Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their commitment to continue the process and look forward to working with you and continuing the discussion on this issue. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the leaders of this bill know, aquatic nuisance species cause unwanted and potentially harmful environmental changes in the Nation's waters. Aquatic nuisance species are introduced through various pathways, with ballast water on ships being the most predominant. Having a strong program to address the challenges presented by new introductions, allow rapid response actions, screen imports of aquatic organisms, and conduct research in all of these areas is extremely important and something this Congress needs to address. In an attempt to develop a system to confront the challenges presented by these species, Senator Collins and I have sponsored comprehensive legislation to address this issue. While the Water Resources Development Act addresses protecting our Nation's waters, my colleague from Maine and I have decided not to address the need for comprehensive aquatic nuisance species legislation in this bill because the Environment and Public Works Committee leadership has committed to try to move a comprehensive bill forward this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I don't know if there is a fixed order for the minority. If not, I will yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. We stand at the threshold of a new era of medical discovery. We can already glimpse the dramatic lifegiving advances in regenerative medicine that lie ahead, but we remain mired down at this point with breakthroughs on the horizon but not within reach unless we change the President's policy on stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research could hold the key to curing diseases that no other research can cure. As best we know now, an embryonic stem cell is unique in nature. It and it alone can develop into any other type of cell in the body. An embryonic stem cell and an embryonic stem cell alone can become a nerve cell, a muscle cell, or any of the more than 200 types of cells in the body. The research into directing the creation and use of these cells may be extraordinarily difficult, but it is easy to understand how creating healthy cells could replace diseased cells and could save an untold number of lives. One example of the possibilities of stem cell research is the hope that it offers for those suffering from Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a motor system disorder that results from a loss of brain cells that produce dopamine. Individuals with Parkinson's disease often experience a trembling in the hands or arms or face and impaired balance and coordination. As the disease develops, it can become difficult to walk, talk, and complete other basic tasks. With research, scientists may be able to coax embryonic stem cells into becoming healthy neurons that produce the desperately needed dopamine. And if those neurons can be successfully transplanted into a patient with Parkinson's disease, that person could be cured. The list of other diseases ripe for stem cell research is long. Lou Gehrig's diseased is a progressive neuromuscular disease characterized by a degeneration of the nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord. Juvenile diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the pancreas, destroying insulin-producing cells. Alzheimer's disease is a form of dementia that afflicts the part of the brain that controls memory, language, and thought. Spinal cord injuries interrupt the sensory pathway between the brain and the rest of the body. Now, imagine if embryonic stem cell research could produce replacements for the nerve cells ravaged by Lou Gehrig's disease, for the insulin-producing cells destroyed by diabetes, for the brain cells washed away by Alzheimer's, for the neural pathways severed by spinal cord injuries. Stem cell research could offer the millions of Americans suffering from these and other diseases not just hopes but cures. It could give them and their families--who are often physically, financially, and emotionally exhausted--their lives back. Many technical hurdles stand in the way of that day. These discoveries will not be easy. But it is wrong to throw additional and unnecessary obstacles in front of our doctors, researchers, and scientists. That is precisely, however, what the President's policy has done. On August 21, 2001, President Bush issued an Executive order that the Federal Government would only fund embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines created before that date. ``Stem cell line'' is the name given to constantly dividing cells that continue to be derived from a single embryo. Most independent experts estimated at the time of the President's Executive order that only 80 stem cell lines, a totally inadequate amount, would be available for Federal research. Even worse, most of those 80 lines were determined to be polluted and unusable, leaving only about 20 stem cell lines actually available to scientists. That number is far too small to tap the vast potential of this research. The President did not question the legitimacy of the science being used in stem cell research but the ethics of using embryos, scientifically known as blastocysts, until implanted through in vitro fertilization. A blastocyst consists of around 150 cells, which is smaller than the point of a pin. While the blastocyst is destroyed during the process of extracting embryonic stem cells, the key fact is that any that are used for stem cell research would have been discarded and destroyed anyway. That is a fact that opponents refuse to deal with. These blastocysts are created by in vitro fertilization clinics and, for a variety of reasons, will not be used for implantation and will, therefore, eventually be discarded. Last month, the Detroit News editorialized against a Michigan law restricting embryonic stem cell research and used words that equally apply to the President's policy. The News wrote: The justification for this law is to protect human embryos, but the fact that fertility clinics can simply discard them means that the research ban is pointless. The logic of some embryonic stem cell research opponents is totally befuddling. They are apparently willing to ignore the discarding of the embryos by fertility clinics, but they label as morally objectionable the lifegiving use of embryos which would otherwise be discarded. I believe that embryonic stem cell research is truly a lifegiving, not a life-destroying, process because of the extraordinary potential for healing living, breathing human beings who have names and faces and loved ones. While the President is fighting against research in America, other countries are pressing ahead. America has always been at the forefront of scientific innovation, and we could do this research faster, more efficiently, and more ethically than most other countries. We also have an obligation to speed its potential benefits to the American people and to people around the world. The President's policy, however, has stifled private-public partnerships and has hindered our potential impact in this area. Today, other countries are poised to reap the lifegiving rewards of stem cell research while we fall further behind. Over a year ago, the House took a significant step toward overcoming Presidential opposition by passing