Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Cardin be recognized for 5 minutes and then Senator Kennedy be recognized immediately after the remarks by the Senator from Maryland.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, on this side, the order then be Senator Dodd, Senator Brown, and Senator Dorgan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after Senator Dodd is recognized, we had previously indicated that Senator Brown and then Senator Dorgan would be recognized. We are trying to see whether it might be possible to substitute Senator Kerry for Senator Brown, leaving Senator Dorgan in the same position. We are trying to determine that right now. For the time being, it will be Senator Dodd, then Senator Brown or Senator Kerry, and then Senator Dorgan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I support the Improving America's Security Act of 2007 because it takes a giant step in implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Keeping America safe requires more than expensive weapons and war funding; it also requires a commitment to homeland security. This legislation shows that commitment. We learned on September 11 and during Hurricane Katrina how important it is for our first responders to be able to communicate with each other. 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. I am also pleased that this legislation moves us closer to the equitable distribution of homeland security grant funding. For 5 years, the largest homeland security grant programs have distributed funds using a formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of funds to be divided equally among the States, regardless of size or need. The current ``small State formula'' has severely disadvantaged States such as Michigan with high populations. In addition, it reduces the amount of funding that can be allocated to States with highest risks. Although I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass two amendments that I supported that would have lowered the minimum funding level even further, the .45 percent minimum in the underlying bill is an improvement from the current .75 percent base funding amount. The legislation also includes language that I authored that directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish international border community interoperable communications demonstration projects on the northern and southern borders to improve collaboration and help identify common frequencies for cross border communications. These interoperable communications 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 by identifying common international cross-border frequencies for communications equipment; fostering the standardization of interoperable communications equipment; identifying solutions that will expeditiously facilitate communications interoperability across national borders; ensuring that emergency response providers can communicate with one another and the public at disaster sites or in the event of a terrorist attack or other catastrophic event; and providing training and equipment for relevant personnel to enable those units to deal with threats and contingencies in a variety of environments. Also included in the legislation is language that I authored that will require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, before publishing the final rule. The WHTI will require individuals from the United States, Canada, and Mexico to present a passport or other document proving citizenship before entering the United States. Although we all share the goals of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to make our borders as secure as they can be, we need to make sure that we are achieving that goal in a way that will not cause economic harm to our States. I am also pleased that language was included in the bill that I worked with Senator Coleman on to require the Department of Homeland Security to sign a memorandum of understanding with one or more States to conduct a pilot project to see whether secure driver's licenses could be used as a form of documentation for travel between the U.S. and Canada under the WHTI. The amendment also provides that DHS must evaluate the pilot project and map out next steps, including an expansion if appropriate. This legislation also takes important steps to shore up rail, transit and cargo security in the United States. The legislation establishes a grant fund for system wide Amtrak security improvements and much needed infrastructure upgrades as well as authorizes an existing grant program for improving intercity bus and bus terminal security. 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 authorizes studies to find ways to improve passenger and baggage security screening on passenger rail service between the U.S. and Canada. The bill will hopefully move us closer to addressing something I have been trying to get implemented at our northern car and truck border crossings for years: establishing a preclearance system. The study is required to identify what exactly is needed to perform prescreening of rail passengers on the northern border. I am pleased that the Senate retained language that will require that TSA screeners finally come under an unambiguous personnel system. A further amendment that I supported will finally give Transportation Security Administration screeners the whistleblower protections afforded to most other Federal workers, including law enforcement officers. It also gives them the right to appeal suspensions and to collectively bargain, just like their counterparts in the Border Control, FEMA and the Capitol Police. The bill also requires studies on how to improve the safety of transporting radioactive and hazardous materials and shipments of explosives and radioactive materials on our highways. I am pleased that this legislation requires the screening of all cargo carried on passenger airplanes within 3 years. The intelligence failures before the Iraq war were, to a significant degree, the result of the CIA shaping intelligence to support administration policy. The CIA's errors were all in one direction, making the Iraqi threat clearer, sharper and more imminent, thereby promoting the decision to remove Saddam from power. Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped. ``Slam dunk'' was the assessment. Among the most important things we can do to keep this from happening again is to strengthen congressional oversight to ensure that intelligence community assessments are objective and uninfluenced by the policy judgments of whatever administration is in power. The 9/11 Commission agreed, stating in its report that ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' Section 1102 of S. 4 bill is directed at that goal. Too often Congress is stonewalled or slow-walked by the executive branch in accessing intelligence information necessary to make policy and conduct oversight of the intelligence community. Section 1102 of this bill adds a new section 508 to the National Security Act that will ensure Congress has access to intelligence information critical to do its job. Section 508 requires elements of the intelligence community to provide, upon request from congressional committees of jurisdiction, timely access to intelligence information. The requirement would apply unless the President certified that the requested documents were not being provided because the President was asserting a constitutional privilege. Requiring the intelligence community to respond to requests for information from the vice chairman and ranking member of the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, will encourage rigorous oversight regardless of which party controls the Congress. In addition to providing information in a timely manner, we expect the intelligence community to provide Congress its assessment of intelligence matters uninfluenced by the policy goals of the administration. However, an Office of Management and Budget--OMB-- memorandum directs executive branch agencies to clear, through OMB, legislative proposals, agency reports, and testimony on pending legislation. The memo also states that ``If agencies are asked by Congressional Committees to report or testify on pending legislation or wish to volunteer a report, similar clearance procedures are followed.'' Our intelligence agencies should not have to get permission from the OMB, or any other executive branch official to share their views with the Congress. Section 1102 of the bill adds a new section 508 (d) to the National Security Act that says no executive branch official can require the intelligence community to get permission to testify or to submit testimony, legislative recommendations or comments to the Congress. Section 508 (d) is based on authority that exists for numerous other executive branch agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the National Credit Union Administration. A CRS legal review of direct reporting requirements like the one created by section 508 (d) states that ``direct reporting provisions are well within the Congress's constitutional authority to inform itself in order to perform its legislative function which has been consistently acknowledged by Supreme Court decisions, and dates back to the early enactments of the First Congress in 1789.'' The CRS review calls Department of Justice objections to direct reporting requirements ``without substantial merit.'' Finally, 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 the Congress. And the Congress has a right to that information--even if it is classified. Section 1102 of the bill adds a new section 509 to the National Security Act making 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 believes that the information provides direct and specific evidence of a false or inaccurate statement to Congress contained in an intelligence assessment, report or estimate. Section 509 is substantively the same as section 225 of the Senate- passed version of the intelligence reform legislation. Section 225 was stripped from the intelligence reform bill in conference. Section 509 is also similar to a provision that passed the Senate twice previously. Once as part of the fiscal year 1998 Intelligence Authorization Act and once as a stand alone measure S. 1668, in the 105th Congress. S. 1668 passed the Senate 93-1. Section 509 is also consistent with congressional findings passed in the 105th Congress as part of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and incorporated by reference into the intelligence reform bill. Those findings state among other things that: Congress, as a co-equal branch of Government, is empowered by the Constitution to serve as a check on the executive branch; in that capacity, it has a ``need to know'' of allegations of wrongdoing within the executive branch, including allegations of wrongdoing in the Intelligence Community; . . . (N)o basis in law exists for requiring prior authorization of disclosures to the intelligence committees of Congress by employees of the executive branch of classified information about wrongdoing within the Intelligence Community . . . I am pleased that the Senate will soon pass this legislation, for the families and friends of those we lost on September 11, 2001, and for the safety and security of our Nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Medicare Doctors Who Cheat on Their Taxes and What Should Be Done About It.'' This is the fourth hearing to result from a three year investigation conducted by the Subcommittee into Federal contractors that provide goods or services to the Federal Government, but fail to pay their taxes. A 2004 hearing determined that 27,000 contractors with the Department of Defense had a tax debt totaling roughly $3 billion. A 2005 hearing determined that 33,000 contractors doing business with civilian Federal agencies had unpaid taxes totaling $3.3 billion. In addition to examining contractors for DOD and civilian agencies, the Subcommittee has examined similar misconduct by contractors for the General Services Administration (GSA). A Subcommittee hearing in March 2006 determined that 3,800 GSA contractors collectively owed $1.4 billion in unpaid taxes. The upcoming March 20th hearing will further explore the problem, focusing specifically on Medicare physicians and related suppliers that receive substantial income from the Federal Government but do not pay the taxes that they owe. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives from the Government Accountability Office, the Internal Revenue Service, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, as well as the Financial Management Service. A final witness list will be available on Friday, March 16, 2007. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise J. Bean, of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-3721. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the epidemic of gun violence is endangering many in our communities both large and small. Illegal guns are being used at an increasing rate to harm our children, our neighbors, and our police officers. We must not allow this spiral to continue. One example of a community heavily affected by gun violence is in Pennsylvania, where in 2004 the State led the Nation in homicide rates among African-American victims. Handguns were used in 81 percent of the State's murders. In Pennsylvania's largest city, Philadelphia, more than 2,000 people were injured by firearms last year alone. According to the Philadelphia police department, this represents an increase of 31 percent in just 3 years. Philadelphia saw 406 people murdered in 2006, up from 380 in 2005. Just a short trip south of Pennsylvania lies another example of the how guns are affecting our communities. According to the nonprofit organization Ceasefire Maryland, a crime is committed with an assault rifle every 48 hours in the State of Maryland. The Maryland State Legislature is attempting to address this horrifying statistic by considering a bill backed by Governor Martin O'Malley that would ban 45 different assault weapons statewide. This action could serve as an excellent example of a legislature taking a commonsense approach to reducing gun violence. Congress and President Bush have allowed the Federal assault weapons ban to expire. Month after month, we watch these tragedies unfold on the news and 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 loved ones go to school, church, or work. According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, gun crime rose 49.4 percent nationally between 2004 and 2005. Almost 5.9 million people were victims of gun violence between 1996 and 2005. The American people have a right to demand that their schools, places of worship, and other public places be better protected from gun violence. Much more can be done to break the cycle of gun violence that plagues our communities. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass commonsense legislation that will help address this problem.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to recognize Guardian Industries, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Guardian has been a leader in the glass, building, and automotive parts manufacturing industries and an important contributor to Michigan's economy for many years. Guardian Industries was established in 1932 as Guardian Glass Company. What began as a small windshield fabrication business in Detroit, MI, grew to become a large-scale operation with the opening of its first float glass assembly plant in 1970. Since then, Guardian has built or acquired numerous fabrication plants throughout the world and diversified its business through the purchase and development of new technologies and methods of production. Over the years, Guardian Industries has steadily grown to become one of the world's chief manufacturers of float glass and fabricated glass products and the world's largest producer of mirrors. Guardian has also become a major player in the building materials and distribution business and a leading supplier of exterior products to the automotive industry. During its 75 years of existence, Guardian Industries has made a significant contribution to Michigan's economy. With a global workforce of over 19,000 employees, including about 1,000 in southeast Michigan, Guardian has demonstrated its commitment to making Michigan's economy a leader in manufacturing and technological development. Guardian Industries also plays an important role in community improvement throughout southeastern Michigan. Through its awarding of scholarships to local students pursuing advanced degrees and its financial support of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Guardian has shown a commitment to strengthening the fiber of community in Michigan. I know my colleagues join me in commending the tremendous effort and hard work of the many employees of Guardian Industries over the years and wish them many more years of success and growth.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act'' with Senator George Voinovich and our co-sponsors. I also want to thank Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rahm Emanuel for introducing similar Great Lakes restoration legislation in the House today. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan, but to the Nation. Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market. While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.'' The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, seven people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than ten billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, over 1,850 beaches in the Great Lakes were closed. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60% of the forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, thus diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation. The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years, and, in 2005, 1,500 people through the Great Lakes region worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released in December 2005, and, today, I am introducing this legislation to implement many of those recommendations. This bill would reduce the threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the improvement, operation and maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would improve fish and wildlife habitat by providing additional resources to States and cities for water infrastructure. It would provide additional funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and would give the EPA additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase out mercury in products and to identify emerging contaminants. The bill would authorize the restoration and remediation of our waterfronts. It would authorize additional research through existing Federal programs as well as our non-federal research institutions. And it would authorize coordination of Federal programs. The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good stewards by ensuring that the Federal government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This legislation will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act'' with Senator George Voinovich and our co-sponsors. I also want to thank Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rahm Emanuel for introducing similar Great Lakes restoration legislation in the House today. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan, but to the Nation. Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market. While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.'' The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, seven people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than ten billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, over 1,850 beaches in the Great Lakes were closed. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60% of the forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, thus diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation. The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years, and, in 2005, 1,500 people through the Great Lakes region worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released in December 2005, and, today, I am introducing this legislation to implement many of those recommendations. This bill would reduce the threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the improvement, operation and maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would improve fish and wildlife habitat by providing additional resources to States and cities for water infrastructure. It would provide additional funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and would give the EPA additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase out mercury in products and to identify emerging contaminants. The bill would authorize the restoration and remediation of our waterfronts. It would authorize additional research through existing Federal programs as well as our non-federal research institutions. And it would authorize coordination of Federal programs. The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good stewards by ensuring that the Federal government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This legislation will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban which was enacted into law, and in March 2004, I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for another 10 years. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, and bipartisan support in the Senate, neither President Bush nor the Republican congressional leadership acted to help protect Americans from assault weapons. On September 13, 2004, the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. Today, law enforcement agencies across the country have been forced to upgrade their firepower in order to counter what they describe as an increasing presence of high-powered weapons on the streets. According to an article last week in USA Today, Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, revealed that an informal survey of approximately 20 police departments showed that since 2004, all of the agencies have been forced to either add weapons to their officers' units or replace existing weaponry with military-style arms. ``This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher- caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban,'' Knight explained. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the sale of 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. It also prohibited the sale of semiautomatic weapons that incorporated a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features included folding telescoping stocks, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. Ron Stucker, criminal investigations chief of the Orange County Sheriff's Department in Florida, stated that over the past 2 years his department has been arming many of its deputies with assault weapons. These deputies are now ``frequently'' encountering dangerous assault weapons even during routine traffic stops. In Houston, homicides rose 25 percent in 2006 over the previous year. Police Chief Harold Hurtt acknowledged the AK-47 assault rifle has become the ``weapon of choice'' for major drug dealers, warring gangs and immigrant smugglers. ``The reality on the street is that many of these weapons are readily available,'' according to Hurtt, whose department has also been consistently upgrading its weaponry with assault style arms. It is clear that allowing the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse has contributed to the dangerous and deadly consequences so many of us feared. Over the past 2 years criminals have been permitted easier access to weapons that simply have no place on our streets. I urge my colleagues to enact a commonsense ban on assault weapons.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I report that a victim of a hate crime in the city of Detroit died 10 days after the brutal incident. Andrew Anthos was an extraordinary citizen with a passion for community service. During the last 20 years, Mr. Anthos repeatedly traveled by bus from Detroit to Lansing with a singular purpose, to urge the Michigan capital's dome be illuminated in red, white and blue, to honor his country. Mr. Anthos wrote me last year to inform me of his efforts. As he put it, he wanted Michigan to be ``the first State to inaugurate this patriotic tribute to its loyal citizens.'' He had support from many in the State, and had hoped for dedication lighting during Michigan Week, which will occur in May of this year, when Michigan would celebrate its 170th anniversary as our 26th State. On the evening of February 13, 2007, Mr. Anthos was riding a bus home from the Detroit Public Library. A passenger on the bus yelled at him and asked if he was gay. The man then followed him off the bus, where Mr. Anthos was helping a wheelchair bound friend off of the bus. The assailant then struck Anthos in the back with a metal pipe, leaving him critically injured, lying in the snow. The man left, without any effort to rob Mr. Anthos. This clearly was a hate crime, where Anthos was targeted because of his sexual orientation. Mr. Anthos tragically was left paralyzed from the neck down, before he slipped into a 10-day coma. He passed away on February 23, 2007. His killer has yet to be found. Unfortunately, Andrew Anthos has not been the only victim of a hate crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's latest statistics tell us that over 8,800 individuals were the victim of a hate crime in 2005. 4,900 of these crimes were racially motivated, while 1,200 were based on sexual orientation. Many of these crimes resulted in death or serious bodily harm. No one should be targeted because of the color of their skin, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation. We have an obligation to make America a fully inclusive nation, a country that does not tolerate bias, discrimination or bigotry. Next week, as an original cosponsor, I will join Senators Kennedy and Smith in introducing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill will, for the first time, expand the definition of a hate crime to include gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. It will also allow the Federal Government to assist local law enforcement in investigation of hate crimes. We should condemn and act against the hate crimes that have plagued our Nation and have had such a devastating impact on Andrew Anthos, and thousands of others and their families. I hope the Senate will take swift action to enact the Kennedy-Smith bill. In addition, I hope that State governments will strengthen their own hate crime statutes to combat this growing trend. Andrew Anthos gave so much to our community, and it is essential that we give back to his memory by doing everything we can to reduce the incidence of these crimes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every day across our Nation, families, friends, and entire communities mourn the loss of fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Michigan has lost 130 heroes in the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan. One of the most powerful ways we can honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country is to fly the flag they fought under at half-staff. At times during the course of these wars, governors around the country have issued proclamations for State agencies and residents to lower our Nation's flag to honor fallen service members from their States. Many Federal agencies in those States comply with such proclamations, but some have not. To a family member, the effect can be that the Federal Government appears not to be paying the proper respect to their loved one. Today, I am introducing legislation that would prevent this situation by giving governors the explicit authority to order the Nation's flag lowered to half staff when a member of the Armed Forces from their State dies while serving on active duty. It would also require Federal agencies in that State to lower their flags consistent with a governors' proclamation. Congressman Bart Stupak is introducing identical legis1ation in the House of Representatives. One of my greatest honors as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to spend time with our troops, and they are as courageous, honorable, and capable a fighting force as the world has ever known. These men and women have made a commitment to protect our Nation. We need to make an equally strong commitment to honor them when they make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We owe our fallen soldiers, their families, and their communities a unified showing of respect.