Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I take a brief moment to explain why I will be voting against cloture on S. 1955. The availability and affordability of health care is one of the most important issues that we can debate this year in Congress. As was highlighted during the recent ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' the United States spends more on health care than any other nation, yet we still have almost 46 million uninsured Americans. This means that over 18 percent of Americans are uninsured and that there are 9 million children in our country without health insurance. The Senate's response to this health care crisis, however, has been sorely lacking. The majority leader called this week health week and scheduled debate on three bills that would do little or nothing to assist the Nation's uninsured. The first two bills were medical liability bills that did not even achieve a majority of votes in the Senate. I have stated many times that I believe any meaningful tort reform should be enacted on the state level and voted accordingly. The third bill is S. 1955, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain my reservations about the bill. The concept of S. 1955 is to allow small business or trade associations to pool together in an effort to purchase health insurance at affordable costs. These new health plans would cross state lines and therefore be eligible to bypass the state coverage and solvency mandates that apply to health plans offered by larger employers. S. 1955 is a well intentioned bill. Senators Enzi and Nelson and their staffs have spent many hours meeting with all sides involved in this important debate. This effort to bring everyone to the table resulted in a bill that improved upon previous small business health plan bills referred to as ``association health plans.'' However, S. 1955 still falls short. I have several concerns about S. 1955. First, I am concerned that this bill could reduce access to critical benefits. S. 1955 replaces state benefit requirements with a new standard that would allow insurers and small business health plans to offer ``basic'' benefit plans, which would not have to include state-required benefits as long as they also make available an ``enhanced'' benefit plan, which would be equivalent to one of the benefit plans offered to state employees in one of the five most populous states. However, this new standard is meaningless since those coverage options are likely to include a high deductible/low coverage plan that would afford little protection to consumers who need health care, whether due to illness or age. Currently, insurance rating rules and the regulation and approval of insurance plans are by done by state insurance commissioners. Most state insurance commissioners are elected officials charged with making sure a state's market is based on rates that are fair and equitable to all based on state law. In my home State of Michigan, we have few benefit mandates, but those mandates are important to the populations that are protected. Some of the benefits that would no longer be required to be covered for Michigan citizens include hospice care, newborn coverage, access to obstetrician/gynecologist, access to pediatrician and diabetic drugs and prevention of diabetes programs. By some estimates, this could affect over 2.7 million people in Michigan. This pattern could be repeated in states across the country. My concern about this is shared by many Governors, State Attorney Generals and State Insurance Commissioners, who have written the Senate to express their reservations about this bill. A second concern I have about S. 1955 regards rate setting rules. This legislation would create a new system allowing for insurers to vary premiums based upon, among other factors, health status and age. S. 1955 would wipe out state-based protections against discrimination. This would affect older Americans and others such as groups with large numbers of women, small businesses with fewer workers, and higher risk industries. Finally, I am concerned that S. 1995 would increase the potential for fraud and abuse. This concern is the basis for the recent letter to the Senate from 41 State Attorney Generals expressing opposition to this bill. S. 1955 will potentially erode state oversight of health insurance plans and eliminate consumer protections in the areas of mandated benefits and internal grievance procedures. The bill provides no additional authority or resources to enforce the new Federal standards created within it. This is eerily reminiscent to me of an experience our country had in the 1970's with Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements or MEWAs. MEWAs were then exempted from state regulatory insurance requirements, and the result was that almost 400,000 Americans were left with more than $123 million in unpaid health insurance claims. Yesterday, the majority leader used a procedural tactic to prevent Democrats from offering meaningful amendments to this bill which could have improved it. One such amendment would have been the Democrat substitute to use the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan as a model pool to allow for lower health care costs for small businesses. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to also debate other health care issues as well such as extending the Medicare Part D enrollment deadline, lifting the Federal restrictions on stem cell research and other efforts regarding the nation's 46 million uninsured. Health care costs are rising too quickly, and I am sympathetic to the plight of small businesses. As a senior member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I often hear from small business constituents of mine about annual double digit health premium increases. However, rising health care costs are not unique to small businesses--it is an untenable situation shared by most Americans--and this bill takes the wrong approach to solving this problem. For all of these reasons, there is strong opposition to this bill from many state leaders, and from a coalition of more than 200 organizations, including the AARP, the National Partnership for Families and Women and Families USA. At a minimum, we needed the chance to improve this bill. I cannot support cloture to end debate and restrict amendments on this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a