Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I have long supported an increase in the minimum wage. I am pleased that, with the leadership of the new majority in Congress, this minimum wage increase will be passed by a bipartisan majority. In 1996 Congress raised the minimum wage by 90 cents an hour in two steps to $5.15 an hour. That increase was enacted more than 10 years ago. Since then, the real value of that wage has eroded by 21 percent and the nearly 5.5 million workers earning the minimum wage have already lost all of the gains from the 1996-1997 increase. Since then, Gallup polls have shown that 86 percent of small business owners do not think that the minimum wage affects their business, and nearly half of small business owners think that the minimum wage should be increased. Since then, 29 States, including Michigan, as well as the District of Columbia have recognized the importance of keeping our working families out of poverty by increasing State minimum wages. Unfortunately, since the 1970s, poverty has increased by 50 percent among full-time, year-round workers. Currently, 37 million Americans, including 13 million children, live in poverty. As the most prosperous nation in the world, our minimum wage should be a living wage, and it is not. When a father or mother works full time, 40 hours a week, year- round, they should be able to lift their family out of poverty. A full- time minimum wage laborer working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks earns $10,700 per year--more than $6,000 below the Federal poverty guidelines for a family of three. I believe that a full-time minimum wage job should provide a minimum standard of living in addition to giving workers the dignity that comes with a paycheck. These lower paid workers, many of whom have entered the workforce due to the welfare reform, should be rewarded for entering the workforce, not penalized by a poverty wage. A higher minimum wage has the potential to ensure that lower paid workers will be protected from falling into poverty and possibly back on the welfare rolls. The minimum wage increase during the recession in 1991 provided much needed income to poor people and helped to increase spending in the economy. 58 percent of the benefit of the 1996 increase went to families in the bottom 40 percent of income groups. Over one-third of the benefit went to the poorest families--those in the bottom 20 percent of income groups. Today the real value of the minimum wage is $4.00 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be at least $9.37 an hour today, not $5.15. According to the United States Department of Labor, over 60 percent of minimum wage earners are women; almost 40 percent are minorities, and nearly 80 percent are adults. These hardworking Americans deserve a fair deal. In addition to the long overdue minimum wage provision, this bill contains a package of tax provisions. I am pleased that these include a number of measures to crack down on abusive tax dodges, including an improvement to current law to end the tax benefits received by companies that reincorporate and set up shell headquarters in offshore tax havens. I am also pleased that the bill extends the work opportunity tax credit, which allows employers credit against wages for hiring workers from targeted groups such as recipients of public assistance, qualified veterans, and ``high risk'' youth. I have heard from a number of Michigan companies that the WOTC program is important to them in their hiring members of these targeted groups, and I am pleased that this provision will be extended through the end of 2012. I am also pleased that the tax provisions would put in place a limit on the amount that corporate executives and other highly paid employees can place tax-free into deferred compensation plans. Under current law, public companies cannot deduct more than $1 million per year for compensation paid to their top officers. However, compensation that is ``deferred,'' meaning the employee doesn't have immediate access to it, is not subject to this $1 million limit; so deferred compensation packages have become a main way that company executives can get multi- million dollar compensation packages while their companies continue to take a tax write-off. We have seen these excessive packages time and again in recent stories about runaway executive compensation totaling tens of millions of dollars. Tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars have been salted away in this fashion for corporate executives, and companies have simply found another way to game the system by excluding this ``deferred compensation'' from those individuals' income for the year. It is more than time for Congress to put an end to this game which has fueled excessive executive pay. This bill would set a limit on the amount of compensation that could receive tax deferral at the lower of $1 million annually or the average of the previous 5 years compensation. The ability of corporate executives to defer tax on up to $1 million in compensation is still a significant benefit that stands in stark contrast to the minimum wage we are attempting to raise for those at the lowest end of the pay scale. It is only right that those who are at the low end of the pay scale who work hard should receive a fair wage and be able to support their families. These people do not always have the leverage to negotiate a fair salary. This bill to increase the minimum wage will help to move them to a more livable wage.