Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment would establish an independent commission on the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. This would be modeled after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which was an independent commission that we all recognize as being an extremely successful commission. This bipartisan independent commission would examine U.S. policies and practices related to the treatment of detainees, including their detention, interrogation, and rendition. It would also examine the causes of detainee abuses and assess the responsibility of military and civilian leaders within and outside the Department of Defense for policies, actions, and failures to act which may have contributed to such abuse. It would also evaluate the effectiveness and propriety of interrogation techniques and practices for producing intelligence. The independent commission would report on its findings and recommendations to the President and to the Congress. Mr. President, our troops serve honorably, they serve courageously across the globe. Their honor is besmirched when some of those who we capture are abused. And on top of that our troops' security is jeopardized when people that we detain are not treated as we rightfully insist others treat our troops when they are captured. The amendment that we are proposing today will help reaffirm the values that we cherish as Americans, will help to reestablish our credibility around the world, and will help to protect our troops should they be captured. When Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 7, 2004, shortly after the horrific pictures of Abu Ghraib appeared in the media, he asked the world to ``judge us by our actions.'' Those were his words. And he went on to say, telling everybody, ``watch how a democracy deals with wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes and our own weaknesses.'' Secretary Rumsfeld asked all who were watching and within the sound of his voice to ask those who would spread hatred of America if ``the willingness of Americas to acknowledge their own failures before humanity doesn't like the world as surely as the great ideas and beliefs that make this nation a beacon of hope and liberty for all who strive to be free.'' Secretary Rumsfeld's words were direct and they were right. It is important to our efforts to defeat terrorism that the United States investigate itself openly and thoroughly. That is the standard by which we and our causes will be judged and should be judged. In nearly 2 years since Specialist Darby courageously came forward to report the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the Defense Department has had every opportunity to investigate itself. But the results have fallen far short of the standard that Secretary Rumsfeld set up. Some seek to downplay the significance of these detainee abuses, arguing at the start that they were the result of aberrant behavior of a few rogue reserve Military Police on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, but with each successive of Department of Defense report it has become increasingly clear that the claim that these were the isolated acts of a few rogue reserve MPs does not explain the causes and the factors contributing to detainee abuse, and it does not explain the scope of those abuses. There have been a number of Department of Defense reviews--8, 10, 12, pick a number. Every one of them has failed to provide a comprehensive picture of the extent and the causes of detainee abuses, and put together, they don't come close to a comprehensive picture of the extent and causes of detainee abuses. Every one of those reviews and investigations of detainee abuse has been carefully circumscribed, leaving significant gaps and omissions. I want to go through some of the gaps and omissions of these investigations because we are going to hear on the floor that there have been 10, there have been 12 reviews--whatever the number; you can count them different ways--but when you put them all together, there are massive gaps. That cannot be allowed to remain. First, we don't know the role of the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community in the mistreatment of detainees or what policies apply to those intelligence personnel. Witness after witness who was in charge of these reviews has told us they had no jurisdiction to look into the intelligence community's mistreatment of detainees or what their role is. They all disclaim the capability, the competence, or the authority to look into the role of the intelligence community, which we know from public statement after public statement of people who have been found guilty and not found guilty, people who were pictured in these pictures at Abu Ghraib, that the intelligence personnel told them to soften up detainees. Yet gap No. 1, the policies of intelligence communities, their activities, their involvement, has not been reviewed. Second, we don't know what the policies and practices are of the United States regarding the rendition of detainees to other countries, where they may be interrogated using techniques that would not be permitted at U.S. detention facilities. Third, there is insufficient information, almost total lack, on the role of contractors in U.S. detention and intelligence operations. We are using contractors to interrogate detainees. What is their role? There is total silence, a total gap on their role, with all these reports we have. Fourth, the detention and interrogation of detainees by special operation forces, that needs close examination. Fifth, and this is one of the largest gaps of all, all of the unanswered questions regarding the legality under U.S. and international law of the interrogation techniques used by Department of Defense personnel, regardless of whether they were authorized or not authorized by a higher authority. We have sought for a year or more the two key documents that set forth the standards to be used in interrogation that were approved by the Department of Justice. We cannot get the Office of Legal Counsel documents. These issues are not going to go away. They can't be swept under the rug. With each passing day, we have new revelations of detainee abuses. Courageous and honorable soldiers, such as Captain Fishback, come forward--just a few weeks ago now--with new allegations of mistreatment of prisoners, of confusion over what policies applied, and commanders who appear to have condoned this behavior. He was there. He is speaking out publicly. There is not a week that goes by that there