Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Michigan is a water State. The State is surrounded by water on three of its sides. We depend on our vital water resources for drinking water and commerce. Water provides opportunities for recreation, rest, and reflection. Our waters define us. It has been 6 years since the last Water Resources Development Act was passed. This bill includes several provisions that will improve the management of Michigan's water resources, such as critical harbor maintenance, upgrades to drinking and wastewater systems, flood control projects, and restoration of aquatic resources, and I will support its passage. This bill makes some progress toward improving the Great Lakes Navigation System, and I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee worked with us to address concerns with the reported bill. The bill would increase authorized appropriations for harbor maintenance, beginning with $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and increasing every year thereafter by $100 million through fiscal year 2019. In fiscal year 2020 and beyond, the bill would require that total budget resources for harbor maintenance equal the full amount of funds collected for that purpose. Currently, only about half of the funds collected from shippers for harbor maintenance are used for harbor maintenance. The harbor maintenance trust fund, into which the fees from shippers are collected, has a balance of over $7 billion. Great Lakes harbors and channels are in great need of dredging. A backlog of dredging projects forces vessels to carry less than their capacity, threatens to close harbors and increases the risk of vessel groundings. These funds need to be used for harbor maintenance instead of for other purposes. I have been fighting to free these funds and worked with the EPW Committee to incorporate the text of the Harbor Maintenance Act of 2013, which I introduced earlier this year in February, into the committee-reported bill. While the point of order enforcement language of my bill that would have required full funding immediately for harbor maintenance was not included in the final version, the compromise language that would phase in the increased funding still represents progress. The next step in the dredging battle will be to work with appropriators so that funding is provided at the authorized levels. I am also pleased that the EPW Committee responded to my concerns regarding how harbor maintenance funding was prioritized. I had written a letter to EPW that was signed by 10 other Great Lakes Senators expressing our concerns, and EPW responded by including a provision in the bill that would prioritize 20 percent of harbor maintenance funds in excess of fiscal year 2012 levels for the Great Lakes. This setaside represents real progress, and I hope appropriators will provide funding in accordance with this directive in the bill. I am also pleased that my amendment concerning other uses of the harbor maintenance trust fund was agreed to by the full Senate. That amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Stabenow, makes clear that the primary use of the harbor maintenance trust fund is for maintaining the constructed widths and depths of ports and harbors and that those functions should be given first consideration in the budgeting of harbor maintenance trust fund allocations. I fought for this language because the bill includes a new authorization for other uses of the trust fund, and I wanted to make sure that harbor maintenance, including that of the Great Lakes, has a higher claim for these funds than the other new uses. In addition to the beneficial harbor maintenance provisions, the bill also includes a number of other provisions that could benefit Michigan. A new pilot program, called the Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, is included in the bill, and it would increase options for financing our nation's water and wastewater infrastructure by providing loan guarantees and low interest loans with flexible repayment terms. WIFIA is a positive provision for Michigan and the Nation that will help to address the ongoing problems we face with aging and outdated infrastructure. As Michigan and much of the Midwest recover from damaging flooding, I am pleased to see an authorization for the National Levee Safety Program and the establishment of a National Levee Safety Advisory Board. The board will provide technical assistance to States and tribes on levee safety and facilitate the development of levee safety programs through a Federal grant program. Levees are an essential part of our flood protection infrastructure. This provision will hopefully ensure our levees are constructed and maintained using sound science and the best available information. The bill also includes a provision on dam safety that is critical to Michigan communities. The Dam Safety Program provides grant assistance to States for the training of dam safety staff and for the development of safety monitoring programs. This bill also helps us in the Asian carp fight. I worked with Senator Gillibrand to include a provision that would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from getting into the Great Lakes. That language is based on a provision I was able to get included in an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012, and including it in the WRDA bill would make the authority permanent. I also want to mention the shadow that hangs over this legislation and all the other legislation before us. That shadow is sequestration, and until we lift that shadow, it will erode the good we seek to accomplish with this legislation and everything else we do. The projects authorized in this bill will touch every State in our Nation, put Americans to work, help American companies sell their goods here and around the world, improve our navigation systems, and provide clean drinking water for our homes and businesses. But authorizing these projects is not enough. We also need to appropriate the money to execute these projects. And so long as sequestration remains in effect, so long as we continue to view our fiscal challenges as exclusively a matter of cutting budgets, so long as we ignore the desires of the American public and the realities of budget math and refuse to adopt a balanced approach to deficit reduction--so long as all that continues, those appropriations will be reduced. As a result, water projects will suffer, health and education programs will suffer, law enforcement, border security, food inspections and more will suffer. The Speaker of the House said not long ago, ``We can't cut our way to prosperity.'' He's right. We can't cut our way to clean water or operable harbors either. We need to keep that in mind as we consider budget solutions going forward. Despite the challenge of sequestration and continued fiscal pressures, the bill before us represents progress for America's waterways and the people who depend on them and in particular for the precious waters of my State of Michigan. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code--Part 2.'' The Subcommittee will continue its examination of the structures and methods employed by multinational corporations to shift profits offshore and how such activities are affected by the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. Witnesses will include representatives from the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, representatives of a multinational corporation, and tax experts. A witness list will be available Friday, May 17, 2013. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank, first of all, the Senator from Arizona for the leadership he has taken on the question of Syria. In answer to the question, to the best of my ability, at least, it would not be the first time Russia has taken an inconsistent position. What I am hoping is that the additional military pressure on Asad, which we are all calling for this morning, would help put pressure on Russia to understand, if that military pressure is forthcoming, that they should participate in the political solution. I do not know that we can stop them, as much as we would all wish to, from taking the inconsistent position that they have, but I believe--and I think the Senator from Arizona would probably agree, but he can speak for himself, obviously-- that if President Obama does as we are urging him to do, which is find a way to put additional military pressure on Asad, that would be an important sign to Russia that: OK, join in a solution. You participated enough in the problem already. Join in the solution. They are inconsistent. But I think our goal of trying to get more military pressure on Asad is very consistent with the idea that maybe there will be a political solution, but if there is, it will be promoted by military pressure on Asad and his understanding of that fact. The worsening situation in Syria and the snowballing plight of millions in the region requires a response. Since nonviolent demonstrations demanding democratic change began in Syria in March of 2011, Bashar Asad and his clique of supporters have unleashed a massacre that has claimed the lives of at least 70,000 Syrians, displaced more than 4 million people across a region that already suffers from a massive refugee population, sparked a civil war with a multitude of divergent ethnic groups and religious sects, and placed the security of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile--which is one of the world's largest--at risk of falling into the hands of terrorist groups. Despite the impact of this horrific campaign, Asad's commitment to continuing the fight appears unwavering. One must look no further than the increasingly indiscriminate tactics with which he conducts his campaign. In recent months, in addition to Asad's possible use of chemical weapons, he has increased his reliance on airstrikes, Scud missiles, rockets, mortar shells, and artillery to terrorize and to kill civilians. Asad's ability to conduct this campaign is enabled by two actors-- Iran and Russia. Iran's financial, personnel, and materiel support have been critical to ensuring Asad's military remains operable and that the impact of defections is mitigated with reinforcements. Russia's support to Syria's more advanced military weaponry, most notably air defense systems, is critical to Asad's continued ability to project power into areas of the country he no longer controls. To add further complexity to the situation, al-Nusra Front, an al- Qaida offshoot, continues to spread its influence in some areas of Syria. Its presence is of concern and countering its spread needs to be a priority. It is also critical that we ensure that countries in the region that are seeking to force an end to the Asad regime are not enabling and enhancing the capabilities of violent extremists who will ultimately turn their weapons on moderate Syrians and on religious minorities in Syria, such as the Syrian Christians. The combination of these circumstances in Syria demonstrates that the status quo is unacceptable and that time is not on our side. Many officials in Washington share this sentiment but in the same breath remind us that the situation in Syria is complex, volatile, and asymmetric; Syria's Government institutions are crumbling, which could create a dangerous vacuum; any action by the United States or the West, even if it is with our Arab partners, risks significant escalation; and that any security vacuum could be filled by Islamist extremists. I have supported, and I will continue to support, the President's contributions to provide humanitarian relief to the Syrian people throughout the region, as well as the additional assistance he has pledged to Jordan to help with the devastating impact of this conflict on that country. But it is essential that the United States, working with our allies in the region, step up the military pressure on the Asad regime--of course, doing so in a carefully thought out and regionally supported way. Certainly, there are significant challenges to any plan of action in Syria. But we not only have to figure out the consequences of any action, we also have to figure out the consequences of not taking additional actions. In my view, the facts on the ground make the consequences of inaction too great, and it is time for the United States and our allies to use ways to alter the course of events in Syria by increasing the military pressure on Asad until he can see that his current course is not sustainable. Taking steps to add military pressure on Asad will also provide backing to Secretary Kerry's efforts to bring the Russians into the dialog