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is growing awareness across the country that too little has been done to combat illegal gun trafficking. This awareness was validated by a report released last week by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence which revealed that some licensed gun dealers are complicit in aiding gun traffickers, yet remain largely untouched by the law. The report, ``Shady Dealings: Illegal Gun Trafficking from Licensed Gun Dealers,'' was released in Philadelphia, a city that is combating a sharp increase in gun violence. In 2002, the city reached a 17-year low in homicides with 288. However, since then, homicide rates have soared. Last year, the city suffered 406 homicides and is on track to exceed that total in 2007. The report documents over two dozen cases of illegal gun trafficking from dealers across the country. In each case, gunrunners were prosecuted; however, the dealers who supplied them received no legal sanctions. ``Shady Dealings'' documents several scenarios in which dealers turn a blind eye to clear indications of gunrunning. In-store straw purchases are transactions that violate Federal law in which one individual submits to the required Federal background check for a gun that is clearly intended for use by someone else. Multiple purchases of the same model gun by an individual should be an indication that the guns are not for personal use. Large volume sales of handguns should be a red flag to dealers. In one case, a gun dealer sold 87 pistols to a gun trafficker's straw buyer in a single transaction. Another red flag for trafficking should occur when a single buyer makes repeated purchases from a dealer. In one instance, a trafficker from Ohio made at least 19 visits to a particular gun shop, yet was never turned away. Dealer sales to traffickers at gun shows present special opportunities for trafficking. A single gun dealer in Georgia was recorded selling eight guns to one trafficker and 20 additional pistols to two other traffickers. Several of the weapons were recovered by the New York City police, and one of them was used to shoot a New York City police officer. Unfortunately, making life easier for gun traffickers presents the opportunity for financial reward with little to no consequence for gun dealers. Not one of the dealers profiled in the Brady Center report has been put out of business by the ATF or prosecuted for selling guns to convicted gun traffickers. As a result, the underground market for guns is fueled the diversion of massive numbers of guns from licensed gun dealers into the hands of criminals. Almost 60 percent of the guns traced to crime by the ATF originated from only about 1 percent of the Nation's gun dealers. Additionally, approximately 30 percent of the guns traced to crime were traced within 3 years of their retail sale. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass sensible gun legislation that will help prevent such egregious acts and help protect the welfare of our communities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN. It is just a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN. I was just going to ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. As I understand, the resolution has not yet been sent to the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Nebraska.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to have printed in the Record the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to express my support for the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army, for appointment to the grade of General and assignment as Commander, Multinational Force--Iraq. General Petraeus is presently serving as Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the Army's leader development, professional military education, doctrine development, and lessons learned center. This is the place where the Army focuses its attention and its greatest professional capabilities on developing leaders, on military education, on developing doctrine, and on learning the lessons from previous conflicts and challenges. As a matter of fact, the Army and Marine Corps' newly issued counterinsurgency manual was written under the command and guidance of General Petraeus at Leavenworth. General Petraeus had two previous tours of duty in Iraq. The first was in 2003 when he was Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division, which was headquartered in Mosul, Iraq. General Petraeus' second tour in Iraq was from May 2004 to September 2005, when he was Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command--Iraq/Commander, NATO Training Mission--Iraq. In that capacity, he was responsible for the organizing, training, and equipping of Iraqi security forces. General Petraeus' nomination to become the Commander of Multinational Forces--Iraq may be the single most important command in the Nation's defense establishment. The Nation will entrust him with the operational command and the welfare of over 130,000 American service members who are presently in Iraq, and of those who may be deployed to Baghdad as part of the President's planned increase in the middle of a protracted and bloody sectarian battle over the future of Iraq. General Petraeus is professionally qualified for this command. He is widely recognized for the depth and breadth of his education, training, and operational experience. Noteworthy is his recent leadership of the new Army/Marine Corps manual. He testified that he believes the new military strategy for Iraq will work, and that the U.S. military forces under his command will be able to successfully accomplish their mission. We would not want a commander who did not believe in his mission and in the troops under his command. I pray he is correct. I am obviously very concerned over a strategy that relies on the Iraqis meeting their commitments when they have repeatedly failed to do so in the past. I am obviously concerned about a strategy which is based on an increased military