is not a revelation. We have to get an independent investigation going so that we can refer allegations to an independent commission, to put it in the hands of a bipartisan group. These revelations only serve to further undermine our international standing and put our troops at risk of being treated similarly should they be captured. That is why a group of retired generals and admirals wrote to the President in September 2004 calling for an independent commission to investigate the treatment of detainees. So we have a significant group of retired military leaders saying we must have an independent commission. That is why the American Bar Association has endorsed an independent commission. The administration, I know, opposes this, just the way they have opposed Senator McCain's amendment and Senator Graham's amendment that will get us into the future as to what future standards there are. The administration doesn't want to look at the history. They are wrong. Let the chips fall where they may, wherever that may be. It will benefit everybody. Most importantly, it will benefit the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. They are entitled to have their honor. They deserve their honor. They deserve an independent commission which will look at how this happened and prove to the world this is not us. Whatever it is, whatever the policies were, whatever the practices were, we are willing to look them straight in the face and say: We are going to correct that. We are not going to hide it. We are not going to run away from it. We are not going to sweep it under the rug. We are going to look it square in the face. We are going to fill the gaps. Those gaps are huge. No matter how often it is stated that we have had 8 or 10 reviews, it does not fill the gaps because of the limits placed on those reviews and the gaps that were left. Mr. President, how much time do I have on this amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my dear friend from Virginia for his invariable courtesies. We have brought a bill to the floor, finally, which I will have much more to say on Monday, but at this time I simply would call up an amendment that is at the desk. I think it is No. 2430. I would make inquiry of the Chair as to whether I need to lay aside any pending amendments in order to do that.

Mr. LEVIN. In that case, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment 2430.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do appreciate that, and I will take 1 minute to respond. The chairman very properly points out that there was a Schlesinger panel. That panel said the following relative to the lack of cooperation from the CIA with the panel, which is gap No. 1 I have listed as one of the reasons we need an independent commission. The Schlesinger panel said the following: The panel did not have full access to information involving the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention operations. This is an area the panel believes needs further investigation and review. I agree they did good work, but they were limited in what they were allowed to do, and they themselves recommended further investigation and review. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this year I voted against the budget resolution that passed the Congress because it reflected the wrong priorities. That budget resolution short changed vital public needs such as education and health care for all Americans in order to further cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans. The bill before us today is the first part of a three-part budget reconciliation process set up to help carry out that misguided budget. Budget reconciliation is a special process that gives privileged short cuts under the rules of the Senate. For many of the same reasons that I opposed the original budget resolution, I must also oppose this reconciliation bill. Instead of improving our fiscal situation, the reconciliation package worsens the problem. This first of the three reconciliation bills is focused on spending cuts. It cuts funding for Medicaid, Medicare, low-income housing grants and other important programs. These cuts, along with the revenue that could be generated as a result of a shortsighted decision to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, in Alaska, are projected to reduce the deficit by $39.1 billion over the next 5 years. However, at the same time, both Houses of Congress are working on separate versions of the second part of the reconciliation package--the tax bill. That bill would extend $70 billion worth of tax cuts benefiting largely the wealthiest Americans. It simply does not make sense to say we need to cut $39.1 billion out of vital programs to reduce the deficit while at the same time increasing the deficit with $70 billion in tax cuts. These bills continue an irresponsible and inequitable tax policy that recklessly adds to our deficit. The third part of this three-part reconciliation process will be a bill to allow the national debt to increase by another $781 billion. The need for that third bill shows how dreadful our budget situation has become. The U.S. national debt has already climbed above $8 trillion. In the fiscal year that just ended, we spent over $350 billion just to pay the interest on that debt. That is 14 percent of the Federal Government's spending last year. That is money that doesn't go toward important infrastructure improvements, homeland security or other priorities like health care, education or environmental protection. We simply cannot afford to continue building up this massive debt. Not only is it financially irresponsible to add to this already heavy debt, but it adds risk to our national security. Forty-four percent of our national debt is held by foreign investors. If these investors ever decide, for economic or political reasons, to stop financing our debt, our markets could be severely impacted. This can provide other countries with greater leverage during trade or other negotiations with us. In addition to the fiscal irresponsibility in this reconciliation package, it is unconscionable that this body would once again decide to cut services for the poor and the disabled and the elderly and disadvantaged children and then to turn around next week and provide the mostly the wealthiest Americans with $70 billion of tax cuts. I will say at the outset, this bill contains some good provisions. This bill halts an unwise looming 4.4 percent decrease for physicians treating Medicare patients and instead provides a 1 percent increase. This bill was