politically, which is aimed at leading to Asad's departure. I commend Secretary Kerry for his efforts to bring Russia into that dialog. At the same time, of course, we condemn Russia's support for the Asad regime. I happen to feel very strongly that even though we are condemning, and should condemn, Russia's support for the Asad regime, it is still in our interest that Russia participate in putting pressure on Asad politically to depart, if Secretary Kerry can possibly do so. I have joined Senator McCain recently in writing to President Obama, urging the President to consider supporting a number of efforts, including the creation by Turkey of a safe zone inside Syria along its border, the deployment of our Patriot batteries closer to that border in order to protect populations in that safe zone and to neutralize any Syrian planes that threaten it and also to provide weapons to vetted elements of the opposition in Syria. These actions--raising the military pressure on Asad--will send the critical message to Asad that he is going to go one way or the other. The Armed Services Committee, which I chair, recently held an open hearing on the situation in Syria and the Defense Department's efforts to plan for a full range of possible options to respond to the contingencies in Syria. Our committee is set to receive a classified briefing on Syria next week. I intend to raise these issues with our witnesses at that briefing. I know Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others are also going to forcefully raise these issues with those witnesses at that briefing and to urge them to carry the message back to the administration that it is time to up the military pressure on Asad. I thank Senator McCain and others who are participating in this discussion. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is agreeable to me. My statement will probably be about 7 or 8 minutes. I don't know how long Senator Menendez--because he is the fourth Senator who will participate--how long his statement will be, but if 40 minutes is what the Senator from Arizona sought, I think that ought to be enough.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pharmaceutical Compounding: Proposed Legislative Solution'' on May 9, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 9, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 9, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate office building.

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 May 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one aspect of cybersecurity threats from foreign nations relates directly to America's global competitiveness. If American entrepreneurs are known for one thing, it is innovation. That innovation costs money. American companies invest billions and billions of dollars every year on research and development to create products that are the best in the world. Companies in my State alone invest $16 billion a year in research and development. When these investments succeed American companies are often the leaders in their industries at home and in overseas markets, offering technologies that are not available elsewhere. This is a huge competitive value and one that we must protect. But too many U.S. companies of all sizes are being robbed of their intellectual property, the engine of their businesses, and the American economy is being undermined through cyber theft. Often the culprits are foreign governments. To make matters worse, these governments share the stolen technology with companies that compete with the very U.S. companies that developed the technology in the first place. General Keith B. Alexander, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, recently called the theft of intellectual property from U.S. entities through cyberspace ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history.'' He estimated that such theft costs U.S. companies and institutions hundreds of billions of dollars. It is outrageous that American trade secrets are being stolen and used to compete against us. So who is responsible? As far back as 2011, the National Counterintelligence Executive said in its annual report to Congress that ``Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. U.S. private sector firms and cybersecurity specialists have reported an onslaught of computer network intrusions that have originated in China.'' In March of this year, Mandiant, a company that investigates private sector cyber security breaches, published a report describing how a cyber-espionage unit of the Chinese People's Liberation Army raided the computers of at least 141 different organizations, stealing ``technology blueprints, proprietary manufacturing processes, test results, business plans, pricing documents, [and] partnership agreements.'' According to Mandiant, the industries targeted by the PLA ``match industries that China has identified as strategic to their growth.'' Mandiant's report exposed PLA cyber theft aimed at the information technology, transportation, aerospace, satellites and telecommunications, and high end electronics industries, to name just a few. U.S. government reports also point to China. Just last week the U.S. Trade Representative issued its ``Special 301'' report reviewing the global state of intellectual property rights, IPR. USTR stated that ``Obtaining effective enforcement of IPR in China remains a central challenge, as it has been for many years.'' The report continued ``This situation has been made worse by cyber theft, as information suggests that actors located in China have been engaged in sophisticated, targeted efforts to steal [intellectual property] from U.S. corporate systems.'' Also last week, an article in Bloomberg described cyber espionage conducted by the Chinese People's Liberation Army against QinetiQ, a defense contractor. The article said the PLA operation ``jeopardized the [victim] company's sensitive technology involving drones, satellites, the U.S. Army's combat helicopter fleet, and military robotics, both already-deployed systems and those still in development.'' The report stated that the Chinese ``hackers had burrowed into almost every corner of QinetiQ's U.S. operations, including production facilities and engineering labs in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Long Beach, Mississippi, Huntsville, Alabama