presence, when expert after expert, including military commander after military commander, has told us there is no military solution in Iraq; that the only way to end the violence in Iraq is for the Iraqis to reach a political settlement. I am deeply concerned that this new strategy, I believe, is based on the wrong assumption--that there is a military solution to a sectarian war--when in fact the only solution to a sectarian conflict is for those groups to finally share power, share resources, including resolving the differences over autonomy that can end the violence. That is not just me saying that; that is also what the Iraqi President has said repeatedly--that it is the Iraqi political leaders' failure to reach a political settlement that is the cause of the continuing violence. That being the case, I don't believe--and I don't think a majority of this body believes--that an increase in troops going into the middle of the neighborhoods of Baghdad and staying there--``holding,'' as we say--is going to contribute to a successful conclusion of our presence in Iraq. It is not going to help the Iraqis succeed, to put our troops in their neighborhoods in the middle of the sectarian strife. We are going to add targets without adding to the essential need of the Iraqis to face a reality--to stare at their options, to look into an abyss-- civil war or one nation? That has to be their choice. We cannot make it for them. We can make it easier or harder for them to do it. The question is whether adding troops into that sectarian cauldron is going to contribute to their reaching a political solution or indeed will delay the day, as some of our commanders have said, when they will reach a political settlement. As a matter of fact, General Casey, the current commander, emphasized this point on January 2: The longer we in the U.S. continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to make the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. General Abizaid said the following: It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do the work. Then he said this: I believe that more American forces prevents the Iraqis from doing more, from taking responsibility for their own future. That is what General Abizaid said in November. So those are the expressions of our top military commanders who are there now. I believe they are right. But we need a commander in Iraq. General Casey is retiring. The question is not whether we agree with a particular strategy--and we will have an opportunity, hopefully next week, to vote on whether we agree with the increase of the American military presence as a way of pressuring the Iraqis or taking the heat off of their political leaders to reach a political solution. We will debate that issue. But we need a commander. We have a qualified commander who has been nominated. There are other issues General Petraeus is going to have to face. General Keane, yesterday, pointed this out. We had a hearing in front of the Armed Services Committee yesterday. General Keane was there, along with former Secretary of Defense Perry and Ambassador Ross. General Keane pointed out yesterday that we have a significant problem which is going to face General Petraeus in Baghdad other than the violence, other than inserting American forces into neighborhoods and trying to hold them with American forces, with an American face, with an American uniform. That is a big enough problem. But the command arrangements are such that U.S. and Iraqi forces are going to be operating side by side in those neighborhoods under two separate chains of command, violating the unity of command principle that is so ingrained in U.S. military doctrine and, indeed, is one of the key principles in that counterinsurgency manual which General Petraeus helped to create. He must have unity at the command. They must agree down there on those streets: Yes or no, are we going into that house or not? Now, who goes into that house is a critically important issue. Many of us don't believe it ought to be an American tip of the spear; that the Iraqi forces have been trained, 150,000 or more, to protect their country, and they should be the tip of the spear. That is one issue. There is a great dispute over that issue. That goes to the heart of the matter as to whether more American troops are going to help solve this problem. But it complicates the problem, it exacerbates the problem when you have two commanders on the ground side by side who have two different chains of command who may have two different opinions as to who ought to go into that house or whether that house ought to be entered. That has not been resolved. That is what General Petraeus is also going to have to face. General Keane, who is former Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, just yesterday expressed his strong concern about the command arrangements but said he was confident that General Petraeus had the ability to revise the arrangements so that there could be a unity of command. I hope he is right. It may be a superhuman task. It may be an impossible task. It is not a task which ought to face a commander. These issues ought to be worked out in advance of forces entering into combat situations. But they are not worked out. So General Petraeus has to figure that out as well as the major issues that he is going to face. Mr. President, did I yield myself a particular amount of time?