amended and now contains a provision that will prevent a reduction in Federal money for Michigan Medicaid. This bill also has several provisions to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. However, a large portion of the spending cuts in this reconciliation bill impacts the millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries as well as providers. This is not the first time Congress has attempted to balance the budget on the backs of people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid. In 1997, Congress cuts payments to providers and services to beneficiaries and the cuts were overreaching. It is my fear the same result will come from our actions today. This bill before us cuts reimbursement for several types of Medicare providers including nursing facilities, hospitals and managed care. This bill also places caps on payments for Medicare and Medicaid services. People who rely on Medicare and Medicaid are going to be hurt by this bill. I hope that my colleagues take a long look at by how much the bad outweighs the good in this bill. In addition, I also regret that the majority decided to include in this budget reconciliation the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil and gas development. I have consistently opposed opening ANWR to oil and gas development because I believe it is the wrong approach to addressing our Nation's need for long-term energy security. The actual reserves in the area that will be available for leasing under this provision are too small to have a significant impact on our Nation's energy independence and will not produce any oil for more than a decade. I do not believe that this limited potential for oil and gas development in ANWR warrants endangering what is one of the last remaining pristine wilderness areas in the United States. But, also, the process for consideration of ANWR on the budget reconciliation bill has been flawed from the start. Including this important issue in the budget reconciliation bill has short-circuited the normal legislative process and has eliminated the opportunity for Congress to give the issue the consideration it deserves. In fact, this issue was not even considered when the Senate debated the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for 2 weeks this past summer. Opening ANWR to oil and gas development was not considered on the Energy bill because the votes were not there to pass it except by including it in the budget reconciliation bills that we are considering now. On a positive note, I am pleased that I was able to include language in this bill that recognizes the needs of border States when awarding emergency and interoperable communications grants. First responders in border States like Michigan, New Mexico, and Minnesota face unique challenges and must be able to communicate with a number of Federal, State, and local entities including FEMA, Customs and Border Protection, and the National Guard in addition to police, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel from other jurisdictions who may assist in the event of a large scale disaster or terrorist attack. What is often overlooked is that first responders near border crossings must also be able to maintain seamless communication with their Canadian or Mexican counterparts across the border. My amendment would assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The amendment provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish at least two International Border Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration Projects--with at least one of these demonstration projects on each of the northern and southern borders. These interoperable communications demonstrations will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders. In closing, I sincerely hope that future budgets coming from this body will be more responsible than this one. Furthermore, as imprudent as this bill is, I hope it won't be made worse in conference after merging with the even more misguided House bill. Major bipartisan efforts will be needed to make true progress on the long-term fiscal problems we face. I will continue to fight for fair and fiscally responsible policies that help generate jobs and economic security from which all Americans can benefit.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, despite the potential threat from terrorists armed with easily accessible powerful firearms, Congress still has taken no action to require Federal registration of .50 caliber sniper rifles. We must do more to protect our families and communities. The .50 caliber sniper rifle is a favorite weapon of militaries around the world and is also among the most powerful weapons legally available to private individuals in the United States. Published reports indicate that .50 caliber sniper rifles are capable of accurately hitting a target more than 1,500 yards away with a bullet measuring a half inch in diameter. In addition, these thumb-size bullets come in armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive varieties that can easily punch through aircraft fuselages, fuel tanks, and engines. Currently, these highly destructive sniper rifles, which have no sporting purpose, are subject to only minimal Federal regulation and are treated the same as other long rifles, including shotguns, hunting rifles, and smaller target rifles. In August, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of ``Federal, State, and territorial laws that would restrict the sale, distribution, transfer, and possession of .50 caliber sniper weapons except to the U.S. military, and the National Guard and law enforcement agencies.'' The ABA report that accompanied the resolution states: Despite its destructive potential, the .50 caliber weapon is sold like any other rifle. Under current law, one needs only be 18 years of age, have a driver's license and pass a minimal background check in order to buy the gun. The U.S. Congress has acted to restrict various weapons including specific firearms and ammunition. Rockets, mortars and ammunition over .50 caliber size cannot be sold or legally possessed by civilians. Machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, imported junk handguns, silencers, guns made of plastic or otherwise undetectable by metal screening devices and some armor-piercing ammunition are currently banned or restricted under federal law. I am a cosponsor of the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act introduced by Senator Feinstein. This bill would reclassify .50 caliber rifles under the National Firearms Act, NFA, treating them the same as other high-powered or especially lethal firearms like several of those mentioned in the ABA's report. Among other things, reclassification of .50 caliber sniper rifles under the NFA would subject them to new registration requirements. Future transfers or sales of .50 caliber sniper rifles would have to be conducted through a licensed dealer with an accompanying background check. In addition, the rifle being sold would have to be registered with Federal authorities. We must take proactive steps to help prevent terrorists armed with military style firearms purchased in the U.S. from carrying out attacks on innocent Americans. I urge the Senate to take up and pass commonsense gun safety legislation, like the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act, to assist our law enforcement officials in protecting our homeland security.