of 2002 required 285 additional customs inspectors for the northern border and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 included a provision that authorized an increase of 2,000 U.S. border protection agents each year from FY2006 through FY2010 and further required that 20 percent of the increase in agent manpower each fiscal year be assigned to the northern border. However, nearly a third of those agents have not been deployed to the northern border. According to the Congressional Research Service, the gap between the authorized level of Customs and Border Protection officers at the northern border and the actual number of officers deployed there will be roughly 1,517 in FY2008. I am pleased that the Senate just passed the Graham-Pryor amendment that will provide $3 billion for border security and 23,000 full time agents to our borders. I ask my friend from West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is it the intent of the amendment to provide those assets to both the northern and southern borders, and, to further implement the authorizations I mentioned, to deploy more agents to the northern border?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support final passage of the Homeland Security appropriations bill today because its funding is vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us. Although all Americans are united in our commitment to secure our homeland, the administration's budget has too often not reflected that commitment. In particular, we have not kept faith with our first responders by giving them the tools they need, and we have not done enough to secure our borders. I am glad that this bill will make much needed improvements on these and other issues. The bill appropriates $37.6 billion for homeland security programs for fiscal year 2008, which is an increase of $2.2 billion over the President's budget. Perhaps most significantly, the legislation provides vital funding to our first responders to protect our country from a terrorist attack and ensure that we are able to respond adequately should such an attack occur. Specifically, it provides $525 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, $820 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, $700 million for the assistance to firefighters grants and $300 million for emergency management performance grants. To secure our borders, a total of $10.2 billion is provided for Customs and Border Protection. I am pleased that, in addition to the funding in the underlying bill, the Senate also adopted an amendment to add an additional $3 billion for border security which will enable the Department of Homeland Security to hire, train and deploy 23,000 additional full-time boarder patrol agents and provide other essential security measures at our borders. The legislation also provides $4.432 billion for immigration and customs enforcement, including $146 million for 4,000 new detention beds. Finally, I want to note that the bill increases funding for the Transportation Security Administration by $164.6 million above last year's level, which is $764 million more than requested by the President. It provides $529.4 million for the procurement and installation of explosive detection systems at airports. The funding levels in this bill reflect our commitment to protecting the American people, and I am hopeful they will be maintained in conference and that we can quickly get this legislation to the President for his signature.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will finally pass the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. Over 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission gave us its recommendations, and we are finally taking a big step toward implementing them. Let me mention a few highlights. This comprehensive legislation goes a long way toward helping our first responders. First, it establishes a $400 million annual grant program dedicated to funding interoperable communications equipment. We know that lives were lost on September 11, 2001, because first responders could not communicate. The same situation continues to play out across our country every day. For years, I have been urging the Department of Homeland Security to establish a dedicated funding source for interoperable communications equipment. I am pleased that this legislation creates a grant program dedicated to improving operability and interoperability at local, regional, State, and Federal levels. Second, to improve collaboration and help identify solutions to communications problems on our international borders, the legislation also includes language that I authored that establishes International Border Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration Projects on the northern and southern borders. These demonstration projects will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders and will improve the ability of U.S. personnel to work well, for example, with their Canadian counterparts. Another key accomplishment is that the legislation provides a more equitable distribution of homeland security grant funding. For the past 5 years, the largest homeland security grant programs distributed funds using a formula that arbitrarily set aside a large portion of the funds to be divided equally among the States, regardless of size, need, or risk. This legislation allocates more of the funding based on risk. Specifically, the legislation would reduce the funds guaranteed to each State from 0.75 percent to 0.375 percent of grant funds in fiscal year 2008; the minimum would then decline over a period of 5 years to 0.35 percent in fiscal year 2012 and thereafter. All other funds would be distributed to States based on the risk of acts of terrorism and the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed use of the grants. Also included in the bill is language I authored that will require the Department of Homeland Security, before publishing the final rule, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, including the cost to the State Department and resources required to meet the increased volume of passports requests. The WHTI seeks to require individuals from the United States, Canada, and Mexico to present a passport or other document proving citizenship before entering the United