the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, which would remove the President's arbitrary prohibition against using stem cells created after August 21, 2001. That is another fact that opponents refuse to deal with. The President's date of August 21, 2001, is breathtakingly illogical. How can the President argue that it is OK to use embryos created before that date for research, even though in his view it was the taking of a life but that after that date it is unethical to do so? H.R. 810 would pave the way for hundreds or thousands of additional stem lines to be made available. It is bipartisan legislation, and it passed overwhelmingly in the House. Shortly after the House made its strong statement in favor of exploring the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research, the Senate majority leader committed to bringing that bill up for floor consideration. Senator Frist understands how great the life-enhancing possibilities are, and he has chosen to side with his fellow physicians and with the future in supporting this research. This bill has the strong support of the American Medical Association, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Association of American Universities, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Parkinson's Action Network, and more than 200 additional organizations. More important, it has the overwhelming support of the American people. If the President vetoes this bill, I hope we will resoundingly override his veto. As part of the unanimous consent agreement to consider this legislation, we are considering two additional bills as well. The bill put forward by Senators Santorum and Specter would emphasize the use of adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells may have some potential, but they do not have the critically essential ability of the embryonic stem cell to become any other type of cell. Dr. Sean Morrison, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, and one of the top stem cell researchers in the country, wrote recently in the Detroit Free Press about another alternative to embryonic stem cells being touted, adult stem cells from umbilical cords. Dr. Morrison wrote: Umbilical cord cells are used clinically only to replace blood-forming cells. There is no compelling evidence that these cells could ever be used to replace cells in other tissues. These cells are not an alternative to embryonic stem cells, which can replace any cell type in the body. . . .That is why there is near universal agreement among respected scientists and patient advocacy groups that current restrictions [against embryonic stem cell research] should be relaxed. We may be on the cusp of one of the greatest miracles in the history of medicine. The door of possibility is ajar, inviting us to enter. But we cannot make these great strides if our researchers continue to be hampered by President Bush's overly restrictive policy. We owe it to everybody suffering from--or who may in the future be afflicted by-- these dread diseases to move boldly toward a brighter future. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, safe storage and child access prevention laws are crucial steps in the effort to reduce the occurrence of accidental shootings and suicides involving guns. Such tragedies have claimed the lives of thousands of young people and destroyed thousands of families, even though many of these occurrences could have been prevented by commonsense legislation. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the application of responsible gun storage measures can significantly reduce the risk of unintentional shooting or suicide by minors using a gun. According to the study, when ammunition in the home is locked up, the risk of such injuries is reduced by 61 percent. Simply storing ammunition separately from the gun reduces such occurrences by more than 50 percent. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which nearly 800 people die each year. Reducing the number of accidental shootings involving children and teenagers requires that commonsense gun storage measures be adopted. In 2005, Congress passed a law, which the President signed, requiring that all handguns sold by a dealer come with a child-safety lock. It was a clear bipartisan effort to protect the youth of this country from gun violence. Unfortunately, last month the House of Representatives adopted legislation to repeal effective enforcement of this requirement as part of its Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Senate has not yet considered its version of the appropriations bill. Sarah Brady, wife of Jim Brady, who was shot in the attempted assassination of President Reagan, responded to last month's vote by saying: In a nation where gun violence takes such an enormous toll, this vote is disturbingly backwards. Every year more than 30,000 Americans are killed by guns, including more than 2,800 young people. Every day, we lose a classroom of children to gun violence. So many health advocates, law enforcement officials, and others have urged Americans to more safely secure and store guns. But in the millions of American homes where children and firearms are present, 40 percent had at least one unlocked firearm. While the problems of youth suicide and accidental shooting clearly cannot be completely legislated away, trigger locks and other sensible gun safety measures can help limit access to firearms by children, and there can be no doubt that reducing access by our kids to firearms can save many lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support final passage of the Homeland Security Appropriations bill today because its funding is vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us. Further, it includes important provisions that I worked to have included. I am very pleased that the Senate passed both my amendment and Senator Stabenow's amendment on Canadian trash imports. My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to deny entry to the United States of any commercial trash truck until the Secretary certifies that the methodologies and technologies used to screen the trash for the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological and radiological weapons are as effective as those used to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering the U.S. The Department would first be given 90 days to assess the situation, and then another 180 days to implement changes to address the security concerns. If however, such changes are not identified, which I expect will be the case, municipal solid waste will not be allowed to come into the State of Michigan or elsewhere in our country. With thousands of trash trucks coming into Michigan from Canada each week, this provision is critical for addressing the risks this garbage poses to our country's security, public health, and the environment. Senator Stabenow's trash amendment also addresses the security risks from trash by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to levy a fee on the trash shipments, in an amount that would cover the cost of such insepctions. It would therefore make it more expensive for Ontario to send their trash to Michigan, protecting U.S. landfills from being filled with Canadian trash. With the help of my friends from West Virginia and New Hampshire, Senators Byrd and Gregg, the Senate accepted my amendment related to the establishment of the fifth and final Northern Border Air Wing in Detroit, MI. The Northern Border Air Wing, NBAW, initiative was launched by the Department of Homeland Security in 2004 to provide air and marine interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the Northern Border. Original plans called for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, Washington, North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan. The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been operational since 2004. Unfortunately, not all of the sites have yet been established, leaving large portions of our northern border unpatrolled from the air and, in the case of my home State, the water. In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS Appropriations bill, the conferees noted that these remaining gaps in our air patrol coverage of the northern border should be closed as quickly as possible. Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, and others who seek to enter our country illegally has not diminished, I believe approximately $12 million of the funds included in Senator Byrd's amendment for Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement which was adopted should be used by Customs and border protection to complete the remaining activities necessary to prepare, equip, and establish the Michigan NBAW site as Secretary Chertoff previously indicated he intends to do during fiscal year 2007. In an April 11, 2006 letter to me, Secretary Chertoff indicated that it was his department's plan to open the Michigan site during the 2007 fiscal year and the Byrd amendment will enable the department to stick to its schedule. Mr. President Secretary Chertoff's letter and enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy are printed in the Record at page S7405. Senator Baucus was also successful in his mission to press forward efforts to ensure that the northern Border is provided with proportionate resources as the southern border. His unmanned aerial vehicle pilot project will enabled the Customs and Border Patrol to perform a pilot project on the northern border between Canada and the United States. As the Senate knows, the northern border is nearly four times the length of the Southern border and it deserves an appropriate attention from the Department of Homeland Security. I am also pleased that this bill includes a provision offered by Senator Byrd that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to issue interim regulations for chemical facilities that pose the greatest security risk. There are over 15,000 chemical facilities in this country, and there still are no Federal laws that explicitly address the threat of terrorism activities at chemical plants. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism bill, S. 2145, which I cosponsored, and which was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June 2006, takes a much more comprehensive approach to this issue. However, because the Senate's Republican leadership is not allowing S. 2145 to come to the floor, I am pleased that Senator Byrd offered his amendment, which I supported, to address the very real risks posed by chemical facilities. While I am pleased that funding was increased for port security and border protection, I am disappointed that the Senate rejected amendments to provide additional funding for first responders. We cannot expect our first responders to be well-trained, properly equipped and fully staffed to protect us, if we cut their funding sources. I am hopeful that funding levels will be restored in conference. I am also disappointed that the Senate failed to move away from the current small State funding formula that is used to allocate funding for our first responder grant programs. I supported an amendment that would have allocated funding for the largest first responder funding programs based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability and consequences, and no State would have received less than .25 percent. This approach would have reduced the amount of funds allocated to States regardless of need and increased the funds available to be directed to states facing the greatest terrorist threats and greatest need. All Americans suffer when a major city is hurt by a terrorist attack; it is critical that Congress direct more funds to areas facing the most significant threats. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make the allocation of these scarce resources more equitable.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the cities of Saginaw, MI, and Tokushima, Japan, on the 45th anniversary of their sister city partnership. This is a significant milestone, and I am delighted to recognize these two cities for their many years of dialog and exchange. In 1961, Saginaw and Tokushima established a relationship that sought to promote cultural awareness between the cities. Since that time, there has been significant interaction between the two cities, including student groups and other delegations traveling between the cities for cultural, educational and other purposes, as well as the exchange of gifts. In 1971, the Tokushima-Saginaw Friendship Garden was built in Saginaw, and the land adjacent to the garden was subsequently deeded to the city of Tokushima. In 1985, a tea house was also built in Saginaw. Contractors and laborers from both cities were instrumental in its construction of the tea house and the labor costs were equally borne by both Saginaw and Tokushima. Upon its completion, the tea house became one of only 11 in the United States, and the only authentic tea house in the Midwest. Promoting dialog and interaction between cities in the United States and other countries is a great way for communities to learn, understand and relate to other cultures. Through their Sister City Partnership, residents and officials of the cities of Saginaw and Tokushima now have a deeper and more personal appreciation for the traditions of both the United States and Japan. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Saginaw and Tokushima on the 45 years of cultural exchange, and I wish them the best as this relationship continues to develop further.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, regarding funds that have been included in Senator Byrd's amendment for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement. The northern border air wing, NBAW, initiative was launched by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, 2004 to provide air and marine interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the northern border. Original plans called for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, Washington, North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan. The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been operational since 2004. Unfortunately, not all of the sites have yet been established, leaving large portions of our northern border unpatrolled from the air and, in the case of my home State, the water. In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS appropriations bill, the conferees noted that these remaining gaps in our air patrol coverage of the northern border should be closed as quickly as possible. Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, and others who seek to enter our country illegally has not diminished, I believe approximately $12 million of the funds included in Senator Byrd's amendment for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement should be used by Customs and Border Protection to complete the remaining activities necessary to prepare, equip, and establish the Michigan NBAW site as Secretary Chertoff has indicated he would like to be able to do. In an April 11, 2006, letter to me, Secretary Chertoff indicated that it was his Department's plan to open the Michigan site during the 2007 fiscal year, and the Byrd amendment will enable the Department to stick to its schedule. Mr. President, I will ask that Secretary Chertoff's letter and enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy from earlier this year be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in introducing the Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and Management Act to learn more about a potential problem regarding double-crested cormorants. Cormorants are dark-feathered water birds with voracious appetites for alewives, perch and other fish in the Great Lakes. The double- crested cormorants reside throughout North America, but according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the largest concentration of double- crested cormorants is in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes cormorant population migrates south, along the Atlantic coast and Mississippi River drainage to the southeastern States and Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes population of cormorants was once in great jeopardy. By the early 1970s, the population had been severely harmed by chemical exposure and human contact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that around that time the Great Lakes population fell sharply, with few birds remaining or breeding successfully. Since then, however, there has been a huge turnaround due to conservation and pollution reduction efforts. And today the Great Lakes population of double-crested cormorants is at an historically high level. Double-crested cormorants are very skilled at diving for fish. The increased population have led many people to believe that cormorants are at least partly responsible for declining fish populations near several northern Michigan communities. To help provide better information on the impact of cormorants on the fish populations in the Great Lakes, we are introducing this legislation, which authorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to develop a coordinated double-crested cormorant research program. As part of that research program, the Commission will recommend measures that will provide maximum sustained productivity of fishery stocks. Under this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would establish a committee that represents the multiple jurisdictions engaged in cormorants management to identify all of the existing control tactics and strategies in the Great Lakes region, determine the effectiveness of those tactics and strategies, and compare the tactics and strategies to the known life history of cormorant populations in the Great Lakes. In determining the effectiveness of existing control practices, the Commission will examine the impact that cormorants have on the Great Lakes fisheries. Congress has authorized tens of millions of dollars for programs designed to restore and protect fish in the Great Lakes. Those efforts are in jeopardy because of our ignorance about the impact of double- crested cormorants on the Great Lakes fisheries. Having the best possible information about this unique problem is critical for ensuring a healthy balance between the cormorant and the fish populations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2006 with Senators Dole, Reed, Jeffords, Voinovich, and Martinez. This bill would allow the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist communities in transforming idle brownfield sites into productive uses. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our Nation and limit the economic growth of communities. Brownfields redevelopment can provide new opportunities for businesses, housing, and recreational spaces such as urban parks. Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean up the environment and maximize use of existing infrastructure. My home State of Michigan has benefited from hundreds of brownfields redevelopment projects, and this bill would help to ensure that federal tools are in place to continue with these successes in Michigan and throughout the Nation. The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act would provide the Department of Housing and Urban Development with new tools to spur brownfields redevelopment. This bill would provide local governments with increased accessibility to HUD's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants by allowing HUD to make brownfields grants without requiring that communities pledge their future community development block grant funds as collateral. Removing this restriction from the HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative program would allow many more communities, especially smaller communities, to participate in the program. The bill also adopts the definition of brownfields used by the EPA, which would bring greater consistency and clarity to the federal government's brownfields programs. The bill authorizes $50 million annually for this important Federal program, which provides funding for a wide variety of brownfield redevelopment activities--from site remediation to construction. Supporters of this bill include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Development Organizations, the Northeast- Midwest Institute, the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, and the Environmental Bankers Association. I want to thank my Senate colleagues for working with me on this bill, and I want to especially thank Jack Reed who played a key role in the early drafting of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in introducing the Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and Management Act to learn more about a potential problem regarding double-crested cormorants. Cormorants are dark-feathered water birds with voracious appetites for alewives, perch and other fish in the Great Lakes. The double- crested cormorants reside throughout North America, but according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the largest concentration of double- crested cormorants is in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes cormorant population migrates south, along the Atlantic coast and Mississippi River drainage to the southeastern States and Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes population of cormorants was once in great jeopardy. By the early 1970s, the population had been severely harmed by chemical exposure and human contact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that around that time the Great Lakes population fell sharply, with few birds remaining or breeding successfully. Since then, however, there has been a huge turnaround due to conservation and pollution reduction efforts. And today the Great Lakes population of double-crested cormorants is at an historically high level. Double-crested cormorants are very skilled at diving for fish. The increased population have led many people to believe that cormorants are at least partly responsible for declining fish populations near several northern Michigan communities. To help provide better information on the impact of cormorants on the fish populations in the Great Lakes, we are introducing this legislation, which authorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to