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one additional unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that it be noted in the Record that items C through G in the February 12, 2004, press release setting forth the agreement be noted as being phase II of the agreement.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senators yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from West Virginia a question. Has the joint agreement of February 12, 2004, been made a part of the Record?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Thursday, in the midst of National Safe Schools Week, a student was nearly shot to death inside a Michigan high school. This tragic incident further underscores the need to do more to combat youth violence, especially gun violence. According to published newspaper reports of the shooting, around noon last Thursday, a tenth grade student fired as many as three shots at another student in a crowded high school hallway. The 15-year-old victim was struck once in the chest by a .380 caliber bullet, which missed his heart by less than an inch. Fortunately, he is expected to live. The suspect, who is also 15 years old, allegedly used a stolen .380 caliber pistol in the shooting and now faces life in prison after being charged as an adult. Reportedly, the suspect also has a previous conviction involving a firearm violation. The shooting last Thursday came less than a month after two other students were injured in a drive-by shooting outside the same high school. Unfortunately, youth gun violence continues to threaten communities, destroy families, and change the lives of too many young people forever. Only a day before last Thursday's shooting, thousands of young people across the country observed a Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence, which was designed to empower children and teenagers to do what they can to eliminate gun violence in their communities. In many communities, students were given the opportunity to sign a voluntary pledge against gun violence. Since the first Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence in 1996, more than 7 million students have signed the pledge. Here is what the pledge says: I will never bring a gun to school; I will never use a gun to settle a dispute; I will use my influence with my friends to keep them from using guns to settle disputes. My individual choices and actions, when multiplied by those of young people throughout the country, will make a difference. Together, by honoring this pledge, we can reverse the violence and grow up in safety. I applaud the organizers and students who participated in this year's Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence for their efforts to reduce gun violence. The thousands of students who signed the pledge this year, and the millions before them, have promised to do what they can to prevent tragedies like last week's school shooting in Michigan. Congress should do its part by adequately funding important law enforcement programs and by passing commonsense gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program has successfully carried out activities and services that support family reunification, family preservation, community-based family support, and other services for children in need. My amendment builds upon the success of this program, through an enhanced, coordinated effort to reunite children with their families, by directing the Secretary to undertake a family reunification initiative in concert with national non-profit organizations engaged in similar efforts. The goal is to ensure that the most effective methods are utilized to achieve family reunification expeditiously. This can be achieved by collecting, tracking and coordinating information maintained by national non-profit organizations that are also engaged in family reunification efforts. It is quite evident why such a coordinated effort is needed. Over the past several months, we learned a lot about displacement. After nearly 2 months have passed since Hurricane Katrina, thousands are still seeking family members. Of the 2,000 foster children who fled New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, 37 are still unaccounted for. Overall, there have been 4,878 reports of missing children and over 1,600 not yet resolved. There have been 12,754 adults reported as missing. Of these cases, 6,562 remain unresolved. We have all witnessed rescues from the rooftops in New Orleans. It was the norm rather than the exception in many instances for intact families to be separately rescued and subsequently sent to many different places, all across the country. Some have miraculously reconnected with one another. Far too few. We cannot depend on miracles; we need a coordinated system that will help unite family members who seek one another. It is for the social good to bring families together, when possible. Family matters. The strength of the family is greater than its parts. The stress of losing your home, your job, your community, does not compare to losing your family. I am pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to support this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, November 3 marks the 75th anniversary of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. Since it first opened to vehicle traffic in 1930, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel has made a tremendous contribution not only to my home State of Michigan, but to our Nation as a whole. On the occasion of this historic milestone, I know my colleagues join me in recognition of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the hard-working men and women who keep it