States. While we need to make our borders as secure as they can be, we also need to make sure that we are achieving that goal in a way that will not cause economic harm to our States. A cost-benefit analysis will help ensure we identify and weigh the expenses and benefits of the WHTI. The legislation also takes important steps to shore up rail, transit, bus, air and cargo security in the United States. It establishes a grant program for freight and passenger rail security upgrades and requires railroads shipping high-hazard materials to create threat mitigation plans. It establishes a grant fund for system-wide Amtrak security improvements and much needed infrastructure upgrades. It authorizes studies to find ways to improve passenger and baggage security screening on passenger rail service between the U.S. and Canada which should identify what is needed to prescreen rail passengers on the northern border. I hope these studies will also advance a long standing effort I have undertaken to implement a preclearance system at other land crossings so that, for example, we can inspect vehicles for hazardous materials before they cross bridges and tunnels between U.S. and Canada. In addition to improving rail security, the bill establishes grant programs for improving intercity bus and bus terminal security and public transportation system security. It takes steps to improve the safety of transporting radioactive and hazardous materials on our railroads and highways. I am also pleased that this legislation requires the screening of all cargo carried on passenger airplanes within 3 years. It also requires all containers to be scanned for radiation at foreign ports before entering U.S. ports. The legislation also establishes an appeal process at the Department of Homeland Security for passengers that believe they have been wrongly included in ``no-fly'' or ``selectee'' watch lists. While the conference report takes important steps toward implementing many 9/11 Commission recommendations, I am disappointed that it fails to address one critical recommendation and excludes several provisions that were in the Senate-passed bill. The 9/11 Commission report stated: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' I am troubled that the conference report does not contain critical provisions--included in the Senate-passed bill--that were intended to strengthen congressional oversight and promote independent and objective intelligence analysis. There is a long, painful history of congressional efforts to obtain information from the intelligence community that have been slow-walked or simply not answered. The bill that passed the Senate required the intelligence community to provide Congress timely access to existing intelligence information unless the President asserted a constitutional privilege. Unfortunately, the conference report excludes that provision. The Senate-passed bill also provided that no executive branch official could require the intelligence community to get permission to testify or to submit testimony, legislative recommendations, or comments to the Congress. That provision was also stripped from the conference report. We should insist that the intelligence community be able to provide Congress its assessment of intelligence matters uninfluenced by the policy goals of whatever administration is in power. It is important for whistleblowers to know that they can come directly to Congress if they have evidence that someone has made a false statement to Congress. And Congress has a right to that information--even if it is classified. The Senate-passed bill made it clear that intelligence community employees and contractors can report classified information directly to appropriate Members of Congress and cleared staff if the employee reasonably believed that the information provides direct and specific evidence of a false or inaccurate statement to Congress. That provision was also removed in conference. While I am disappointed that the conference report does not contain these provisions, on balance it is a good bill and I am pleased that we are passing it today--both for the families and friends of those we lost on September 11, 2001, and for the security of our Nation. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have offered the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act as a stand-alone bill that incorporates the provisions of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act as marked up by the Armed Services Committee and as amended when offered as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act and passed by a vote of 94 to 0. Our wounded warriors cannot wait, and should not have to wait, for us to finish the Department of Defense Authorization Act to get the relief contained in this bill. The bill incorporates the ideas of many Senators and the consideration of both the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. A total of 51 Senators have cosponsored this legislation. It is truly a bipartisan effort to address shortfalls in the care of our wounded warriors. I am delighted the Senate is passing this bill today so that we can move forward to conference with the House of Representatives to reach agreement on a bill that both the House and Senate can pass and send to the President. This bill addresses the issue of inconsistent disability ratings by requiring that the military departments use VA standards for rating disabilities unless the Department of Defense rating is higher. The bill adopts a more favorable statutory presumption for determining whether a disability is incident to military service by adopting the more favorable VA presumption. The bill requires two pilot programs to test the viability of involving the Veterans' Administration in the assignment of disability ratings for the Department of Defense. The bill also establishes an independent board to review and, where appropriate, correct unjustifiably low Department of Defense disability ratings awarded since 2001. This bill also addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on the care and management of injured servicemembers who will transition from the Department of Defense to the VA. The bill establishes a Department of Defense and a Department of Veterans Affairs interagency program