national study of police chiefs' support for a variety of possible gun safety regulations was recently completed by researchers at Wayne State University, the University of Toledo, and Kent State University. The study, titled ``Police Chiefs' Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms,'' was published in the April issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. I applaud the researchers for addressing this important issue and for their contribution to the debate about common sense gun safety legislation. As the study points out, ``Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States, and since 1972 have killed on average more than 30,000 people each year.'' Our police chiefs see the consequences of gun violence on a daily basis and are in a unique position to evaluate possible solutions to the gun violence epidemic in our country. For their study, researchers surveyed 600 randomly selected police chiefs in cities with populations of more than 25,000 people. This survey was intended to measure the police chiefs' support for a number of possible gun safety regulations. While the responses of the police chiefs may not be surprising to advocates of commonsense gun safety legislation, they are striking and certainly worth noting. There were a number of potential gun safety regulations that received the support of an overwhelming majority of the police chiefs who returned surveys. Specifically, 93 percent of police chiefs supported a requirement that background checks be completed prior to the purchase of all handguns and 82 percent believed background checks should also be required for the purchase of rifles and shotguns. This means that overwhelmingly police chiefs believe background checks should be required for the purchase of all firearms, regardless of whether they are purchased from a public or private dealer. As my colleagues know, current law requires that when an individual buys a firearm from a licensed dealer, a background check must be completed to insure that the purchaser is not prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a gun. However, this is not the case for some gun purchases. For example, when an individual buys a firearm from a private citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no Federal requirement that the seller ensure the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. This creates a loophole in the law, making it easy for criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited buyers to evade background checks and buy guns. This loophole creates a gateway to the illegal market because prohibited buyers know they will not be subject to background checks when purchasing a firearm from a private citizen. One of the factors that automatically disqualifies a person from purchasing a firearm is a prior felony conviction. However, most misdemeanor convictions do not disqualify a person under Federal law from buying a firearm. In response to the survey, a majority of the police chiefs supported a prohibition on the sale of firearms to those who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes including the public display of a firearm in a threatening manner, domestic violence, and carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. In addition, the police chiefs supported action on a number of other commonsense gun safety regulations on handguns. More than 81 percent of the police chiefs said that the Federal Government should require handguns to be assigned tamper-resistant serial numbers that could assist law enforcement officials in the prosecution of illegal gun traffickers. Nearly 70 percent of the police chiefs believe that all handguns should be registered, and 82 percent believe that the Federal Government should require all new handguns to be sold with trigger locks. Our Nation's police chiefs are particularly knowledgeable and well placed to assess the importance of commonsense gun safety laws in protecting the safety of our communities and in stopping the flow of firearms to the illegal market. Through their responses to the survey, the police chiefs are sending a clear message that they believe that stricter national standards on the purchase and possession of firearms should be enacted. Congress should listen to this important message and take action on these issues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this tax reconciliation conference report before us today sets a new standard for irresponsibility. It is a huge giveaway to the wealthiest among us that is papered over by a disingenuous effort to increase short-term revenues at a great long- term cost. Like so many of the bills we have considered recently, this conference report fails to invest in our Nation's priorities while driving us deeper and deeper into debt. Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is how deeply unfair it is. According to the Tax Policy Center, 87 percent of the benefits of this bill would flow to the 14 percent of households with incomes above $100,000; 55 percent of the benefits would go those with incomes above $200,000; and households earning more than $1 million a year, which account for only 0.2 percent of all households, would receive 22 percent of the benefits of these tax cuts. In contrast, the three-quarters of American households with incomes below $75,000 would receive just 5 percent of the benefits. And the 60 percent of households with incomes below $50,000 would receive less than 2 percent of all benefits. Approximately three-quarters of Michigan taxpayers would receive no benefit at all from the bill's most expensive provision an extension of the capital gains and dividends tax cuts. The inequities in this bill are even more glaring when you look at the actual dollars. The average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of households would be just $20, while the top one percent would get $13,800. For those with incomes above $1 million, the average tax cut would be $42,000. What is even more brazen about this bill is that, with an outrageous accounting gimmick, it purports to pay for a portion of these tax cuts for the wealthy by giving even more tax cuts to the wealthy. Proponents of extending the capital gains and dividends tax cuts had to find a way around a Senate rule that says a reconciliation bill may not increase long-term deficits. One way would have