operating, the thousands of Americans and Canadians who pass through it each day, and the critical role it plays in our economic relationship with Canada. The Detroit-Windsor Tunnel serves as much more than a conduit for travel, it is a critical socioeconomic link between the United States and Canada. The idea for a tunnel to connect the cities of Detroit and Windsor was first conceived in the 1870s. After a number of failed attempts, Windsor Mayor Edward Blake Winter proposed a new tunnel project in 1919. Mayor Winter believed a tunnel would foster greater unity between the two countries and would serve as a memorial to the soldiers who were killed in World War I. After 11 years of planning and construction, this vision finally became a reality on November 1, 1930. On that day, President Herbert Hoover pressed a golden button in the U.S. Capitol officially opening the mile-long tunnel and forever changing and strengthening the relationship between the United States and Canada. Today, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel remains the only underwater international tunnel open to vehicular traffic in the world. Its construction in the late 1920s was unparalleled by any other tunnel in the world and took only 26 months to complete, nearly a year ahead of schedule. Amazingly, the tunnel allows four full lanes of traffic to cross the U.S.-Canadian border at a depth of 75 feet below the surface of the water. However, it is not simply the marvel of the tunnel's engineering that we celebrate on its 75th anniversary. We must also recognize its continuing contributions to trade and travel between the United States and Canada. Approximately 29,000 vehicles pass through the tunnel each day, making the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel one of the 15 most heavily traveled border crossings in the United States. Everyday, untold numbers of workers, manufacturers, and suppliers on both sides of the border depend on the Detroit Windsor Tunnel to get to jobs and transport products. Thousands of families also use the tunnel. This movement of people and goods has an immeasurable impact on the economic health of Detroit and Windsor alike. In addition, the cross- border transit reinforces U.S.-Canadian relations. It is with great pride that I honor the 75 years of valuable contributions made by the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. I would like to extend my sincerest wishes of thanks and good luck to the people of Detroit and Windsor and the people who keep the tunnel operating as they work to make its future as productive and beneficial as its past.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as though in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note that S. Res. 287, which is a resolution I introduced on behalf of Senator Stabenow, Senator Reid, Senator Frist, and I believe a majority of this body now, has been cleared for passage later on this evening. I very much welcome that development. It is fitting, indeed, that on the day after the passing of Rosa Parks the majority of this body sees it important to adopt a bipartisan resolution honoring her life. I thank the Chair. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last evening, we lost Rosa Parks. She died at the age of 92. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice have shaped this Nation's history and she is remembered with reverence and respect by us all. A half century ago, Rosa Parks, the black seamstress whose refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery, AL bus to a white man sparked a revolution in American race relations. Rosa Parks decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. In her own words, Rosa Parks said, ``People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.'' The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. Rosa Parks's arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus, boycott. Her stand on that December day in 1955 was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime of struggle for equality and justice. Twelve years earlier, in 1943, Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's bus related segregation laws requiring blacks to pay their fares at the front of the bus, then get off of the bus and reboard from the rear of the bus. The driver of that bus, was the same driver with whom she would have her confrontation years later. The rest is history; the boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated that 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. For her personal bravery and self-sacrifice, in 1999, we honored Rosa Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal. My home State of Michigan proudly claims Rosa Parks as one of our own. Rosa Parks and her husband Raymond made the journey to Detroit in 1957 where Rosa Parks's brother resided. In the years since, she continued to dedicate her life to advancing equal opportunity and to educating our youth about the past struggles for freedom, from slavery up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In 1987, the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development was established. Its primary focus has been working with young people from across the country and the world as part of the ``Pathways to Freedom'' program. The pathways program traces history from the days of the underground railroad to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and beyond. Through this institute, young people, ages 11 to 17, meet with national leaders and participate in a variety of educational and research projects. During the summer months, they have the opportunity to travel across the country visiting historical sites. The Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development has expanded to include an intergenerational mentoring and computer skills partnership program, which teams young people with elderly Americans. Generational and age barriers break down as young people help the elderly develop computer skills, while the elderly provide their unique and personalized recollections of their lives in American history. To date, over 10,000 youth from around the world have participated in this program. With the work of her institute, we can truly say that in addition to having played a major role in shaping America's past and present, Rosa Parks is continuing to help shape America's future. Mr. President, I close with the profound, instructive words of Rosa Parks, which she spoke in 1988. She said: ``I am leaving this legacy to all of you . . . to bring peace, justice, equality, love and a fulfillment of what our lives should be. Without vision, the people will perish, and without courage and inspiration, dreams will die--the dream of freedom and peace.