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every day across our Nation, families, friends, and entire communities mourn the loss of fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Michigan has lost 130 heroes in the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan. One of the most powerful ways we can honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country is to fly the flag they fought under at half-staff. At times during the course of these wars, governors around the country have issued proclamations for State agencies and residents to lower our Nation's flag to honor fallen service members from their States. Many Federal agencies in those States comply with such proclamations, but some have not. To a family member, the effect can be that the Federal Government appears not to be paying the proper respect to their loved one. Today, I am introducing legislation that would prevent this situation by giving governors the explicit authority to order the Nation's flag lowered to half staff when a member of the Armed Forces from their State dies while serving on active duty. It would also require Federal agencies in that State to lower their flags consistent with a governors' proclamation. Congressman Bart Stupak is introducing identical legis1ation in the House of Representatives. One of my greatest honors as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to spend time with our troops, and they are as courageous, honorable, and capable a fighting force as the world has ever known. These men and women have made a commitment to protect our Nation. We need to make an equally strong commitment to honor them when they make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We owe our fallen soldiers, their families, and their communities a unified showing of respect.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a Comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the Nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is that it takes a comprehensive approach toward the problem of aquatic invasive species rather than just focusing on species after they are established and a nuisance. The bill deals with the prevention of new introductions of species, the screening of live aquatic organisms imported into the country, the rapid response to new invasions before they become established, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill. More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and often wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes. In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for Congress back the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, more than 20 States are fighting to control them. They have traveled down the Mississippi River, then up the Arkansas River over to Oklahoma, and zebra mussels have been found out even in Nevada and California. From 1993 to 2003, rapidly multiplying zebra mussels caused $3 billion in damage to the Great Lakes region. Industry and municipalities spend millions to keep water pipes from becoming clogged with zebra mussels. And that is just the economic impact that one species has caused. Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species was and still is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for ballast to maintain trim and stability. There are over 180 aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes. Some of the more notorious aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains. Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the Coast Guard recently turned the voluntary ballast water exchange reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water exchange program for all of our coasts. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only on-board ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water. Our bill addresses this problem by setting a ballast discharge standard. After 2011, all ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles will be required to use a ballast water treatment technology that meets the ballast technology standard. This standard is based on the standard proposed by the International Maritime Organization but is more protective of our waters by a factor of 100. The standard would ensure that ships discharge water that has less than 1 living organism that is greater than 50 micrometers per 10 cubic meters of water. If the Coast Guard determines in 2010 that technology is not available that can meet this standard, then the Coast Guard and EPA would establish a standard for ballast water management based on the best performance available that exceeds the international standard. Technology vendors and the maritime industry will know what standard they should be striving to achieve and when they will be expected to achieve it. I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched, and some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of technologies includes ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies has its own merits, and each has a different price tag attached to it. This bill will not overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology because the market for technology to meet a domestic and an international standard is evolving into a competitive market, and that competition will provide affordable technology. Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the best technology currently available is. There are other important provisions of the bill that also address prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to reduce those introductions. And this legislation, establishes a process to screen live organisms entering the country for the first time for non-research purposes. Organisms believed to be invasive would be imported based on conditions that prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Such a screening process might have prevented such species as the Snakehead, which has established itself in the Potomac River here in the DC area, from being imported. The third title of this bill addresses the early detection of new invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded, this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify threats and the tools to address those threats. Though invasive species threaten the entire nation's aquatic ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180 invasive species in the Great Lakes, and on average, a new species is introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause disruptions in the food chain which is now causing the decline of certain fish. Invasive species are believed to be the cause of a new dead zone in Lake Erie. And invasive species compete with native species for habitat. This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on- board and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species that was still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be introduced. By requiring that these ships immediately begin saltwater flushing so that freshwater species cannot survive in the saltwater being pumped through the ballast tank, this bill addresses a very serious issue in the Great Lakes. In 2012, these NOBOB ships, like all ships, will be required to install and use ballast technology. All in all, the bill would cost about $150 million each year if authorized funding were to be fully appropriated. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. The zebra mussel, which is just 1 of the 180 species that has invaded the Great Lakes, has caused $3 billion in economic damage over 10 years. Imagine what the cost of zebra mussels is to all of the states that are now dealing with them. Compared to the annual cost of zebra mussels and the hundreds of other aquatic invasive species, the cost of this bill is more than reasonable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a Comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the Nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is that it takes a comprehensive approach toward the problem of aquatic invasive species rather than just focusing on species after they are established and a nuisance. The bill deals with the prevention of new introductions of species, the screening of live aquatic organisms imported into the country, the rapid response to new invasions before they become established, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill. More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and often wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes. In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for Congress back the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, more than 20 States are fighting to control them. They have traveled down the Mississippi River, then up the Arkansas River over to Oklahoma, and zebra mussels have been found out even in Nevada and California. From 1993 to 2003, rapidly multiplying zebra mussels caused $3 billion in damage to the Great Lakes region. Industry and municipalities spend millions to keep water pipes from becoming clogged with zebra mussels. And that is just the economic impact that one species has caused. Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species was and still is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for ballast to maintain trim and stability. There are over 180 aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes. Some of the more notorious aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains. Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the Coast Guard recently turned the voluntary ballast water exchange reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water exchange program for all of our coasts. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only on-board ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water. Our bill addresses this problem by setting a ballast discharge standard. After 2011, all ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles will be required to use a ballast water treatment technology that meets the ballast technology standard. This standard is based on the standard proposed by the International Maritime Organization but is more protective of our waters by a factor of 100. The standard would ensure that ships discharge water that has less than 1 living organism that is greater than 50 micrometers per 10 cubic meters of water. If the Coast Guard determines in 2010 that technology is not available that can meet this standard, then the Coast Guard and EPA would establish a standard for ballast water management based on the best performance available that exceeds the international standard. Technology vendors and the maritime industry will know what standard they should be striving to achieve and when they will be expected to achieve it. I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched, and some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of technologies includes ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies has its own merits, and each has a different price tag attached to it. This bill will not overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology because the market for technology to meet a domestic and an international standard is evolving into a competitive market, and that competition will provide affordable technology. Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the best technology currently available is. There are other important provisions of the bill that also address prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to reduce those introductions. And this legislation, establishes a process to screen live organisms entering the country for the first time for non-research purposes. Organisms believed to be invasive would be imported based on conditions that prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Such a screening process might have prevented such species as the Snakehead, which has established itself in the Potomac River here in the DC area, from being imported. The third title of this bill addresses the early detection of new invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded, this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify threats and the tools to address those threats. Though invasive species threaten the entire nation's aquatic ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180 invasive species in the Great Lakes, and on average, a new species is introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause disruptions in the food chain which is now causing the decline of certain fish. Invasive species are believed to be the cause of a new dead zone in Lake Erie. And invasive species compete with native species for habitat. This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on- board and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species that was still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be introduced. By requiring that these ships immediately begin saltwater flushing so that freshwater species cannot survive in the saltwater being pumped through the ballast tank, this bill addresses a very serious issue in the Great Lakes. In 2012, these NOBOB ships, like all ships, will be required to install and use ballast technology. All in all, the bill would cost about $150 million each year if authorized funding were to be fully appropriated. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. The zebra mussel, which is just 1 of the 180 species that has invaded the Great Lakes, has caused $3 billion in economic damage over 10 years. Imagine what the cost of zebra mussels is to all of the states that are now dealing with them. Compared to the annual cost of zebra mussels and the hundreds of other aquatic invasive species, the cost of this bill is more than reasonable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig Thomas, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government. We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector companies from competing for a Federal contract. Under the law establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless whether a company in the private sector could provide the product better, cheaper, or faster. Six years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision a year later. In 2004, we took another important step, enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts awarded by all Federal agencies. Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports from Federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so hard for so long to establish. In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a Nation that prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services should be treated any differently than the sale of products. The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI must compete for its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which prison services may be sold into the private sector economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig Thomas, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government. We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector companies from competing for a Federal contract. Under the law establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless whether a company in the private sector could provide the product better, cheaper, or faster. Six years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision a year later. In 2004, we took another important step, enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts awarded by all Federal agencies. Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports from Federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so hard for so long to establish. In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a Nation that prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services should be treated any differently than the sale of products. The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI must compete for its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which prison services may be sold into the private sector economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Credit Card Practices: Fees, Interest Rates, and Grace Periods.'' It is the first of several subcommittee hearings that will examine a variety of credit card practices that raise concerns. This hearing will focus on how credit card issuers apply interest rates and fees to consumer accounts. It will examine, for example, how credit card issuers select and apply interest rates and, for consumers carrying a balance forward, eliminate grace periods for repaid debts. It will also analyze high fees charged for late payments, over-the-limit charges, and other matters, including how those fees are assessed, how they add to increase interest costs, and how they contribute to consumer debt. In addition, the hearing will examine an industry practice requiring consumer payments to be applied first to balances with the lowest interest rates instead of to balances with the highest interest rates. The hearing will draw, in part, from a September 2006 GAO report detailing the finance charges, fees, and disclosure practices associated with 28 popular credit cards. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives from the three largest credit card issuers, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup, as well as consumer witnesses. A final witness list will be available on Monday, March 5, 2007. The subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise J. Bean, of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-3721.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next three speakers in support of cloture be Senator Ben Nelson, then Senator Warner, and then myself.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, would this come out of the opposition's time?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have been bogged down in Iraq for nearly 4 years, which is longer than the Korean conflict or our involvement in World War II. The war has cost more than 3,100 American lives, seven times that many wounded, and about $400 billion. We desperately need to change course. Shifting responsibility to the Iraqi political leaders to reach a political settlement is the only hope of ending the violence. That is why the Iraq Study Group urged less U.S. military involvement as they concluded: An open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive that it needs to take the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an incentive, the Iraqi government might continue to delay taking those difficult actions. But instead of putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to settle their political differences as the only hope of a successful outcome in Iraq, the President would get us in deeper militarily. The Iraqis didn't ask for more U.S. troops to occupy their neighborhoods in Baghdad. Indeed, they suggested we move out of Baghdad. The idea for this so-called surge of American troops in Baghdad was ours. It may be called a surge, but I believe it is a plunge, a plunge into a sectarian caldron, a plunge into the unknown and perhaps the unknowable. Supporters of the surge argue that a Senate resolution disagreeing with the President's plan ``emboldens the enemy,'' but that is an extraordinarily naive view of the enemy. What emboldens the sectarian fighters is the inability of the Iraqi leaders to make political compromises so essential to finally reining in the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militias. The enemy cares little what Congress says. It is emboldened by what the Iraqi leaders don't do. The enemy isn't emboldened by congressional debate. It is emboldened by the open-ended occupation of a Muslim country by western troops. The enemy is emboldened by the current course which has seen a million Iraqis leave the country and become refugees, with thousands more leaving daily. The enemy is emboldened by years of blunders and bravado, false assumptions, wishful thinking, and ignorance of the history of the land being occupied. The enemy is emboldened by an administration which says it is changing course, which acknowledges that a political settlement by Iraqi leaders is essential to ending the violence but then plunges us more deeply militarily into a sectarian witch's brew. The only hope of ending the violence and succeeding against the enemies of an Iraqi nation is if the leaders of that nation work out their political differences and unite against forces that would destroy any chance of nationhood. That takes political will. That takes pressure from us. Sending more U.S. troops takes the pressure off. It sends the false message that we can save the Iraqis from themselves. Sending more troops does what our CENTCOM commander, John Abizaid, warned about when he said: It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do the work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. Does speaking out against the surge undermine our troops? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Peter Pace, firmly answered that argument just last week when he said the following: There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy--period . . . From the standpoint of our troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate. Just last week, Secretary Gates answered the charge that our debate hurts troop morale when he said these words: I think that our troops do understand that everybody involved in this debate is looking to do the right thing for our country and for our troops, and that everybody is looking for the best way to avoid an outcome that leaves Iraq in chaos. And I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's really about. I think they understand that that debate's being carried on by patriotic people who care about them and who care about their mission. We owe our troops everything: equipment, training, adequate rest, support of them and their family. We also owe them our honest assessment.