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, during his testimony at his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus volunteered to provide honest, straightforward reports to the Congress on a regular basis in recognition of Congress's oversight responsibilities. We are counting on him doing so. He may even report to us over a TV network, but he made a commitment. He volunteered a commitment. This was not something we had to press him to do. He said: I am going to regularly report to Congress on whether this new strategy is working and whether these so-called benchmarks which the Iraqis have allegedly agreed to, representing their commitments-- when will they produce troops; will those troops, in fact, be subject to political pressure; will the Iraqis come through with the commitments relative to the financing of reconstruction? He is going to report to us on all the commitments which the Iraqis have made, all the benchmarks which are supposed to be met. I take him at his word. He is an honorable man, and that is an important representation, again, made at his initiative. I believe General Petraeus is highly qualified for his promotion to the grade of general and his assignment as our senior officer in Iraq at a very critical and dangerous time. That position needs to be filled. General Casey is retiring. I will vote for his nomination, and I urge our colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alabama will yield for one moment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to correct the record when I said General Casey was retiring. General Casey is being transferred to a different position and not retiring. I correct the record on that point. We still need General Petraeus to fill that position because of the shift in and the transfer of General Casey, but it is not a retirement. I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding so I could correct the record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, unless there is someone else who wants to speak, I have already spoken. I would ask, is the vote scheduled?

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the lobbying and ethics reform bill that the Senate has passed. In the early 1990s, I along with several colleagues, including Senator William Cohen, embarked on a journey to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reform. While we had been assured by colleagues that this was a monumental and perhaps impossible undertaking, we nonetheless forged ahead. Decade after decade, Congress had tried to close loopholes that had existed for almost 50 years, which kept lobbying activities in the dark. In 1995, we finally succeeded in passing the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Our bill, for the first time, opened up the world of lobbying, and the billions spent in it, to the light of day. That act required paid professional lobbyists to register and disclose whom they represent, how much they are paid, and the issues on which they are lobbying. As much as we knew that the Lobbying Disclosure Act was a real step forward, we knew that like all procedural reforms, it too would eventually need updating. Inevitably, lawyers and lobbyists would find loopholes and create new methods to dance around the law's intent. We have seen this dance prominently over the past few years. From super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's attempts to peddle influence, to Congressman Duke Cunningham's abuse of the appropriations process, it is obvious that the time to close these loopholes has come. The bill that the Senate just passed brings much needed reforms, many of which I sought in the original Lobbying Disclosure Act over a decade ago. It goes after not only the real problems that have arisen over the past few years, but as the perception of corruption that is sometimes the effect of too little disclosure and rules which are too weak. One of the most important reforms in S. 1 is a strict curb on gifts by lobbyists to Members of Congress. These are perks that have no place in Government. The new rules in this bill will eliminate these gifts. I am also pleased at the final outcome of the strong earmark reform provisions in this bill. Too many earmarks are added in the dead of night or buried in conference reports so dense that the average American has no idea where their tax dollars are going. The language can also be ambiguous to the point where we don't even know who is the intended beneficiary. This bill will require full and open disclosure of earmarks, which I hope will help to ensure the quality of the projects which are funded. Strong travel restrictions are also an essential component of this bill. The new rules will ensure that Members traveling on corporate jets would have to reimburse at the charter rate, not as is now the case merely at the level of a first class commercial ticket. While I applaud passage of these strong reforms, I believe we needed to go even further. One of the most important provisions in this bill is one that I worked on with Senator Lieberman, which would have finally closed the major loophole that exists under current law that allows lobbyists to conceal millions of dollars worth of expenditures spent in stimulating ``grassroots'' lobbying efforts, or what has been described as ``astroturf'' lobbying. Ten years ago, when we enacted the Lobbying Disclosure Act, it required paid lobbyists to disclose the amounts that they spend to try to influence Congress and the executive branch. However, under the LDA, lobbyists are not required to disclose how much they spend in efforts to persuade others to help them make their case. In the mid-1990s, the Wall Street Journal estimated that major lobbying firms spent almost half a billion dollars every year for this purpose. The amounts have undoubtedly grown substantially since then. Yet these amounts still go undisclosed on the lobbying disclosure forms filed by those firms. The disclosure provision in S. 1 was intended to close this loophole and require paid lobbyists to disclose all of their expenditures, instead of just some of them. This