develop a coordinated double-crested cormorant research program. As part of that research program, the Commission will recommend measures that will provide maximum sustained productivity of fishery stocks. Under this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would establish a committee that represents the multiple jurisdictions engaged in cormorants management to identify all of the existing control tactics and strategies in the Great Lakes region, determine the effectiveness of those tactics and strategies, and compare the tactics and strategies to the known life history of cormorant populations in the Great Lakes. In determining the effectiveness of existing control practices, the Commission will examine the impact that cormorants have on the Great Lakes fisheries. Congress has authorized tens of millions of dollars for programs designed to restore and protect fish in the Great Lakes. Those efforts are in jeopardy because of our ignorance about the impact of double- crested cormorants on the Great Lakes fisheries. Having the best possible information about this unique problem is critical for ensuring a healthy balance between the cormorant and the fish populations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have a failed trade policy and the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, OFTA, implementation legislation the Senate is being asked to consider today is a continuation of that failed trade policy. This failure is reflected in a trade deficit that reached a record $717 billion last year and in the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs over the past 5 years. The OFTA implementing legislation fails to insist on basic internationally recognized labor standards, yet this agreement is being rushed through the Senate under fast-track procedures that only allow Members of Congress an up-or-down vote and no chance to amend or improve it one day after it was voted out of the Finance Committee and with no report. Although I support free and fair trade, as well as increasing our economic ties with Oman, I believe any trade agreement entered into by the United States should include commitments to international labor standards. Writing labor and environmental standards into trade agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. But unlike the 2001 Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the OFTA fails to include internationally recognized, core labor standards supported by most countries in the world. Those standards include the right to organize/ associate; the right to bargain collectively; a prohibition on child labor; a prohibition on discrimination in employment; and a prohibition on forced labor. In the case of Oman, its laws do not meet core International Labor Organization, ILO, standards, and therefore the agreement's requirement that Oman simply ``enforce its own laws'' is inadequate. Rejecting the OFTA implementing legislation as currently drafted would be a sound rejection of the failed and flawed trade policies of the past and a signal of support for a better approach to trade that is a two-way street and trade that supports the rights of workers. I am disappointed that the administration ignored the Senate Finance Committee amendment forbidding any goods produced with slave labor or benefiting from human trafficking from benefiting from the agreement. This amendment passed the committee unanimously, yet the administration did not include it in the legislation it sent to Congress. This is especially unfortunate in light of recent revelations that such labor abuses are occurring in Jordan despite a United States-Jordan FTA that included labor and environmental protections unlike the agreement under consideration today. It also shows a blatant disregard on the part of the administration of the advice and input of Congress in developing trade agreements. I do not support the agreement before us as crafted, and without the chance to improve it, I must oppose it. Trade should not be a race to the bottom in which U.S. workers must compete with countries that do not recognize core international labor standards and basic worker rights.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the past decade, through the gathering and dissemination of crime gun trace data, the need has been highlighted for stronger measures to stem the flow of guns into the illegal market and too often, into the hands of criminals. One of the responsibilities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, is to trace firearms recovered by local law enforcement at crime scenes. The gun is traced from its manufacturer to the first purchase using records maintained by firearms manufactures and sellers. The process begins when law enforcement recovers a gun in the course of a criminal investigation and contacts the ATF with information on the crime being investigated, the name of the gun's manufacturer, the caliber and serial number. The ATF first checks its records of out-of-business dealers and its multiple sales records. If the traced gun is not located in these records, the ATF will then contact the manufacturer for the name of the dealer or distributor to whom the manufacturer first sold the gun. The dealer is then contacted for information on who originally purchased the gun. This information provides an invaluable investigative tool for law enforcement. Analysis of crime gun traces allows the ATF, as well as State and local law enforcement, to not only investigate specific gun crimes but also to work to identify the sources of guns used in crimes. Crime gun traces can link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation, identify gun traffickers whether they are licensed or unlicensed sellers, and detect both instate and interstate patterns in the sources and types of crime guns. It was not until the most recent decade that law enforcement agencies have routinely traced guns recovered in crimes. Initially, crime gun traces amounted to about 100,000 a year. Today, gun tracing has resulted in a database of over 2 million crime guns. The database has become a rich source of information for guiding public policy and the work of law enforcement officers. The rapid expansion of crime gun tracing and the resulting trace database has produced a great deal of valuable information on how the illegal gun market is supplied. It is this information that helps point the way to policies to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2006 with Senators Dole, Reed, Jeffords, Voinovich, and Martinez. This bill would allow the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist communities in transforming idle brownfield sites into productive uses. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our Nation and limit the economic growth of communities. Brownfields redevelopment can provide new opportunities for businesses, housing, and recreational spaces such as urban parks. Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean up the environment and maximize use of existing infrastructure. My home State of Michigan has benefited from hundreds of brownfields redevelopment projects, and this bill would help to ensure that federal tools are in place to continue with these successes in Michigan and throughout the Nation. The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act would provide the Department of Housing and Urban Development with new tools to spur brownfields redevelopment. This bill would provide local governments with increased accessibility to HUD's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants by allowing HUD to make brownfields grants without requiring that communities pledge their future community development block grant funds as collateral. Removing this restriction from the HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative program would allow many more communities, especially smaller communities, to participate in the program. The bill also adopts the definition of brownfields used by the EPA, which would bring greater consistency and clarity to the federal government's brownfields programs. The bill authorizes $50 million annually for this important Federal program, which provides funding for a wide variety of brownfield redevelopment activities--from site remediation to construction. Supporters of this bill include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Development Organizations, the Northeast- Midwest Institute, the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, and the Environmental Bankers Association. I want to thank my Senate colleagues for working with me on this bill, and I want to especially thank Jack Reed who played a key role in the early drafting of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress did not intend to strip Federal courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas corpus cases when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The Court got it right. The original amendment offered by Senator Graham on the Senate floor, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 49 to 42, contained language that would have stripped the Federal courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction in both pending and future cases brought by detainees at Guantanamo. The amendment specifically stated that the jurisdiction- stripping provision ``shall apply to any application or other action that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.'' However, this language was removed from the provision by the subsequently adopted Graham-Levin amendment. The Graham-Levin amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 84 to 14, and replaced the earlier Graham amendment in the bill. The legislative history makes clear that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not apply to pending habeas corpus cases. The day before the Senate adopted the Graham-Levin modification, I said on the Senate floor: ``The amendment will not strip the courts of jurisdiction over [pending] cases. For instance, the Supreme Court jurisdiction in Hamdan is not affected.'' Despite efforts by the House of Representatives during our conference with the House to reinsert language stripping the courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas corpus cases, the final text of the Detainee Treatment Act retained the language of the Graham-Levin amendment. In today's decision, the Supreme Court, applying ``ordinary principles of statutory construction,'' determined that Congress did not intend to strip the courts of jurisdiction in pending habeas cases. The Court held that ``Congress' rejection of the very language that would have achieved the result the Government urges here weighs heavily against the Government's'' argument that the jurisdiction-stripping language should be interpreted to be retroactive. That was, indeed, the only conclusion that is supported by the language and legislative history of the Detainee Treatment Act. The substance of the ruling in Hamdan establishes that the President, acting alone, lacks the power to unilaterally determine the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Only Congress and the President, acting together, have the power to make such a determination, the Court ruled. Today's decision demonstrates once again the vital constitutional role of the Supreme Court as a check on the actions of the executive and legislative branches of Government. I believe that Congress should give this issue careful deliberation, including full committee hearings, before we act. I look forward to thorough hearings in the Armed Services Committee this summer in anticipation of consideration of possible legislation in the fall.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the American flag is a cherished symbol of our freedom and the democratic values and liberties that we believe in, and we should respect the flag as a reminder of the bravery of the men and women who have lost their lives fighting under its colors for our country. One of the most poignant images to a patriotic American is when that flag is draped over the coffin of a fallen soldier. I detest flag burning. To deliberately desecrate the flag is an insult to anyone who has fought to defend it and to all of us who love it. Any person who destroys such an important reminder of sacrifice and patriotism deserves the scorn of all decent men and women. Although I love the flag, I also love the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. For more than 210 years, this timeless document has protected our most basic freedoms. The Supreme Court has ruled that a physical attack on the flag is a protected form of speech under the first amendment. In 1984, Gregory Johnson publicly burned an American flag as a means of political protest and was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that, although ``the government has a legitimate interest in making efforts to `preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country,' '' Johnson's burning of the flag was constitutionally protected speech. In response to that decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, a Federal law to prohibit flag-burning and other forms of desecration. I supported that legislation, but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in United States v. Eichman. The Court found that the statute suppressed constitutionally protected expression, and held: The Government's interest in protecting the ``physical integrity'' of a privately owned flag rests upon a perceived need to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of our Nation and certain national ideals. But the mere destruction or disfigurement of a particular physical manifestation of the symbol, without more, does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself in any way. . . . While flag desecration-- like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures--is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Now that the Court has decided that flag burning as a means of expression is constitutionally protected, the question for the Senate is whether to amend the Constitution to ban such speech. Our Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1789. The Bill of Rights has never been amended. I believe that to deliberately weaken the first amendment rights of all Americans is not the answer to those very few who attack a symbol of freedom. Senator John Glenn, an American hero who fought for our country through two wars and took our flag into space, eloquently expressed this view before the Judiciary Committee: [I]t would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental freedoms themselves. Let the flag fully represent all the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not a partial, watered-down version that alters its protections. The flag is the nation's most powerful and emotional symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. And