been for 60 senators to vote to waive the rule, but it was not likely that there would be 60 votes for this expensive and inequitable proposal. Instead, proponents have resorted to a devious circumvention of this rule by pretending to offset the long-term costs with a provision that will increase revenue in the short-term before turning into a sea of red ink in later years. Right now, individuals with incomes above $110,000 and couples with incomes above $160,000 cannot contribute to a Roth IRA. Furthermore, only those with incomes over $100,000 are prohibited from converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. This bill would lift both of those caps beginning in 2010, meaning that a large number of high-income households will convert their traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs because funds in a Roth IRA are tax free when withdrawn in retirement. As taxes are paid on the funds being contributed to Roth IRAs, the Treasury will see an increase in revenues over a few years, but the Treasury will lose revenues on investment gains for years down the line. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Research Service, and other nonpartisan experts agree that this proposal will ultimately result in a significant net revenue loss, even once interest is taken into account. So how did a revenue-loser get dressed up as a revenue-raiser in this bill? As a rule, official Joint Committee on Taxation estimates do not look past the next 10 years, so if the decrease in revenues doesn't occur before 2017, it doesn't show up in the Joint Committee's estimate. Thus, for purposes of the Senate's rules, it is as though it doesn't happen. But in the real world, it will happen. This is a transparent gimmick, designed to indulge this Congress's addiction to irresponsible spending. We owe it to our children and grandchildren not to continue building up this massive debt. Today, each American citizen's share of the debt is almost $28,000, and that will rise to more than $39,000 by 2016. Paying off this debt will require either extraordinary tax increases or significant cuts in critical areas such as defense or Social Security. Tragically, it will mean that an increasing number of taxpayer dollars will be spent not on moving America forward but simply on treading water by making interest payments to our creditors, most of whom are foreign countries. One of the few bright spots in the bill that the Senate passed last November was the meaningful antitax shelter provisions. Sadly, even these have now been dropped from this conference report. House Republicans once again rejected the economic substance provision that the Senate has passed many times and that would prohibit abusive tax shelters that have no economic purpose other than tax avoidance. The Senate bill also included an amendment that Senator Coleman and I pushed for that would increase penalties on those who promote abusive tax shelter schemes and the banks, law firms and others that aid and abet in these complex shenanigans. Dropping these provisions is a disappointment that only benefits powerful special interests. Finally, this bill misses yet another opportunity by failing to limit any of the unnecessary tax breaks currently enjoyed by major oil companies which are reaping record profits. In fact, the conference committee struck one of few provisions in the Senate bill that might have helped. The Senate bill had a provision that would have allowed taxpayers caught by the AMT to still enjoy the benefit of the consumer tax credits allowed for the purchase of hybrid and other alternative vehicles. Unfortunately, this provision, too, was omitted in conference. Although the overwhelming majority of this bill is completely misguided, I do support one positive provision in it--extending for 1 year the patch that prevents middle income families from being slapped with the alternative minimum tax. The AMT was originally created to make sure that the wealthiest Americans paid at least a minimum amount of tax. Because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, however, it is affecting many more taxpayers today. At a time when median family income is falling, middle-income families need all of the help they can get, and they certainly don't need to be socked with an unintended tax increase. Unfortunately, this bill provides the AMT fix for only 1 year. It makes no sense to extend the capital gains and dividend tax cuts to 2010 and give AMT relief only through the end of 2006. We all know that the reason this bill does not offer longer AMT relief is because the fix so expensive--$33 billion for just 1-year. Knowing that we'll need to do a similar fix to cover future years and leaving the fix out to mask the real costs of the Bush policies, makes this costly bill all the more irresponsible. Finding a more permanent fix for AMT is a cost that we all know is coming, and we should not continue to ignore it in our fiscal policies. Not only do we need to provide AMT relief for years past 2006, but we also need to pay for it. When the Senate originally considered its version of this bill, many of us supported an alternative package offered by Senator Conrad. That package would have paid for extending all of the tax cuts that expired at the end of 2005, including AMT relief and the important R&D tax credit. It would have raised this needed revenue by closing many loopholes in our current tax system, including one that allows oil companies to avoid taxation on foreign operations. Unfortunately, Senator Conrad's amendment was defeated on a nearly partyline vote of 44 to 52. As a result of these many misplaced priorities, the bill before us today is an irresponsible giveaway to powerful industries and the wealthiest among us that will drive us deeper into the deficit ditch. And it uses outrageous shenanigans to hide its true cost. We do need to fix the AMT, but we also need fiscal responsibility, and we need policies that will build economic security for all Americans, not just those at the top who are already very secure economically. Lower and middle-income families are getting squeezed from all sides, with the costs of essentials like gas, health insurance, and education going through the roof. And, as we have seen in Michigan, our Nation is hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs, and median family income is falling. We need to be investing in our people and in our future, but this bill would take a giant step backward. The tax cuts for the wealthy in this bill are totally out of whack with what America needs right now, and I will vote against this irresponsible conference report.