provision would have had no impact at all on citizens who contact their Government, regardless whether they decide to make those contacts on their own initiative or at the suggestion of others. It would have had no impact on religious organizations, unions, universities or other employers who suggest that their own members or employees contact the Government. It was aimed at paid lobbyists who spend large sums of money to persuade others to contact the Government in support of a lobbying campaign that they are conducting on behalf of a client. These paid lobbyists would have been required to disclose how much they are spending on such efforts. This disclosure, like lobbying disclosure in general, would have helped inform the public of pressures being brought to bear on their representatives by paid interests. Even though identical language was passed by Congress last year when we considered a lobbying reform bill, it was stripped from the final version of this legislation. I nonetheless look forward to examining this issue in the future and hope to work with Chairman Lieberman in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee this year to look for solutions to this loophole. I was pleased, however, that a provision I authored last year to require reporting by foreign lobbyists was included in the final passed bill. Foreign lobbyists file their disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registry Act. The forms are difficult to find and almost as hard to understand. My provision will require a publicly accessible, electronic database containing FARA disclosures in the same format that will be in place for registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. A number of scandals over the past few years have shown us that ethics and lobbying reform are vital. While this bill was not perfect, I believe it will go a long way to clean up corruption in Washington. This bipartisan effort in the Senate proves that we are up to the task of addressing corruption and perceived corruption in Congress. I am hopeful that the House will soon consider its own lobbying reform legislation and that we will have strong provisions signed into law. But signing this legislation into law cannot be the end of our efforts. The 12 years since the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act have shown the lengths to which some will go to find loopholes in the law to circumvent the reforms and undermine the safeguards that we have enacted. We must remain vigilant to protect the integrity of the legislative process in the coming years and be prepared, if necessary, to revisit the issue with future legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one effort that must not be overlooked in our fight to combat gun violence, is the work of local law enforcement agencies. Detroit's Joshua Project is but one example of the successful work law enforcement agencies are doing all across the country. The Joshua Project began in 2004 as a collaborative effort between multiple law enforcement agencies, to curb gun violence in Detroit's Southwestern 3rd Precinct. The Joshua Project, modeled after programs in several other cities including Boston, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis, institutes a zero tolerance policy when a gang member commits any type of gun violence. Any gang member's use of a gun results in strict and sustained law enforcement attention for everyone in the gang. The project also seeks to deter gun violence by increased monitoring of probationers and parolees through the use of unscheduled home visits and mandatory call- in meetings. So far over 2,000 former offenders have been called in and nearly 3,000 home checks have been conducted. These measures give law enforcement officials the opportunity to proactively intervene in a high-risk offender's life before another crime is committed. The implementation of the program relies on an innovative partnership between the Detroit Police Department, the Attorney General's Office and Michigan Department of Corrections, along with the assistance of the State courts. Community involvement also plays a critical role in offering both ideas and solutions within the Joshua Project. Community organizations provide assistance, support and counseling to offenders. Within the first 17 months after the Joshua Project was implemented, shootings in Detroit's 3rd precinct decreased almost 33 percent and gun related homicides dropped nearly 40 percent. As a result of this success, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Attorney General Mike Cox, and Governor Jennifer Granholm announced this past summer that the Joshua Project would be expanded to Detroit's 2nd precinct. Mayor Kilpatrick said of this expansion: We are most successful in our fight against crime when we maximize the strengths of our law enforcement partners throughout the country and state. Our partnership with the Attorney General has reduced gun violence and has saved lives in southwest Detroit. By expanding this program, we hope to build upon our current successes and make the neighborhoods of the second precinct as safe, if not safer, than we have in the third precinct. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all State and local law enforcement officials for their continued service and vital contributions in ensuring the safety of our communities. I am hopeful the 110th Congress will support their efforts by taking up and passing sensible gun safety legislation.