and Albuquerque, New Mexico, where QinetiQ engineers work on satellite- based espionage, among other projects.'' It is time that we fought back to protect American businesses and American innovation. We need to call out those who are responsible for cyber theft and empower the President to hit the thieves where it hurts most--in their wallets. Today, I am introducing a bill along with Senators McCain, Coburn and Rockefeller that calls on the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to develop a list of foreign countries that engage in economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace with respect to U.S. trade secrets or proprietary information. We have done something similar under the Special 301 process for intellectual property rights infringements in foreign countries. Specifically, our legislation requires the DNI to publish an annual report listing foreign countries that engage in, facilitate, support or tolerate economic and industrial espionage targeting U.S. trade secrets or proprietary information through cyberspace. That report would identify: A watch list of foreign countries that engage in economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace with respect to trade secrets or proprietary information owned by United States persons; it would identify a priority watch list of foreign countries that are the most egregious offenders; U.S. technologies targeted for economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace and U.S. technologies that have been stolen, to the extent that is known; articles manufactured or produced or services provided, without permission from the rights holder, using such stolen technologies or proprietary information; foreign companies, including state owned enterprises, that benefit from stolen technologies or proprietary information; details of the economic or industrial espionage engaged in by foreign countries; and actions taken by DNI and other Federal agencies and progress made to decrease foreign economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace against United States persons. Creating a ``name and shame'' list, as this report would do, will shine a spotlight on those who are stealing U.S. technologies. But we need more than a report, we need action. Our bill provides for more than a report. In order to enforce compliance with laws protecting U.S. patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property and protection of the Department of Defense supply chain, our legislation requires the President to block imports of products if they: contain stolen U.S. technology or proprietary information, or are produced by a state-owned enterprise of a country on the priority watch list and are the same as or similar to products made using the stolen or targeted U.S. technology or proprietary information identified in the report, or are made by a company identified in the report as having benefitted from the stolen U.S. technology or proprietary information. Blocking imports of products that either incorporate intellectual property stolen from U.S. companies or are from companies otherwise that benefit from cyber theft will send the message that we have had enough. If foreign governments--like the Chinese government--want to continue to deny their involvement in cyber theft despite the proof, that's one thing. We can't stop the denials on the face of facts. But we aren't without remedies. We can prevent the companies that benefit from the theft--including State-owned companies from getting away with the benefits of that theft. Maybe once they understand that complicity will cost them access to the U.S. market, they will press their governments to stop or refuse to benefit at least. We will hit them where it hurts with this legislation and we aim to get results. We have stood by for far too long while our intellectual property and proprietary information is plundered in cyberspace and in turn used to undercut the very companies that developed it. It is now time to act. Our legislation will give our Government powerful tools to fight back against these crimes and protect the investments and property of U.S. companies and institutions. I urge my colleagues to work to enact this very important legislation as quickly as possible. We have no time to lose. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one aspect of cybersecurity threats from foreign nations relates directly to America's global competitiveness. If American entrepreneurs are known for one thing, it is innovation. That innovation costs money. American companies invest billions and billions of dollars every year on research and development to create products that are the best in the world. Companies in my State alone invest $16 billion a year in research and development. When these investments succeed American companies are often the leaders in their industries at home and in overseas markets, offering technologies that are not available elsewhere. This is a huge competitive value and one that we must protect. But too many U.S. companies of all sizes are being robbed of their intellectual property, the engine of their businesses, and the American economy is being undermined through cyber theft. Often the culprits are foreign governments. To make matters worse, these governments share the stolen technology with companies that compete with the very U.S. companies that developed the technology in the first place. General Keith B. Alexander, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, recently called the theft of intellectual property from U.S. entities through cyberspace ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history.'' He estimated that such theft costs U.S. companies and institutions hundreds of billions of dollars. It is outrageous that American trade secrets are being stolen and used to compete against us. So who is responsible? As far back as 2011, the National Counterintelligence Executive said in its annual report to Congress that ``Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. U.S. private sector firms and cybersecurity specialists have reported an onslaught of computer network intrusions that have originated in China.'' In March of this year, Mandiant, a company that investigates private sector cyber security breaches, published a report describing how