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Tuesday evening, the University of Michigan presented Paul Rusesabagina with its 15th Annual Wallenberg Medal. As my colleagues may remember, Mr. Rusesabagina was the subject of the movie ``Hotel Rwanda.'' The Wallenberg Medal is named for University of Michigan alumnus and humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. After receiving his degree in architecture in 1935, he spent time in several jobs in South Africa and Palestine before moving to Sweden in 1941 to work for a Jewish Hungarian businessman named Kalman Lauer. Lauer operated an export- import firm which did business in Central Europe, a large portion of which took place in Hungary. As the Nazis continued to gain power in Europe, Lauer found it increasingly difficult to travel and turned over control of his foreign division to Wallenberg. In 1944, Wallenberg was approached by the American War Refugee Board to take part in a plan to assist Jews in Budapest who were in danger of falling victim to the holocaust. Wallenberg agreed to take part in the project and was sent to Budapest as a representative of the Swedish Government. In Budapest, Wallenberg hired several hundred Jews to staff his office, bringing them under the diplomatic protection of Sweden. Additionally, he created a new official looking Swedish passport, known as the ``Schutzpass.'' Wallenberg gave the Schutzpass to thousands of Hungarian Jews and said that it granted the holder immunity from Nazi deportation. The Schutzpass deceived the Nazis and may have saved the lives of as many as 20,000 Jews. Wallenberg is also known to have rented 32 buildings in Budapest, which he declared to be under the diplomatic protection of the Swedish Government. Using his architectural education from the University of Michigan, he took space designed to hold no more than 5,000 people and turned it into housing for more than 35,000 Jews. These ``safe houses'' provided a refuge of last resort for thousands who would have otherwise disappeared into Nazi death camps. There are numerous stories of Wallenberg's courage and heroism throughout the last few years of World War II. Despite repeated threats and attempts on his life, he persevered and continued his work to save as many Jews as possible. Wallenberg is best known for skillful negotiation and fearless confrontation of Nazi soldiers who threatened the safety of those he was working to protect. Tragically, Wallenberg disappeared soon after Soviet soldiers took control of Budapest. While the circumstances surrounding Wallenberg's disappearance are still unclear, the tens of thousands of Jews he saved from certain death will never forget his brave actions. The University of Michigan created the Wallenberg Medal in 1990 to honor his memory and recognize other outstanding humanitarian leaders. Each year the Wallenberg Medal is presented to an individual who has exhibited extraordinary respect for human rights on behalf of those subjected to persecution. Medal recipients are chosen to honor their self-sacrifice, integrity, and courage in standing up to an oppressive majority. Following the presentation, the Wallenberg Medal recipient is invited to address an audience of students, faculty, and members of the community regarding their experiences and humanitarian work. Past Wallenberg Medal recipients include the Dalai Lama, Nobel-laureate and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, civil rights leader and Congressman John Lewis, and other extraordinary humanitarians. This year's Wallenberg Medal recipient Paul Rusesabagina has certainly exhibited qualities worthy of such a high honor. Rusesabagina was the manager of the Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda in 1994 when the assassination of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana pushed an already tense situation in the country over the edge. Radical ethnic Hutus began rounding up and murdering their Tutsi rivals as well as other moderate Hutus who did not support their actions. It is estimated that nearly one million people were killed in the violence in only 100 days. Paul Rusesabagina did not stand by and watch as his countrymen were murdered. As a well-connected Hutu, Rusesabagina was spared persecution. However, his wife, a Tutsi, and his children were not safe. He moved them from his home to the Hotel des Mille Collines where he believed they would be safer. As the violence intensified, he opened the hotel to hundreds of other Rwandans, Hutu and Tutsi alike, who were seeking to escape the violence outside. In the following months, there were numerous attempts to force those at the hotel out into the streets of Kigali. Each time, Rusesabagina used his international connections through the hotel or with the Rwandan military in combination with keen negotiation skills to spare the lives of those he was caring for. Amazingly, no one who took shelter inside the hotel was killed in the violence. In all, Paul Rusesabagina and the Hotel des Mille Collines protected the lives of more than 1,200 people during the genocide. Prior to the award ceremony last Tuesday, Paul Rusesabagina was reunited with one of the many who took shelter at the Hotel des Mille Collines. According to reports, Thomas Kamilindi was working as a journalist in Kigali when violence broke out in 1994. Kamilindi, his pregnant wife and young daughter stayed at the hotel for a month and a half until they were evacuated. Kamilindi credits Paul Rusesabagina with saving his life and the lives of his family. The meeting last Tuesday was the first since Kamilindi and his family were evacuated more than 10 years ago. Following their meeting, Kamilindi said, ``It was very emotional for him and for me. I am still alive because Paul was there.'' Kamilindi is currently a Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow at the University of Michigan where he is studying representations of violence in the media. Paul Rusesabagina's courageous actions closely resemble those of Raoul Wallenberg 50 years before. Both men stood in the face of great adversity to protect those who were not able to protect themselves. Like Wallenberg, Rusesabagina provided a shelter of last resort to innocent civilians facing persecution, many of whom he did not know personally prior to the violence. In addition, both men fought off potential violence not by meeting force with force, but by using persuasion, influence, and negotiation instead. I thank the University of Michigan for adding to the legacy of Raoul Wallenberg by recognizing the contributions of other great humanitarians like Paul Rusesabagina. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Paul Rusesabagina on this great honor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, October 16-22 is National Safe Schools Week. School violence, or even the threat of school violence, in too many of our schools instills fear in our students, and limits their ability to learn. It also can threaten and intimidate teachers and make instruction more difficult. National Safe Schools Week is intended to raise awareness of school safety issues and empower students, parents, teachers, and parents to do what they can to prevent violence in their schools. Congress should also do its part by passing common sense gun safety legislation and by funding important programs that help to reduce school violence. According to 2003 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 950,000 students take a weapon to school each month, resulting in more than 1,400,000 students being injured or threatened with a weapon during the school year. In addition, every month, an estimated 840,000 students feel too unsafe to go to school. This is a problem which left unaddressed will continue to hold children back from reaching their full educational potential. Statistics cited by the PAX organization, one of the organizers of National Safe Schools Week, indicate that in 81 percent of the school shootings in our country, the attackers told other students of their plans prior to the attack. Further, students are responsible for tipping off school authorities in 93 percent of the cases where weapons are confiscated from students at school. To strengthen this fact, PAX created the Speak Up Campaign. The centerpiece of the campaign is a national hotline, 1-866-SPEAK-UP, where children and teenagers can call to anonymously report threats involving weapons at their school. Since the creation of the hotline in 2002, the Speak Up Campaign has received more than 7,000 calls which were then passed along to appropriate law enforcement officials. School violence threatens to put our children's safety and ability to learn in jeopardy. Our Nation's schools need our help to combat this ongoing problem. To start, we should adequately fund Federal grant programs like COPS. COPS hiring grants have been used to hire more than 6,500 school resource officers since 1999. These officers help ensure a safe environment in and around our schools and collaborate with the school community to more effectively deal with school violence issues. We should also support common sense gun storage requirements to make it more difficult for children and teenagers to access guns and ammunition. Recently, I joined with 69 of my colleagues in voting for an amendment offered by Senator Kohl that would require licensed dealers, manufacturers, and importers to include a safe gun storage or gun safety device with every handgun they sell. Use of such storage devices could help prevent a child or teenager from acquiring a gun that they might use to injure or kill another student at school. Hopefully, Senator Kohl's amendment will become law. School violence has always posed a threat to students and teachers, but lethal and easily concealable guns have escalated the problem. Gun violence, not only affects students at a particular school, it has a rippling effect on students at schools in the same county, State, and in some cases, the entire country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting efforts to reduce the threat of violence, especially gun violence, to our schools.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have all gotten up on this floor and talked about the urgent necessity of helping the people of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. We have all been on this floor talking about the uniqueness of the disaster which is called Katrina. Every one of us goes back home. We received into our homes, our churches, our synagogues people who have been displaced by Katrina. Our people have responded magnificently to this disaster, to this catastrophe back home. Now the question is whether we in the Congress are going to be helpful to the victims in a way which we have been helpful in so many other disasters of a smaller magnitude by providing a loan so that operations can continue, or whether we are going to incorporate a provision in this loan which has never been incorporated before in any loan ever made to a community that obtained a loan under this law. We have never imposed this restriction that is in this bill on any community in this country. We have lent money to Ricksburg, ID; we have lent money to Johnstown, PA; we have lent money to Clifton, AZ; we have lent money to Albian Borough, PA; we have lent money to Vassar, MI, in my home State. There are occasions when those loans have been forgiven, and in the ones I just listed--and I want the majority leader to understand the depth of the feeling on this issue because it can happen to any of us-- the loans I just listed, including one to my home State, have been forgiven when they met the conditions of the Stafford Act for forgiving loans. But now we are telling the victims of the worst disaster we have had in this country that the Stafford Act provisions, which, under certain circumstances, could permit the forgiveness of a loan, will not be available to them. My amendment does not turn this loan into a grant. If my amendment is accepted, it would provide that the same terms and conditions under which this loan is made will be the terms and conditions that have been applied to other loans. To discriminate against these people who have been so victimized, to me, is unthinkable--that we would single them out for discriminatory language. I don't believe we can operate this way, and I don't believe the House would reject our language if my amendment is accepted. The Senator from Delaware and I went over to the House last night. We talked with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he indicated that the language which I am going to suggest would be acceptable to him. He didn't speak for the whole House, obviously, and if the Senator from Delaware chooses to comment on this, I think he will restate what I just stated as being accurate. My request, my plea, is that we adopt language which strikes the discriminatory provision which allows the Stafford Act forgiveness to be