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, regarding funds that have been included in this bill 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, 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, none of the other three sites have yet been stood up, leaving large portions of our Northern Border unpatrolled from the air. 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 an adequate portion of the funds included in this bill for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement should be used by customs and border protection to complete the remaining assessments, evaluations, and other activities necessary to prepare and equip the Michigan, North Dakota, and Montana NBAW sites with appropriate CBP air and marine assets. This bill requires that DHS submit an expenditure plan to the appropriations committee before any of the funds may be obligated. I urge DHS to include in their plan the funds necessary to stand up, equip, and begin operations at the three remaining northern border air wing sites in Michigan, North Dakota, and Montana.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask if the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture is aware of my amendment regarding the urgent need for additional funding for combating the Emerald Ash Borer, and if he is open to accepting the amendment by unanimous consent.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Utah is correct in that I was not able to offset the costs of the amendment as the funding in that title is very tight. I would ask my friend though if he is aware that there is a need in my State alone of over $30 million to combat and contain this invasive species that has destroyed virtually all of Southeast Michigan's ash stock?

Mr. LEVIN. During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act, Senators Stabenow, DeWine and I had a similar amendment seeking additional funds for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at the USDA. We decided not to offer the amendment as we received assurances that the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee would push for the House approved level of funding of $14 million. Unfortunately the final bill contained only $10 million to deal with the Emerald Ash Borer epidemic.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Utah for all of his help over the years in seeking funding for this problem. I hope that he and the ranking member would be mindful of the urgent need of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan for funding for Emerald Ash Borer eradication efforts when crafting the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Act over the coming months.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman and know that my colleagues appreciate his support as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Tuesday, 15 mayors from a diverse group of cities around the country gathered in New York City for a mayors' summit on illegal guns. This summit provided an excellent opportunity to share gun violence prevention strategies, engage experts, and coordinate future national outreach and lobbying efforts for the safety of their cities. I commend those who participated for their willingness to work together to address the gun violence issues that plague communities across our country. One of the major issues discussed by the mayors last week was the buying and selling of guns by ``straw purchasers.'' Straw purchasers play a critical role in the illegal trafficking of guns by purchasing with the intention of reselling them to prohibited buyers. These straw purchases are often made in States with lax gun safety laws and trafficked to cities where they may later be used in violent crimes. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly refers to this as the ``iron pipeline'' of illegal firearms. According to published reports citing New York Police Department statistics, 8 of every 10 guns used in crimes in New York City come from other States. In fact, only 18 percent of the illegal guns recovered in New York City in 2005 were originally sold in New York State, while 61 percent were traced to just five other States. According to several of the mayors in attendance, the lack of leadership by the President and Congress on the issue of illegal gun trafficking was the impetus for the summit. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed out, ``There's very little that an individual city can do to halt the sale of guns to criminals. This is a national issue that requires national attention.'' In the absence of adequate Federal attention, the 15 attending mayors signed a statement of principles resolving, among other things, to work together in the prosecution of gun traffickers, irresponsible gun dealers, and violent criminals. In their statement of principles, the mayors vow to oppose all Federal efforts to restrict the ability of cities to access, use, and share firearms trace data that can be critical to law enforcement personnel working to stop the flow of guns from reckless gun dealers into the hands of criminals. This statement refers to amendments that have been inserted in the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act each of the last 4 years that prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, from disclosing important information from the national Firearms Trace System Database to local law enforcement and government officials. Unfortunately, legislation has recently been introduced in the House of Representatives which would make these restrictions on ATF firearms trace data permanent. It is time that Congress work with, instead of against, our Nation's mayors to solve the gun violence issues which our communities face. The mayors are right. The gun violence epidemic across the country requires national attention, and I urge my colleagues to join me in working to enact commonsense gun safety laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this statement of principles be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I voted against the motion to invoke cloture on the supplemental