a cyber-espionage unit of the Chinese People's Liberation Army raided the computers of at least 141 different organizations, stealing ``technology blueprints, proprietary manufacturing processes, test results, business plans, pricing documents, [and] partnership agreements.'' According to Mandiant, the industries targeted by the PLA ``match industries that China has identified as strategic to their growth.'' Mandiant's report exposed PLA cyber theft aimed at the information technology, transportation, aerospace, satellites and telecommunications, and high end electronics industries, to name just a few. U.S. government reports also point to China. Just last week the U.S. Trade Representative issued its ``Special 301'' report reviewing the global state of intellectual property rights, IPR. USTR stated that ``Obtaining effective enforcement of IPR in China remains a central challenge, as it has been for many years.'' The report continued ``This situation has been made worse by cyber theft, as information suggests that actors located in China have been engaged in sophisticated, targeted efforts to steal [intellectual property] from U.S. corporate systems.'' Also last week, an article in Bloomberg described cyber espionage conducted by the Chinese People's Liberation Army against QinetiQ, a defense contractor. The article said the PLA operation ``jeopardized the [victim] company's sensitive technology involving drones, satellites, the U.S. Army's combat helicopter fleet, and military robotics, both already-deployed systems and those still in development.'' The report stated that the Chinese ``hackers had burrowed into almost every corner of QinetiQ's U.S. operations, including production facilities and engineering labs in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Long Beach, Mississippi, Huntsville, Alabama and Albuquerque, New Mexico, where QinetiQ engineers work on satellite- based espionage, among other projects.'' It is time that we fought back to protect American businesses and American innovation. We need to call out those who are responsible for cyber theft and empower the President to hit the thieves where it hurts most--in their wallets. Today, I am introducing a bill along with Senators McCain, Coburn and Rockefeller that calls on the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to develop a list of foreign countries that engage in economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace with respect to U.S. trade secrets or proprietary information. We have done something similar under the Special 301 process for intellectual property rights infringements in foreign countries. Specifically, our legislation requires the DNI to publish an annual report listing foreign countries that engage in, facilitate, support or tolerate economic and industrial espionage targeting U.S. trade secrets or proprietary information through cyberspace. That report would identify: A watch list of foreign countries that engage in economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace with respect to trade secrets or proprietary information owned by United States persons; it would identify a priority watch list of foreign countries that are the most egregious offenders; U.S. technologies targeted for economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace and U.S. technologies that have been stolen, to the extent that is known; articles manufactured or produced or services provided, without permission from the rights holder, using such stolen technologies or proprietary information; foreign companies, including state owned enterprises, that benefit from stolen technologies or proprietary information; details of the economic or industrial espionage engaged in by foreign countries; and actions taken by DNI and other Federal agencies and progress made to decrease foreign economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace against United States persons. Creating a ``name and shame'' list, as this report would do, will shine a spotlight on those who are stealing U.S. technologies. But we need more than a report, we need action. Our bill provides for more than a report. In order to enforce compliance with laws protecting U.S. patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property and protection of the Department of Defense supply chain, our legislation requires the President to block imports of products if they: contain stolen U.S. technology or proprietary information, or are produced by a state-owned enterprise of a country on the priority watch list and are the same as or similar to products made using the stolen or targeted U.S. technology or proprietary information identified in the report, or are made by a company identified in the report as having benefitted from the stolen U.S. technology or proprietary information. Blocking imports of products that either incorporate intellectual property stolen from U.S. companies or are from companies otherwise that benefit from cyber theft will send the message that we have had enough. If foreign governments--like the Chinese government--want to continue to deny their involvement in cyber theft despite the proof, that's one thing. We can't stop the denials on the face of facts. But we aren't without remedies. We can prevent the companies that benefit from the theft--including State-owned companies from getting away with the benefits of that theft. Maybe once they understand that complicity will cost them access to the U.S. market, they will press their governments to stop or refuse to benefit at least. We will hit them where it hurts with this legislation and we aim to get results. We have stood by for far too long while our intellectual property and proprietary information is plundered in cyberspace and in turn used to undercut the very companies that developed it. It is now time to act. Our legislation will give our Government powerful tools to fight back against these crimes and protect the investments and property of U.S. companies and institutions. I urge my colleagues to work to enact this very important legislation as quickly as possible. We have no time to lose. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Marketplace Fairness Act is designed to address a simple problem--a significant loss in States' sales tax revenues arising from e-commerce. Generally, retail businesses are required to collect and remit sales and use taxes on qualifying merchandise or services. While most States require consumers to remit use taxes for purchases from out-of-State vendors, compliance is extraordinarily low as States cannot legally mandate the collection and remittance of taxes by a business unless the business has a physical presence in the State. This restriction, which was articulated in the 1992 Supreme Court case, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, went so far as to invite Congress to address the issue. It is time we do that. In an era of unprecedented e-commerce, Congress's failure so far to address this problem unfairly deprives State treasuries of much-needed tax revenue because Internet-based retailers are not required to charge sales tax to their out-of-State customers. As you might imagine, a large number of State governments have asked for this legislation to fix that problem, including the current Republican Governor of Michigan. In fact, Michigan governors of both political parties have asked Congress to pass this important piece of legislation, and I agree with them. The Governor of Michigan says that passing this law will help the State of Michigan collect more than $800 million over the next 2 years. Those are revenues that the State desperately needs. I also think it's important to keep in mind some of the things this bill doesn't do. This bill does not authorize the States to create State-level financial transaction taxes, as some have erroneously argued. In fact, the Marketplace Fairness Act does not create, endorse, or recommend new Federal, State or local taxes of any kind. This bill gives States the option of pursuing collection authority by simplifying their tax structure, but States can also choose to do nothing differently than they do today. The Marketplace Fairness Act is about more equitably collecting taxes that are already owed. Over the past decade, many States have worked together to develop a framework to harmonize sales and use tax collection and remittance, known as the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Michigan is 1 of the 24 States that currently participate in that agreement. But, in order for the agreement to be legally enforceable, Congress would need to enact legislation granting States the authority to require out-of- State merchants to remit sales and use taxes. This bill would do that. I support this effort to simplify and improve sales tax collection, and I am a cosponsor of this bill. This bill will level the playing field between on-line retailers and those with ``brick and mortar'' stores, ensuring that we do not give an unfair tax advantage to one type of retailer over another. This is about ensuring that our States have the ability to collect the taxes they need to fund schools, and law enforcement, and other key priorities. I will vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 98 years ago today, the Ottoman Empire in Turkey launched one of the most horrific episodes in human history. The detention and eventual execution of hundreds of members of Turkey's ethnic Armenian minority launched a genocidal campaign of deportation and starvation in which more than 1.5 million people ultimately perished. We mark Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, first, because those who perished deserve to be remembered, but we also do so as a reminder: a reminder of the horrible violence that ethnic hatred can inflame; a reminder that too often, governments have employed those hatreds and passions; and a reminder that the world's silence in the face of one such episode of atrocity can embolden others who would seek to emulate it. It is often noted that Adolph Hitler, in justifying his invasion of Poland in 1939, told his commanders: ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' Silence in the face of governments that abuse and oppress their people simply enables the perpetrators of violence and injustice. I join the many members of the Armenian-American community and Armenians around the world in the hope that the Government of the Republic of Turkey which we should remember played no role in the Armenian genocide can work together with the Government of Armenia to heal the divisions that remain nearly a century after this dark episode. That should include an honest and forthright dialogue about the nature of the events and the impact that it has had which is still with us today. Already, the governments of these two nations have negotiated an agreement to open the border between them, an agreement that includes a pledge to establish an independent commission of historians to review and come to a common understanding of the events of a century ago. I am hopeful that this agreement can be ratified and implemented. It is also worth remembering that Turkey, a vital U.S. ally, is playing an enormously important role in confronting a more recent atrocity: the death of thousands of Syrian civilians at the hands of a dictatorial government seeking to hold on to power at any cost. More than 75,000 Syrians have died in this strife, and more than 1 million of them are refugees. Many of those refugees have sought shelter in Turkey. I have joined with Senator McCain and others in calling for our government to explore additional ways of supporting the Syrian people and of supporting the efforts of Turkey and other nations to protect Syria's people. That call is motivated, in part, by the memory of historic episodes in which the community of nations has failed to act when confronted by such evil. Our remembrance of the Armenian genocide makes it incumbent upon us to bear witness to this and other modern atrocities against human and civil rights. By our refusal to remain silent in the face of today's violence and injustice, we honor the victims of the Armenian genocide and other atrocities against decency and humanity.