considered with these loans the way it has been considered with all other loans. That is my plea. And my plea is incorporated in an amendment. My amendment, which I ask the majority leader to consider, would strike the word ``not'' in the bill where it says: . . . that loans may not be canceled. Strike the word ``not'' and substitute the words ``may be canceled pursuant to the Stafford Act,'' and with an additional requirement, ``with the approval of the Congress.'' I suggest we add an additional safeguard, the safeguard of the Stafford Act, which has been applied to all other loans, but in addition to that, add a requirement that if there is forgiveness, it could only happen with the approval of the Congress. That is a double safeguard. That still would single them out as no others have been singled out, but at least it would keep the possibility explicit in the bill that under the circumstances that are provided for every other loan, that these loans might be forgiven should Congress so choose. I have been told we can always do that; we always have that power, and we do. It is implicit. But I think we should make it explicit to give people the assurance that in addition--it is bad enough to be victims of this hurricane; it is doubly bad to be victims of discriminatory language. And we are not going to walk down that road. We are going to hold our hand out to you and not insult or offend at the same time. I ask the leader whether he would amend his unanimous consent proposal to strike the word ``not'' on page 2, line 10, and substitute the words ``only with the approval of the Congress''?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we owe it not only to the people who live and work in Washington, DC and the millions who visit, but to all Americans to do what we can to prevent gun violence in our nation's capital. It is important that we also respect the wishes of DC residents as they work to address the problems of gun violence in their own communities. Unfortunately, legislation introduced earlier this year would undermine both of these objectives. Among other things, the misnamed District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would repeal local laws in Washington, DC that ban the sale and possession of unregistered firearms, require firearm registration, impose common sense safe storage requirements, and ban semiautomatic weapons. Elected officials and community leaders throughout Washington, DC, have made clear their opposition to this bill and any other attempt to roll back Washington's local gun safety laws. In recent months, many groups around the country working to end gun violence have also expressed strong opposition to the proposed repeal of local gun safety laws in Washington, DC. In July, 44 national, state, and local organizations issued an open letter to Congress opposing the so called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. Among the groups who signed the letter were the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Black Police Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Their letter said: The citizens of the District of Columbia should have the power to decide by democratic means whether and how firearms are regulated in the city where they live. DC's current gun laws were passed almost 30 years ago by an elected city council, and these laws continue to enjoy broad support among business executives, law enforcement officials, health care professionals, civic organizations, and ordinary citizens. When legislation to repeal DC's gun laws was introduced last year, it generated widespread opposition--and attracted virtually no support--among DC residents. While this bill has not yet been considered in the Senate, the citizens of Washington, DC, continue to face attempts to roll back their local gun safety laws. During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 District of Columbia appropriations bill, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment strongly supported by the National Rifle Association which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to enforce a local requirement that District residents keep their firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock in their homes. Fortunately, the current Senate version of the bill does not include a similar provision and I am hopeful the House-passed language will not become law. The Senate should respect the will of the people of Washington, DC, with regard to local gun safety laws. I hope the Senate will focus its efforts on legislation that will help make communities across our Nation safer, not on steps which would make our Nation's Capital less safe. I ask unanimous consent that the above-mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Stewart Baker to be Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security. Last week, when Mr. Baker's nomination came before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I voted no. That is my position today. Mr. Baker is an intelligent and accomplished man, but he does not have the experience necessary to fill this important post at this important time. Mr. Baker is a lawyer with experience in national security, trade, and technology. He has been widely published on topics such as cyber-security and civil liberties. I understand that he performed capably as the general counsel of the Silverman-Robb Commission on WMD intelligence capabilities. Mr. Baker might be well qualified for many positions at DHS, but he is not qualified to be Assistant Secretary for Policy. During his confirmation hearing before our committee, Mr. Stewart testified that he expected to be the ``central player'' at DHS on ``lessons learned'' from Hurricane Katrina, to develop emergency response policy, and to be a key player on immigration reform, among other matters. Yet when asked at his hearing if he had emergency response experience, he said ``no.'' He also admitted to having little expertise on immigration issues. While no one could be expected to be an expert on all of the issues addressed by DHS, it makes little sense to me to appoint a person with no emergency response experience to be the central player on lessons learned from Katrina, or to appoint a person with little immigration expertise to articulate Federal immigration policy, especially when, over the next few years, both issues--emergency response and immigration--will be so prominent at the Department. As we have learned from the Katrina disaster, we cannot afford to have inexperienced people in senior positions at DHS for on-the-job training.