appropriations bill because it will have the effect of preventing the consideration of a number of important and relevant amendments. There are more than a hundred amendments which have been filed on this bill. Several are important amendments, such as Senator Wyden's amendment to prevent funds from being used to continue discounts given to the oil companies on royalties which otherwise would be paid to the Federal Government for production of oil and/or natural gas on Federal lands. Another example is the bipartisan amendment that I offered with Senators Collins and Reed to require reports to Congress on progress toward a national unity government in Iraq. Too frequently in recent years, we see a pattern of slowing down consideration of amendments or filling the amendment tree to block them altogether, followed by cloture to end debate and further restricting or preventing the consideration of amendments. The Senate, which has often been referred to as ``the world's greatest deliberative body'' and which historically has been characterized by the quality of its debate, should not permit this pattern of preventing the consideration of, and votes on, amendments to become the norm. When I came to the Senate, the leadership did not as a routine approach try to prevent consideration of amendments they didn't agree with. Instead, they attempted to amend them or simply vote against them. In recent years, we see more and more bills on which amendments are limited or blocked entirely, more like the House. On the PATRIOT Act, this year, for example, the amendment tree was completely filled by the leadership, a procedural technique for preventing any amendments from being considered, and none were. Mr. President, I support the funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I support the emergency assistance for the gulf coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I intend to support this bill on final passage in the Senate. I am opposed, however, to the use of this procedure to limit debate and the consideration of amendments. Amendment No. 3617

Mr. LEVIN

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and my dear friend from Washington for helping to organize the amendment sequence. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I call up No. 3710.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is proposed on behalf of Senator Collins, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and myself, which relates to Iraq. It would require certain reports be filed by the President and the administration relative to political developments that exist in Iraq. We have a new prime minister who has been designated in Iraq. It is an important step. It is a useful step toward hopefully achieving a government of national unity. However, there are some very critical steps that lie ahead, including the completion of that government of national unity so that the Prime Minister-designate can then form a government and have that government approved by the assembly. It is an important step. It involves the Interior Minister, who is in control of the police, the Defense Minister, who is in control of the Army, the Oil Minister, who controls the nation's key resource--oil--as well as the other ministries that are involved in any government of national unity. It is critically important that the political process succeed in Iraq and that the pressure be kept on the Iraqis to achieve a government of national unity, and as well to consider amendments to its constitution. Their constitution has some deadlines that are imposed by them. It is those deadlines which it is critically important be met. These are not our deadlines. These are not dates we set. These aren't dates which certain things must happen by that we are determining. These are dates that the Iraqi Constitution has set up for the completion of a national government and for consideration of amendments to the Iraqi Constitution. Our amendment says that the President of the United States should report to the Congress every 30 days on the progress which is being made in terms of the political solution which has to be achieved there, both in terms of a government of national unity as well as consideration of amendments to the Constitution. It would ask the President to report to us as to whether he has informed the Iraqis that the continued presence of the United States military forces depends upon their meeting the deadlines which they have set for themselves. It also requires an assessment of the effect which the formation of or the failure to form a unity government and the amendment or failure to amend the Iraqi constitution would have on the significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty and to the Iraqi forces taking the lead in support of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as expressed in our law. That policy was adopted by this Senate last year. Also in the reports that are required, it would mandate that the conditions on the ground be set forth by the President and whether those conditions would lead to the phased redeployment of our ground combat force. It is a reporting requirement. In conclusion, this is not the amendment which we referred to last week because there is no reference in this reporting amendment anymore to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The original form of this amendment had a reference to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. That was ruled not to be in order by the Parliamentarian. We have, therefore, dropped the sense-of-the-Senate reference. This is now exclusively a reporting amendment. We hope the Senate will adopt this at the appropriate time. Again, I thank the Chair and I thank our friends who are trying to keep this sequence and are managing this bill. We appreciate their courtesies. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Thursday marked the seventh anniversary of the tragic Columbine High School shooting. None of us will forget the sight of hundreds of terrified students running out of their high school while police and S.W.A.T. team members frantically searched for 2 young gunmen who, before taking their own lives, had murdered 12 innocent children, a teacher, and wounded 2 dozen other students. In the aftermath of the Columbine tragedy, I said I would try to make a statement each week on the issue of commonsense gun safety to help draw attention to an issue that, unfortunately, continues to go unaddressed. Heidi Yewman, who graduated from Columbine High School 13 years before the shooting, wrote about her frustrations and the lack of congressional attention to this issue in a recent newspaper editorial. As she put it, ``This summer I will attend my 20-year high school reunion, and Topic A will be as it has been for the past seven years the massacre and what hasn't happened since.'' I will ask that the text of Ms. Yewman's editorial be printed in the Record. One of the things mentioned by Ms. Yewman that hasn't happened since the Columbine High School shootings is a Federal requirement of a background check on the sale of all firearms, including those that are sold at gun shows. Under current law, when an individual buys a firearm from a licensed dealer, there are Federal requirements for a background check to insure that the purchaser is not prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a gun. However, this is not the case for all gun purchases. For example, when an individual wants to buy a firearm from another private citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no Federal requirement that the seller ensure the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. This creates a loophole in the law, making it easy for criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited buyers to evade background checks and buy guns from private citizens. This loophole creates a gateway to the illegal market because criminals know they will not be subject to a background check when purchasing from another private citizen even at a gun show. During the 108th Congress, I cosponsored an amendment that passed the Senate which would have required background checks on all firearms sold at gun shows. However, when the Senate passed the amendment, the National Rifle Association and its allies in the Senate then removed their support for the underlying bill and it was defeated. Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to address this important gun safety issue since. In the years since the Columbine High School shootings, Congress has also failed to renew the 1994 assault weapons ban. On September 13, 2004, this legislation was allowed to expire, allowing 19 previously banned assault weapons, including the TEC-9 handgun used by the Columbine shooters, and other firearms with military style features to be legally sold again. I have cosponsored legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban. Last Congress, the Senate adopted an amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for 10 years. However, like the amendment to close the gun show loophole, the bill to which the amendment was attached was later defeated, and despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of Senators voted to support reauthorizing the ban on assault weapons, the Republican leadership has refused to schedule another vote on the issue. Mr. President, the threat of gun violence in our schools and communities has not diminished. Last week alone, as families and friends remembered those who were lost in the Columbine shootings, law enforcement officials apparently thwarted planned Columbine-style school shootings in Kansas, Alaska, Mississippi, and Washington. According to published reports, students in at least two of these small towns had already acquired the guns and ammunition necessary to carry out such an attack. Were it not for the courage of the students who stepped forward to report violent threats from their fellow students and the investigative work by law enforcement officials that followed, another community might well have had to face the horror that the residents of Littleton, CO, faced 7 years ago. Congress must take up and pass common sense gun safety legislation to help prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the before-mentioned editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week, as we observe Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Hashoah, I would like to take a moment to recognize Stephanie Mellen of Troy, MI, for her tireless and enduring efforts to honor the memory of her father and help ensure that the horrific events of the Holocaust will never be forgotten. On May 7, 1945, Ms. Mellen's father, 1Lt Jerome N. Shapiro, led the team that captured Air Marshal Hermann Goering, the de facto leader of Nazi Germany following Adolf Hitler's suicide. Eighty miles behind enemy lines in Austria, Lieutenant Shapiro and three others caught Goering and his entourage of 78 people. Goering calmly surrendered his weapon to Lieutenant Shapiro, a Jewish American, and was held under Lieutenant Shapiro's command at Fischhorn Castle in Zell Am See, Austria, until he was transferred to Allied headquarters 2 days later. Hermann Goering was the principal defendant at the Nuremberg Trials the following year, and Lieutenant Shapiro continued as part of his guard detail during the trial. Lieutenant Shapiro was hesitant to talk about his role in Goering's capture, but Stephanie Mellen began to understand the importance of his story even as a young girl. She saw the gun that her father was carrying when Goering surrendered and recalls using Goering's field typewriter to type her school assignments. Stephanie was 13 years old when she saw her father named as ``Goering's guard'' in a television documentary. These memories helped her to understand and appreciate what her father accomplished. Lieutenant Shapiro passed away on April 4, 1968, but his legacy lives on through the committed actions of his daughter. Stephanie Mellen has spent countless hours writing and speaking to educate people on the importance of what her father did to bring Hermann Goering to justice. She shares her father's story to honor the courage and resolve of Lieutenant Shapiro and all those members of America's ``greatest generation'' who fought and defeated the Axis Powers in one of humanity's most critical moments. But most of all, she shares the story of her father to remind all of us that the cause of universal human freedom and dignity is our own.