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in my hometown and in cities and towns across this country, houses of worship and the men and women who lead them care for the spiritual needs of our people. But they do more. They are pillars of neighborhoods. They minister to the sick in body or spirit. They feed the hungry. They help resolve the lamentable but all- too-human divisions in our communities. This has been the role of Corinthian Baptist Church in Hamtramck, MI, and its pastor, the Rev. Dr. Joseph R. Jordan, who will in a few days be honored for leadership and community spirit. Under Pastor Jordan's leadership, Corinthian Baptist has been a rock for its community. Pastor Jordan is a thoughtful and respected shepherd of his flock. He and the church are actively engaged in community service, helping to fight hunger and sickness in Hamtramck and Detroit. His service and leadership include serving on the board of trustees of Henry Ford Health System, one of the Nation's largest medical service providers. Pastor Jordan has been a tireless seeker of justice. Nothing exemplifies this better than his long years of work and advocacy to help resolve a housing discrimination case that dates back to the 1960s, the resolution of which has taken decades. Pastor Jordan and others never gave up on their community or on the idea of justice, and thanks to the hard work of many, and despite significant challenges, the case has been resolved. I should note that I am among the many who have benefitted from Pastor Jordan's wisdom and leadership. Over the years, I have valued his friendship and his counsel. And so I am pleased that the city of Hamtramck will, on April 28, rename a section of Caniff Street, including the block on which Corinthian Baptist sits. It will be known as Rev. Dr. Joseph R. Jordan Street. I join Pastor Jordan's many friends in congratulating him for this honor, and I personally thank him for his decades of service to his church and his community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wish to add my voice to those who have called on this floor for actions that address the epidemic of gun violence in America. I strongly favor passage of legislation to address the loopholes that have allowed too many violent individuals to circumvent the background checks designed to keep them from committing horrific acts. I support the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein to add to that legislation a ban on new military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. In May of 1999, I spoke to the Economic Club of Detroit in the aftermath of the Columbine shootings. I was surrounded by educators, clergy, law enforcement officials, and businesspeople who had dedicated their lives to protecting young people from an epidemic of gun violence in our city. I asked, ``Are we willing to say enough is enough?'' That was 14 years ago next month. Since then, I have placed hundreds of speeches on this issue in the Congressional Record. After all that time and all those speeches, the question remains: ``Are we willing to say enough is enough?'' After Columbine, after Aurora, after Newtown, after the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent people, many of them children, can we now say enough is enough? This is what the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence says on this topic: Assault weapons were designed for the battlefield and have no place in our communities. These weapons were developed to enable a shooter to rapidly spray-fire multiple rounds at an enemy in combat, not to gun down small children, moviegoers, firefighters--or the law enforcement officers protecting them. This coalition includes the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. These groups--each of them dedicated to the safety of our people--tell us that the threat these weapons present to public safety, indeed, to the safety of those who keep us safe--is too great for us to allow it to continue. Even in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings and other horrific tragedies, some have argued that the problem with our society is not too much weaponry but too little. What these folks want, essentially, is to send Americans into combat. This is particularly true of these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which are specifically designed for military combat. Now, our local and State police forces spend billions of dollars every year providing countless hours of training to law enforcement officers on how to react in a situation where they might have to fire their weapon. The U.S. Marine Corps sends its recruits through a 59-day course before they are considered ready for combat, and those marines train relentlessly to keep their combat skills sharp. Yet, as any experienced police officer or marine or soldier will tell you, for all their training and skill, combat is chaotic. Telling friend from foe is never easy. And now some voices call for bringing that same level of combat to our streets and schools. We can no longer be frozen into passivity. We must instead respond to the majority of Americans who support a Federal assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. Their voices and the voices of anguished families and of deeply concerned law enforcement officials should carry the day. We should heed those voices, support the Feinstein amendment and the underlying bill, and finally take action against this plague of violence. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 714

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, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Steve Strobridge, USAF, Retired, in recognition of his distinguished service to his country. For nearly 44 years, first for 24 years in the Air Force, and concluding with 19 years with the Military Officers Association of America, Colonel Strobridge has worked tirelessly for the men and women of the military, their families, veterans and their survivors. Raised in Vergennes, VT, Colonel Strobridge entered the United States Air Force in 1969 as a second lieutenant following graduation from ROTC at Syracuse University. After several assignments as a personnel officer and commander in Texas, Thailand, and North Carolina, he was assigned to the Pentagon from 1977 to 1981 as a compensation and legislation analyst at Headquarters USAF. Following assignments as Chief, Officer Assignments and Assistant for Senior Officer Management at HQ, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, he was selected to attend the National War College at Fort McNair in 1985. Colonel Strobridge served as Deputy Director and then as Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1986-1989. In this position, he was responsible for