it is our most revered symbol. But it is a symbol. It symbolizes the freedoms we have in this country, but it is not the freedoms themselves. Steve Sanderson, a Michigan Vietnam-era veteran, expressed a similar view as quoted in the Detroit Free Press on June 14, 2006. He said: Veterans certainly cherish the flag, perhaps more than civilians who have never been to war can realize. But commitment is not confined to that symbol. I am hurt when I see the flag burned, largely because I've also seen the flag draped on coffins of troops. But my patriotism lives in my heart and mind. We set a very dangerous precedent if we argue that certain forms of speech should be restricted because the majority disagrees with the message and how it is expressed. Mr. President, I love our flag. I love our Constitution. Flag desecration is repugnant, but it would be a mistake to let a flag burner cause us to weaken our first amendment guarantees. If we take this fateful step of singling out one symbol to exempt from the first amendment, will we next authorize Congress to make it a crime to rip up a copy of the Constitution or a copy of its Bill of Rights? The American flag symbolizes our freedom, and that includes freedom from an overreaching government that decides which symbols are worthy of protection. We are honoring our flag and the republic for which it stands by refusing to amend the Bill of Rights in response to a few misguided people. I do support the statute that will be offered as a substitute for the constitutional amendment, which provides that: ``Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year or both.'' The Supreme Court has held that the first amendment does not provide full protection for what are called ``fighting words.'' or those words which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Also, in Virginia v. Black, a case that involved the burning of a cross, the Supreme Court held that the government can prohibit people from burning crosses with the intent to intimidate. In that case, Virginia law prohibited cross burning through a statute that made it unlawful for any person to burn a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons. A majority of the Court held that it believed the substantive prohibition on cross-burning with an intent to intimate was constitutionally permissible. Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor said: The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution . . . Thus, for example, a State may punish those words ``which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. . . . We have consequently held that fighting words ``those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provide violent reaction'' are generally proscribable under the First Amendment.'' The substitute also contains an important provision to support our military families in their time of grief. During the past year, a fringe religious group has held protests at more than 100 military funerals across the Nation, claiming that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment of America. In May, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which prohibits demonstrations at and around national cemeteries. This amendment would expand that Act to include military funerals at private cemeteries, funeral homes, and houses of worship. The families of the fallen have a right to be free to bury their loved ones and our heroes in peace. I support this narrowly drawn substitute because it both protects the flag, consistent with the Bill of Rights, as well as honors those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while fighting under its colors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, during the week of June 19 through June 25, nationwide we celebrate in observance of Juneteenth Independence Day. Although passage of the 13th amendment in January 1865, legally abolished slavery, many African-Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country. It was not until June 19, 1865, that Union troops reached Galveston, TX, and emancipated the last of the slaves. Since that time, over 130 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our Nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. It is appropriate and necessary that we, as a nation, recognize Juneteenth and use this day to reflect upon how far we have come and how far we still have to go. While it was on this historic day in 1865 that slaves were finally freed of the onerous yoke of slavery, the same cannot be said about the burden of pervasive racial oppression and second-class citizenship, which would not be eradicated in earnest until 100 years later through the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Although we have made tremendous progress in eliminating discrimination and creating equal opportunities over the years, the American dream continues to elude the grasp of many Americans. I would like to reflect on the courageous and revolutionary leaders who pioneered the Civil Rights Movement and bridged the gap between emancipation in 1865 and equality in the 1960s. It seems only appropriate to begin with the person who first proposed to commemorate the achievements of former slaves and their descendants: Dr. Carter G. Woodson. A son of former slaves and a man who rose from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement, Dr. Woodson's story is considered one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African-American history. Writer, editor, and lecturer Lerone Bennett tells us his story: ``At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received a bachelor's and master's degrees, and to Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history-- Black history.'' In 1926, Dr. Woodson founded African-American history month: a time to recognize the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith, and conviction, who strived for the betterment of a nation once lacking in humanity toward them. So it is in the spirit and vision of Dr. Woodson that I pay tribute to three courageous and inspiring African-Americans who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. The contributions of Sojourner Truth and Mrs. Rosa Parks, two women from my State, and the venerable Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are indelibly etched in the chronicles of the history of this great Nation, and they are also widely viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement and a groundbreaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI, on September 25, 1999. Truth lived in Washington, DC, for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875 and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. On May 4, 1999, legislation was enacted authorizing the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the late Mrs. Rosa Parks. I was pleased to coauthor this fitting tribute to Mrs. Parks, the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Fifty-one years ago, in Montgomery, AL, the modern civil rights movement began when Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. The boycott that Mrs. Parks initiated was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African-Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Perhaps more than any other single person, it was Dr. King--with his visionary leadership and inspiring rhetorical skills--who can be considered the driving force behind the 1960s civil rights movement. Mr. President, we