office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record. This bill authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of military members with traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. The bill requires the establishment of centers of excellence for both TBI and PTSD to conduct research and train health care professionals. The bill requires that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate and treat TBI and PTSD. This bill increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic pay for those separated with disabilities incurred in a combat zone or combat-related activity and 6 months basic pay for all others. This is quadrupling or doubling, depending on the circumstance, the current arrangement. The bill also eliminates the requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone. This bill also addresses the problem that exists because medically retired servicemembers who are eligible for Tricare as retirees do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are available to members still on active duty. The bill does that by authorizing medically retired servicemembers to receive the active duty medical benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty. This can be extended to 5 years where medically required. The bill authorizes military and VA health care providers to provide medical care and counseling to family members who leave their homes and often leave their jobs to help provide care to their wounded warriors. The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and housing for military outpatients. These standards will require compliance with Federal and other standards for military medical treatment facilities, specialty medical care facilities, and military housing for outpatients that will be uniform and consistent and high level throughout the Department of Defense. This bill also includes measures proposed by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs under the leadership of Senator Akaka that address shortfalls in the VA system for care of our wounded warriors after their transition to the VA. So in summary, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act is a comprehensive approach that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care of our wounded warriors while they remain in military service, during the transition from the military to the VA, and after this transition, while in the care of the VA. Our wounded warriors deserve the best care and support that we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less. This wide- ranging legislation will improve the provision of health care and benefits to injured military personnel and make the system much more efficient as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, marks the culmination of yet another journey towards making college more affordable with the passage of the Higher Education Amendments, and with the passage several days ago of the Higher Education Reconciliation Act. It represents the single largest Federal investment in higher education since the GI bill. I am pleased to support this legislation because it reflects a commitment to expanding access to higher education and making it more affordable. It opens the door to those previously denied educational opportunity due to a lack of adequate financial resources or who could not carry the burden of excessive student loan obligations. This legislation is a great victory for students and families across America, including my home State of Michigan, which would receive over $80 million above the current $429.8 million in new assistance for the upcoming academic year and an additional $689.6 million over the next 5 years. I have long supported efforts in the Senate to expand the availability of student aid and to ensure that students have access to a postsecondary education, including raising the maximum Pell grant award. This much-needed legislation increases the maximum Pell grant from $4,310 to $5,100 in 2008, building upon our efforts in February of this year when we passed a significant increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $4,310 from $4,050, the first increase in 4 years. This legislation also increases the income level at which a student is eligible for the maximum Pell grant; caps monthly student loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income; encourages public service by providing loan forgiveness for borrowers who commit to public service; simplifies the financial aid process for all students; and reforms the student loan system so that it works for students rather than lenders. There is one fact that we cannot escape, which is that more and more students and families are struggling to pay for college at a time when access to a higher education is increasingly important in a competitive, global economy where training beyond a high school education is required. The legislation will protect working students by increasing the amount of student income sheltered from the financial aid process. The cap on Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income will bring much-needed relief to students with the burden of excessive loans. For example, a social worker in Michigan with one child earning $45,620, with student loan debt of $19,000, would have his or her monthly payments reduced by 12 percent. Forgiving the debt of borrowers who continue in public service careers, such as law enforcement, nursing or teaching for 10 years will be provided significant relief under this bill. For instance, a starting teacher in Michigan earning $35,557 with the State average loan debt of $18,942 could have monthly payments reduced by 20 percent. After 10 years of teaching, all remaining debt would be forgiven, in this case, a benefit worth $10,906. A student's access to higher education ought not depend on his or her family's income. Working families and aspiring students across this country are struggling to obtain the financial resources to secure a college education. Low and middle income students who have managed to enter and stay in college are graduating with unprecedented levels of debt. This legislation responds to this crisis. The passage of this bipartisan legislation is a notable accomplishment. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.