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 oppose the amendment offered by Senator Bennett which would strike the grassroots lobbying provision in S. 1. Several years ago, I, along with several colleagues, undertook the task of strengthening reporting requirements for lobbyists. This culminated in the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act which broke new ground by allowing sunlight into the activities of lobbyists in Washington. It finally required meaningful disclosure of the billions of dollars spent on lobbying Members of Congress. While great progress was made, there was a major loophole left open which needs to be closed. Under current law, lobbyists are permitted to exclude the cost of their efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying when they report under the LDA. We recognized this problem in 1996 but were not successful in efforts to address it. However, I continue to believe that lobbyists who engage in this so-called ``Astroturf'' lobbying should also be required to disclose their spending. The Wall Street Journal examined this issue when we last reviewed this and reported that an estimated $790 million was spent on this type of grassroots lobbying in a 2-year period alone. Accounting for the growth in the lobbying industry that we have seen over the last decade, this number is surely over a billion by now. What sort of activities does money spent on ``Astroturf'' lobbying efforts pay for? It is spent on phone banks, telephone patch-throughs to Members, and even professional campaign organizers who are paid to go to key congressional districts to organize letter-writing campaigns. These are coordinated efforts costing tens of thousands of dollars which on their face are part of professional lobbying efforts. I was pleased to work with Senator Lieberman last year to craft a provision during the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee's consideration of the lobbying bill that would close this loophole by requiring disclosure of ``paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'' It requires disclosure by paid lobbyists and lobbying firms who stimulate the grassroots to take action. We even went so far as to define pure grassroots lobbying and exclude it from this provision. The Lieberman-Levin provision that was included in S. 1 simply requires disclosure. This provision does not in any way ``restrain'' or ``regulate'' paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. All that it does is require paid lobbyists to disclose how much they are spending on their grassroots lobbying efforts. This disclosure would be no more burdensome than the disclosure already required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act for direct lobbying: Amounts spent for efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, like amounts spent on direct lobbying, would be disclosed only in the form of good-faith estimates, which would be rounded to the nearest $20,000. In addition, the provision, like the Lobbying Disclosure Act, recognizes that certain organizations are already required to track lobbying expenses, and grassroots lobbying expenses, for IRS purposes. The provision allows these organizations to use their IRS numbers for disclosure purposes, ensuring that they do not have to account twice by different rules. This section was carefully crafted to exclude certain activities that are not part of this Astroturf lobbying industry. Efforts by an organization to communicate with its own members, employees, officers, or shareholders are expressly excluded. Organizations that exist solely to lobby Congress but do not employ paid lobbyists do not have to report. Finally, any grassroots lobbying efforts targeted at less than 500 people do not have to be reported. I would also like to clarify just who is required to disclose as a lobbyist under this provision, as there seems to be confusion over this point. Paragraph (b) of section 220 clearly states that individuals who are not registered lobbyists now would not have to register as a lobbyist under this provision so long as their expenditures are only directed at grassroots lobbying. This provision is intended to shed light on the dollars being spent by lobbyists. It in no way affects individuals who want to call or write their Member of Congress. For the past decade, we have allowed lobbyists to exclude the cost of their organized grassroots lobbying campaigns, even while they are reporting their other lobbying expenses. It is time to put an end to this arbitrary exclusion because the public has a right to know who is paying how much to whom in an effort to influence our decisions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bennett amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Grand Valley State Lakers on winning the 2006 Division II National Championship. Grand Valley completed a highly entertaining and rewarding season on December 16, 2006, when they defeated Northwest Missouri State 17-14 in the championship game. This victory is a great source of pride for all those affiliated with Grand Valley State University and for the State of Michigan. It was a record breaking year on many fronts for the Grand Valley State Football team. This victory was the culmination of a perfect 15-0 season for the Lakers. Under the guidance of Coach Chuck Martin, Grand Valley State won their fourth Division II Championship in the last 5 years. During this time, the Lakers have become a powerhouse in Division II football and have a .709 winning percentage. Since 1999, they have an extraordinary 86-9 record, which is the second highest in all of college football. Moreover, quarterback Cullen Finnerty became the most prolific offensive player in college football history this year. In his 4-year career, Finnerty amassed a 51-4 record and led the Lakers to three national championships. As quarterback of the Lakers, Finnerty finished his career with over 10,000 total yards, including over 2,000 yards rushing. The championship game