Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is essential that the amount of time between now and 4:30 be used on the debate on the Graham amendment. That would detract, I am afraid, from that amount of time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, to help clarify the situation: Is it the proposal that there be two amendments voted on?

Mr. LEVIN. That would be better.

Mr. LEVIN. I would ask unanimous consent--and I ask everyone to pay attention to this--that any time taken to comply with that request be added on at 4:30 so that the vote would be at 4:35 or 4:40, depending upon whether this insert would take 5 or 10 minutes to that modification.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I think that may be better.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I, of course, will not--in terms of sequence, it is possible there may be two amendments relating to the first-degree amendments relating to the same subject. If that were true, it may be wiser that this not intervene those two amendments. Have amendments been scheduled for votes?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I do welcome that assurance. It is important for this institution. Whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican makes no difference on this issue. This is a matter of this institution asserting its constitutional responsibility, and I thank my friend from Virginia.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is the time between now and 11:30 allocated?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I know that Senator Dorgan wanted some of this time. I would have a couple comments relative to the Dorgan amendment, first of all. I happen to agree with what has been recently said about the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He, indeed, would be a useful witness for the Senate to call, and I hope that either the Armed Services Committee or the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would call that Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction so that he could come and testify before us. That has not been done. The Department of Defense IG has withdrawn his people. These are the people who look at the contracts with the contractors that are supporting our troops. The DOD IG withdrew his people so that there are no longer those folks on the ground who can tell us about those contractors. I do not believe that the Government Accountability Office people have been called to testify before the Senate. There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues about the initial contract, why it was awarded on a sole-source basis, whether the CPA, the provisional authority, was overcharged by Halliburton for oil which was purchased. There are serious questions about meals which were served or not served. There are questions about whether Halliburton had the estimating, subcontracting, and financial management systems they needed to run two multibillion dollar contracts. There are a lot of questions which need to be reviewed. They ought to be reviewed. And we ought to have Senate committees that are calling these people to testify in front of us. It seems to me that in the absence of that, what Senator Dorgan is doing is saying: Let's have a Truman-type committee, a special inspector general to look at the contracting issues. Not only do I see nothing wrong with it, it has tremendously powerful precedent. It is named the Truman committee because Harry Truman, in the middle of a war--I emphasize in the middle of a war, World War II--Harry Truman, a Democrat, with a Democratic President, was willing to undertake an investigation of contracting practices and procurement practices because he felt the war was being exploited for profit by certain persons who were trying to profiteer off the bravery of others. There is no disagreement among any Member of this body that I know of about the bravery, the professionalism, the courage of our troops. They deserve everything we can give them, and I believe we are giving them everything they need. There is no disagreement about that here. When Members of this body get up and are critical about the way in which this war has been won, it seems to me that is what we owe our troops. We not only owe them the material and the training and we owe their families everything, but we also owe them our best thinking. And our best thinking is not unanimous. There is not a consensus. There are not 100 people here who are cloned to think the same way. There are different thoughts. We owe our troops our best, honest, conscientious thinking, and when people get up on this floor and provide that thinking, particularly where it is critical, it should not just be characterized as somehow or another undermining our troops. Our troops depend upon us for the equipment, the training, the materiel, morale, for the support of their families. They depend on us for that. They are entitled to that. People who stand up and give their best thinking are supporting our troops in the best sense of the word; they are giving them their best, honest, conscientious thoughts as to how we can succeed in Iraq and make the best of a situation that is not going well, not just stay the course, stay the course, which is a bumper sticker, not a strategy, but how can we modify this course to increase our chances for success. I want to yield the floor. I see Senator Dorgan is in the Chamber. I know he wants to speak on his amendment. I yield to him such time as he needs to speak relative to his amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I understand this also is technical?

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. No objection.

Mr. LEVIN. I do, indeed.

Mr. LEVIN. She is still part of the Guard and Reserve, though.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from Indiana for his eloquent, passionate portrayal of the needs and responsibilities we have to carry out toward our guardsmen and reservists.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It has been offered on behalf of Senator Bayh, by Senator Durbin. Senator Landrieu is a very passionate and persuasive supporter of this amendment. I think Senators Bayh, Durbin, and Landrieu are right; that we basically designed the Guard and Reserve force to be a strategic reserve. As a practical matter, now they are effectively part of our operational forces. We have to change this arrangement so they do not take such a severe hit as they are being called up, and they are now in for longer and longer periods. I do not have the statistics on how long the average period of callup is now, but I am quite confident that if we could compare the length of the callup, say, during the last few years to the periods between 1973, when we ended the draft, that we would see there has been a dramatic increase in the length of the callup. I support the amendment. I think we can make some real progress--I hope we can--this year in conference on this matter. It is a reasonable cost, a fair cost. It is something on which we can do better, and the troops deserve that we do better.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support very much the Chambliss amendment. I think it makes an important statement, as well as taking an important step toward greater equity relative to retirement. The Senator from Georgia has described his amendment, and I will not describe it again because he has accurately described it. I commend him for this amendment. It is an important amendment. I ask the Presiding Officer whether there is time between the vote on the Chambliss amendment and the Durbin amendment for an explanation of the Durbin amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my recollection that the Senate already passed an amendment in one of the previous bills where we made up the difference for Federal employees; is that not correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the U.S. Conference of Mayors recognizes the importance of preserving records of gun purchases by known terrorists and the important role they could potentially play in uncovering a terrorist attack before it is carried out. We owe it to all Americans in this era of heightened risk of terrorist attack to do all we can to protect their safety.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation's gun safety laws do not go far enough to protect our families and communities and may leave us vulnerable to an attack by terrorists using military style firearms legally purchased within our own borders. Current law not only allows a known or suspected terrorist to buy firearms in the U.S., it also requires that records pertaining to the sale be destroyed within a day of the purchase. Congress should take proactive steps to address these shortfalls in our gun safety laws. Federal law requires that anyone seeking to purchase or obtain a permit to possess, acquire, or carry firearms undergo a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. This process requires the applicant to provide a variety of personal information including name, date of birth, current residence, and country of citizenship which is then compared with data in the NICS system to determine whether or not the person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing firearms. Disqualifying criteria includes such things as felony convictions and fugitive or illegal alien status. As part of the background check, applicants are also checked against known terrorist watch lists. However, under current law, membership in a known terrorist organization does not automatically disqualify an applicant from receiving or possessing a firearm. In cases where a positive match is made, federal authorities search for other disqualifying information. If no disqualifying information can be found within three business days, the transaction is permitted to continue. In addition, all records pertaining to a positive match of an applicant to a terrorist watch list must, under current law, be destroyed within 24 hours if no disqualifying information is found. I have cosponsored the Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act introduced by Senator Lautenberg. This bill would require that in cases where an NICS background check turns up a valid match to a terrorist watch list, all records pertaining to the transaction be retained for ten years. In addition, the bill requires that all NICS information be shared with appropriate federal and state counterterrorism officials anytime an individual on a terrorist watch list attempts to buy a firearm. This is only common sense. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents some 1,183 cities around the country, adopted a resolution strongly supporting the Terrorist Apprehension and Record Retention Act at their 2005 annual meeting. The resolution cites a report by the General Accountability Office which found that from February 3, 2004 through June 30, 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the federal government. This is an alarming statistic. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the resolution adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors be printed in the Record.