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on Monday we observed the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish Ottoman Empire began a coordinated campaign of deportation, expropriation, torture, starvation, and massacre which lasted 8 long years and left an estimated 1.5 million Armenians dead. The violence forced an additional 500,000 people to leave their homeland and live in exile. The Armenian genocide is a shameful period in world history that highlights the catastrophic consequences of inaction in the face of violent persecution. It is a tragedy which could have and should have been prevented by the intervention of all nations who value freedom and peace. A retired Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1918, ``The Armenian horror is an accomplished fact. Its occurance was largely due to the policy of pacifism this nation has followed for the last four years.'' Roosevelt argued for U.S. involvement ``because the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and failure to act against Turkey is to condone it; because the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.'' It is important to make clear that the annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide is not a condemnation of our NATO partner, the present day Republic of Turkey. Indeed, it was the founder of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who ended the Ottoman government. Instead, the annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide presents us with an opportunity to both honor the memory of those that were lost and rededicate ourselves to working with our allies, including Turkey, to prevent any occurrences of persecution and genocide around the world. Unfortunately, we know too well that the Armenian genocide was the first but not the only genocide of the 20th century, and millions more perished as additional genocides were perpetrated against innocent minorities in Europe, Africa, and Asia. In remembering the victims of past genocides, we must now turn our efforts to ending the first genocide of the 21st century in the Darfur region of Sudan. Only by remembering the loss of family and loved ones and by working to alleviate the current suffering of others can we truly honor the victims of the Armenian genocide. That is the goal of the 91st anniversary remembrance of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Senators Helms, Kennedy, Jeffords, all of us--not all of us, many of us at times--have said we should not vote on a nomination until relevant documents have been obtained by the interested Senator, relevant to that confirmation process. We have supported those Senators in getting those documents. It has been an institutional position that Senators should be able to get documents that relate to a confirmation of a particular nominee. These are documents which relate to this nomination or may relate to this confirmation process. We don't know until we see the documents, but we do know two things, that Mr. Flory was a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Feith office and he was actively involved in the discussions and the matters to which these documents pertain and that he is named in a number of the documents we have been able to obtain as being involved in this subject matter. That much we know. That is more than enough, it seems to me, for this body to insist that these documents be made available before we vote on his confirmation. Finally, he is in office now. We are not blocking him from going into that office. He got a recess appointment. To reiterate, there is nothing novel or unique about holding up a nomination in order to obtain information that is being withheld by executive branch officials. This defense of Senate prerogatives goes back a long way, probably to our beginning. In 1972, Senator Sam Ervin insisted that the Senate would not vote on the nomination of Richard Kleindienst to be Attorney General until the administration provided information on a deal to drop an antitrust case against ITT in return for a $400,000 campaign contribution. The administration eventually provided the information and the nomination was confirmed, In 1991, Senator Helms blocked the nomination of George Fleming Jones to be U.S. Ambassador to Guyana until he received State Department cables in which one of Helms' aides was accused of leaking U.S. intelligence to the Pinochet government. The administration eventually provided the information and the nomination was confirmed. In 2004, Senator Jeffords placed a hold on nominations for four top jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency because of 12 unmet requests for documents over the previous three years. The documents in question related to the Bush administration's changes to air pollution rules. In short, the Senate has a longstanding practice of holding up nominations in order to obtain documents relevant to confirmation and oversight responsibilities. This has been done by Senators of both parties, in Senates controlled by both parties, and with administrations controlled by both parties. It is in the interest of the Senate as a whole to uphold our right to documents. It is at times essential to our obtaining the information we need to do our jobs. All colleagues should protect the right of any colleague to documents relevant to a nominee in a confirmation process. This information that we seek is directly relevant to the nomination of Mr. Flory. The entire Senate should, as an institutional matter, insist on access to the relevant information before we act on his nomination. We should speak with one Senatorial voice against executive branch stonewalling on access to relevant information. Mr. Flory has received a recess appointment to the position to which he has been nominated. By refusing to act on his nomination until we receive this information, we are not preventing this individual from carrying out his executive duties. On the contrary, it is the Executive Branch which is obstructing the Senate's ability to carry out our confirmation responsibilities when they deny us relevant documents. I hope every member of the Senate will stand together to defend the right of the Senate to have access to the relevant documents that bear on this nomination.

Mr. LEVIN. The last two votes today.

Mr. LEVIN. I apologize. I think the Senator is correct. It has been announced these will be the last two votes, depending on the outcome of the second vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No, this matter.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield? I don't know how much time I used on the previous comments.