provided its share of excitement. The thousands of GVSU fans and supporters who made the trip from the campus in Allendale to the stadium in Florence, AL, were not disappointed with the result. It proved to be a hard fought contest between two great teams. Grand Valley State eventually forced three crucial turnovers in the game, which included a NW Missouri St. fumble in the Grand Valley end zone late in the fourth quarter. Junior cornerback Bill Brenchin made significant contributions on all three plays. Brenchin ended the game with two interceptions and recovered the fumble in the end zone as NW Missouri St. attempted to tie or win the game. Overall, the Grand Valley defense was too much for NW Missouri St. to overcome, and, the Laker offense, under Finnerty's direction had more than enough weapons to stifle the opposing defense. I am proud to recognize the Grand Valley State football team for their remarkable achievements on the field this year. They have proven that hard work, dedication and commitment can produce great results. The members of the team should be proud of their efforts and should savor their recent success. They have been a tremendous source of inspiration for both the Grand Valley State community and the entire State of Michigan. Each member of the Grand Valley State team, including Anthony Adams, Sam Allen, Matt Bakker, Lyle Banks, Brandon Barnes, Ryan Bass, Matt Beaty, Nate Beebe, P.J. Beuke, Chad Biggar, Scott Blasko, Cameron Bradfield, Bill Brechin, Drew Burton, Tory Buter, Samad Cain, Robert Carlisle, Brandon Carr, Tony Carr, Tony Carreri, Kirk Carruth, Todd Carter, Mark Catlin, Carlos Clark, Aaron Conti, Greg Copeland, Mendalson Covington, Anthony Crump, Joe Davis, Corey Edwards, Jeremy Ehinger, Billy Eisenhardt, Ian Evans, Eric Ewing, Gary Fant, Chris Favors, Cullen Finnerty, Matt Flutur, Dan Foster, Eric Fowler, Preston Garris, Ryan Gaydosh, Alex Gilde, Brennen Blass, John Godush, Maurice Gore, Mike Graham, D.D. Hardy, James Hardy, Brett Harris, Jacob Henige, Brett Hines, Drew Hinkle, Tyler Holtz, Nick Hopkins, Brad Hull, Brad Iciek, Jay Jandasek, Nate John, Blake Johncock, Derrick Jones, Sam Jones, Zach Jones, Lamar Keith, Mike Koster, Buster Larkins, Mike Leiffers, Astin Martin, John Matthews, Nick McDonald, Mike McFadden, Jacob McGuckin, Byron Miles, David Misiewicz, Terry Mitchell, Jaquon Morrison, Mike Mukuna, Frank Mulder, Jordan Munson, Doug Neumeyer, Courtney Partee, Denny Pittman, Justin Pollock, Danny Richard, Chad Richardson, Sean Roland, Matt Russell, Brandon Ryan, Mike Scherpenberg, Felix Sharpe, Dan Skuta, Blake Smolen, Chad Somerville, Derek Stansbery, Bretty Stengele, Sean Stevens, Alex Szarenski, Joey Teague, Bryan Thomas, Tony Thompson, Jacob Topp, Lance Travis, Antoine Trent, Justin Trumble, Justin Ulberg, Justin Victor, Matt Wade, John Wasmund, Collin Williams, Justin Winsor, Joe Wohlscheid, and James Wojiechowski, made meaningful contributions to the success of the football team and proved once again the strength of teamwork and commitment. I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in congratulating Coach Martin and the 2006 Grand Valley State Lakers on their Division II National Championship.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the primary objective of the bipartisan resolution my colleagues and I are introducing today is to convince a bipartisan majority of Senators to oppose deeper military involvement in Iraq by the United States and to get the Iraqis to reach a political settlement among themselves as the only way to end the violence in Iraq. The resolution would send a clear message that Congress does not support the plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq because it is based on the false premise that there is a military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions. Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged recently that ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.'' The resolution states that it is not in the national security interests of the United States to deepen our military involvement in Iraq by increasing the number of U.S. troops. The resolution calls for the transition of our military mission in Iraq to a more limited one of training, counterterrorism, and protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq. It also calls for greater engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. Last week the President said that he had made clear to Iraq's leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. I welcome these words. But the reality behind the President's new rhetoric is that the open-ended commitment continues--more American military men and women would be sent into the chaos of Iraq's sectarian violence without condition or limitation. President Bush also indicated that the Iraqi government needs ``breathing space'' to make political progress. The opposite is true. The Iraqi leaders don't need breathing space--they must feel real pressure to reach a political settlement. Increasing our military presence in Iraq takes more pressure off. The Iraq Study Group put it this way last month: ``An open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take the political actions that give Iraq its best chance of quelling sectarian violence.'' President Bush also said that the Iraqis have set benchmarks for themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi government in meeting some of its past benchmarks and promises: Iraqi President Talibani said in August 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge has not been kept. Prime Minister Maliki said last June that he would disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept. The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its recommendations for changes in the Constitution to the Council of Representatives within four months of the formation of the Government last May. The Commission has yet to formulate any recommendations. Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of the Provincial Election Law, the Petroleum Law, a new De-Baathification Law, and the Militia Law. Not one of these laws has been enacted. The Iraqi army pledged six battalions in support of American and Coalition efforts during Operation Forward Together last summer. In fact, Iraqis provided only two battalions. This is not a track record that inspires confidence in Iraqi pledges and commitments. The President said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' How did the President say we are going to do that? What will the consequences be if the Iraqis continue to fail to meet these benchmarks, particularly since some of them have been established and missed in the past? The President said ``If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people . . . '' That is an empty threat given the fact that the Iraqi Government has already lost the support of the American people, and it hasn't affected their behavior. The President's most recent plan, like previous ones, includes no mechanism to hold the Iraqis to their commitments. Just two months ago General Abizaid testified before our Committee against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He told us: ``I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.'' Deepening our involvement in Iraq would be a mistake. Deepening our involvement in Iraq on the assumption that the Iraqis will meet future benchmarks and commitments given their track record would compound the mistake. For America to supply more troops while the Iraqi leaders simply supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq. Telling the Iraqis that we will increase our troops to give them yet more breathing space will only postpone the day when Iraqis take their future into their own hands and decide whether they want to continue to fight a civil war or make peace among themselves. This resolution does not limit any future course of action that Congress may decide to take. What it would do is send a powerful message to the President and the Iraqis that Congress does not support an escalation of our military presence in Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the DeMint amendment as amended by the Durbin amendment. Last week, I voted to table the original DeMint amendment because it would have stricken earmark reform language in the Reid-McConnell bipartisan substitute and replaced it with provisions which contain, among other things, a definition of earmarked tax benefits which is weaker than the Reid-McConnell language. The DeMint amendment would have defined a tax benefit as an earmark only if it benefits 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This would have left open a loophole for earmarks which were aimed at benefiting very small groups of people, even as few as 11. It would have been relatively easy to circumvent the DeMint language and the intent of the tax earmark language in the bill. The Durbin second-degree amendment which has been adopted removes the limitation of ``10 or fewer beneficiaries'' from the DeMint amendment and defines a ``limited tax benefit'' as ``any revenue provision that provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries''. This is stronger language--a limited group can be far more than 10. The Durbin second-degree amendment also requires that the earmark disclosure information be placed on the internet in searchable format for at least 48 hours before consideration of the bills containing earmarks. The DeMint amendment did not previously have a similar provision. In summary, the Durbin language has improved this amendment which will now increase the transparency of earmarks contained in conference report language, as well as include disclosure of tax provisions that benefit limited groups of beneficiaries.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to table the DeMint amendment. This amendment would strike earmark reform language in the Reid- McConnell bipartisan substitute and replace it with provisions which contain, among other things, a definition of earmarked tax benefits which is weaker than the Reid-McConnell language. The DeMint amendment would define a tax benefit as an earmark only if it benefits 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This leaves open a loophole for earmarks aimed at benefitting very small groups of people, perhaps as few as 11 or 15 or 50 taxpayers. It would be relatively easy to circumvent the DeMint language and the intent of the tax earmark language in the bill. The bipartisan Reid-McConnell language, on the other hand, defines a tax benefit as an earmark if it ``has the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a limited group of taxpayers when compared with similarly situated taxpayers.'' This is stronger language--a limited group can be far more than 10. I am hopeful that this bill will come back from conference committee containing strong and effective earmark reform provisions from both the House and the Senate bills.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I am troubled by the potential questions raised by the employment of a family member on a campaign committee or leadership PAC, I will support the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Feinstein's motion to table the Vitter amendment No. 6 because it deals primarily with campaign finance reforms and because Senator Feinstein has assured me, personally, that the Rules Committee will hold hearings on this specific issue as a part of comprehensively addressing campaign finance reform later this year.