establishing Department of Defense policy on military personnel promotions, utilization, retention, separation, and retirement. In June 1989, he returned to Headquarters USAF as Chief of the Entitlements Division, assuming responsibility for Air Force policy on all matters involving pay and entitlements, including military retirement system and survivor benefits, and all legislative matters affecting active and retired military members and their families. Following his retirement from the Air Force in January 1994, Colonel Strobridge joined the Retired Officers Association of America and served as Deputy Director and since 2001 he has served as Director of Government Relations for the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA. Under Colonel Strobridge's professional stewardship, MOAA has played a vital role as a principal advocate of legislative initiatives to improve readiness and the quality of life for all members of the uniformed service community--active, reserve, and retired, as well as their families. Defense News noted recently that ``no major [military] personnel- related legislation has been enacted since 1994 without Colonel Strobridge's imprint.'' Colonel Strobridge has worked closely with, and has been a valuable resource for, the U.S. Senate and the Senate Armed Services Committee in particular as we enacted a wide range of benefit improvements for our military personnel. He provided input or support for legislative proposals on a wide range of issues, including TRICARE for Life; the elimination of VA disability pay offsets to military retired pay for many retirees; restoration of full cost of living adjustments to retired pay; elimination of the offset to survivor annuities by Social Security payments; TRICARE benefits for reserve families; and many other initiatives that have been invaluable in improving the long-term retention in our Armed Forces. Colonel Strobridge's long and distinguished career of leadership and personal dedication to fostering readiness by protecting every servicemember's welfare is an inspiration and a continuing lesson to all who care about the men and women of our military. My best wishes go with him and his family. Colonel Strobridge, on the occasion of your retirement as Director of Government Relations for the Military Officers Association of America, I salute you on behalf of all the men and women, past and present, who wear the uniform.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last month a group of 26 cyclists set off on a 3-day, 400 mile journey from Newtown, CT, to the steps of our Nation's Capitol. They began their ride with a stop at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a place that should be synonymous with childhood, innocence, and learning. Instead, for now, it reminds us of tragedy. The cyclists left Newtown that morning to bring Washington a simple message: It is time for Congress to finally take steps to stop gun violence. These riders were not special interest groups or highly paid lobbyists. They were everyday people--teachers, police officers, librarians, healthcare professionals. People like Heather Peck, a school psychologist and mother of two from Newtown, who wrote that she was riding ``for those beautiful smiling faces that I see coming down the hallway each day and their right to feel safe and secure at school.'' Like Gary Lyke of Brookfield, CT, a Vietnam veteran who wrote that he was riding ``in the hope I can help encourage our leaders to join in creating meaningful, common sense laws making it safe for children to grow and inherit the freedoms I and other veterans served for.'' Like Officer Jeff Silver of the Newtown Department of Police Services, who wrote simply, ``I ride for commonsense gun control laws.'' But sadly, in a Nation where polls have shown that a majority of Americans support background checks for all gun sales, the status quo defies common sense. Around our country today, anyone, including convicted felons or domestic abusers or the mentally ill, can go to a gun show and purchase a firearm without having to pass any sort of background check. Studies have estimated that 40 percent of U.S. gun sales are conducted by unlicensed sellers without background checks. In 2012, an estimated 6.6 million guns were sold in this way, no questions asked. Likewise, in a Nation where studies have shown that mass shootings involving assault weapons result in an average of 14.8 people shot. It is startling that almost anyone can walk into a shop or gun show and purchase the same type of military-style assault rifle that was used at Sandy Hook Elementary that horrible day. This includes suspected terrorists, because nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. Polls have shown that 63 percent of Americans support a ban on the assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that lead to such horrific crimes. Legislation has already been introduced into the Senate that, if enacted, would make our society and our schools safer. For example, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. This bill would close the `terror gap' in Federal law by denying the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. I am also a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which would stop the flood of military-style assault weapons into our society. We should listen to the Sandy Hook riders and take action. We should listen to our law enforcement communities, who have implored us to ban the military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines which can so easily escalate confrontation into murder and a killing of one or two people into a massive slaughter. No law can prevent all tragedies, but these bills could help prevent some. They could help stop another quiet elementary school from falling victim to a Sandy Hook tragedy. They could help save the lives of children. That is more than enough reason to act. I urge my colleagues to swiftly take up and pass these measures.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. Amendment No. 144

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

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 222

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

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 340

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