have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. We still however have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Carter G. Woodson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle for human rights. I am happy to join with my colleague, Senator Barack Obama, in commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day with the submission of S. Con. Res. 42. This resolution recognizes the end of slavery and reminds us to never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, crime statistics indicated a growing threat posed by a military-style semiautomatic assault weapons in the hands of criminals. A 1994 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, determined that while assault weapons made up only 1 percent of the guns in circulation in the United States at that time, they accounted for up to 8 percent of the guns used in crimes, ``thus making them preferred by criminals over law-abiding citizens 8 to 1.'' The ATF relied on data such as this to support the establishment of a federal ban on assault weapons. Such a ban was enacted by Congress as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and was signed into law by President Clinton. Following the enactment of the assault weapon ban, the National Institute of Justice, an agency within the Department of Justice, conducted a study that was mandated by Congress on the short-term impact of the statute. The study found that crimes involving assault weapons dropped 20 percent in the year following enactment of the law. Additional research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found deaths caused by guns dropped from 38,505 in 1994 to 29,573 in 2001. Ten years after the assault weapons ban was passed, Los Angeles Chief of Police Bill Bratton said: Since the assault weapons ban was passed in 1994, we have seen a 66 percent decline in the frequency of assault weapons use in crime. Violent criminals love these weapons because they give them far more firepower than conventional weapons that greatly increases their capacity to kill. We cannot allow these weapons to get back into their hands. On May 8 of this year, two Fairfax County police officers were shot to death by an 18-year-old armed with multiple guns, including an AK- 47-style assault rifle. Unfortunately, assault rifles like the one reported in this attack, as well as many other similar assault weapons, are once again being legally produced and sold as a result of the expiration of the assault weapons ban. In 1994, I voted to establish of the assault weapons ban and 10 years later 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 the bipartisan support in the Senate, neither the President nor the majority's congressional leadership acted to protect Americans from assault weapons like the one used in the attack on the Fairfax County police station. As a result, 19 types of previously banned military-style assault weapons are once again on the streets and in the neighborhoods of our cities and towns. Congress must take up and pass common sense gun safety legislation to help prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Kerry will go next.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LEVIN. I share the Senator's concern and will work with her to address these important questions.

Mr. LEVIN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I wanted to get back in time to hear Senator Byrd speak about Senator Warner. I knew that is what you were going to do, and I missed only the opening. I was back long enough to get the full flavor of what Senator Byrd was saying. The honor that he has just bestowed upon Senator Warner is genuinely deserved and genuinely delivered. It comes from perhaps not just a Senate man, but the Senate man to another Senate man. This institution we occupy for different lengths of time, but all relatively brief compared to its history, is really entrusted to all of us. I know of no two Senators sitting right across the aisle from each other in whom that trust is more genuinely felt and recognized and honored than Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. Just to be able to get back and listen to, Senator Byrd as he spoke about Senator Warner was a genuine treat for me. He captured the essence of Senator Warner. I tried to do it a few times in the last few weeks very briefly, always saying that when we bring back that conference report, which will be Senator Warner's last conference report as chairman, that I hope there will be many Members on the Senate floor who can try to do what you did so beautifully today, Senator Byrd, which is to capture the essence of the great Senator and to express the gratitude of each of us and everybody in this body, and I know the men and women in the Armed Forces--but truly broader than that, the men and women of the United States--for the service that Senator Warner is providing. So I thank Senator Byrd for taking the time to do what each one of us would want to do in our own ways, and that is just simply to acknowledge our love and our respect for a truly great man, a Senate man, from the Senate man, Senator Byrd.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as a result of the extraordinarily hard work, dedication, and cooperation, on a bipartisan basis, of every one of our committee members, and our extraordinary staff, as well as the assistance of really superb floor staffs on both sides of the aisle, we have just seen a unanimous passage of the Defense authorization bill. As I mentioned before, this is a real tribute to our chairman. I am going to save all the accolades, however, for still a later time. When the chairman brings back a conference report, we will then, hopefully, have enough people here on the floor who can both join in the kudos and hear the applause for our chairman. Our staff loses a great deal of sleep to get this bill passed. And there is never enough attention that is paid to staff. No matter how many times we take a moment to just say thanks to our staff, it never comes close to paying the tribute which is really owed to them. Charlie Abell, who is the majority staff director, is just a wonderful human being as well as a gifted professional. He and all the other members of your staff, I say to Senator Warner, are really, really terrific. And I cannot say enough about Rick DeBobes, Peter Levine, and all of the members of my staff. Rick, our minority staff director, leads a truly extraordinary staff. Mr. President, I guess the best way I can express my gratitude is to ask that the names of my staff be printed in the Record at this time. I ask unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, also, talking about accolades, I want to single out Senator Cantwell for an amendment which she authored relative to the replacement of National Guard equipment that has been left in Iraq and Afghanistan. The absence of this equipment has undermined the ability of the National Guard units to train and to meet the requirements in their home States. And the Cantwell amendment is going to require the Department to establish a comprehensive plan to recapitalize or to replace this equipment. It is going to be an essential addition, replacement for the National Guard. There was not enough attention paid to this amendment as things kind of flew through here. I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership in making sure our National Guard is well equipped and given the support they deserve.