Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. In summary, this amendment directs DOE to use some common sense when buying oil for the SPR. It urges DOE to buy more oil when prices are relatively low and supplies are ample, and less oil when prices are high and supplies are scarce. This approach supports our energy and national security interests and at the same time protects American consumers and businesses. It also protects the taxpayer from excessive costs due to high oil prices. I again thank the managers and Senators Collins and Wyden for their efforts so that this amendment can be accepted.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it's an honor to pay tribute to a great man, a distinguished Senator, and a dear friend who passed away on June 10, Senator Jim Exon of Nebraska. Last week, I joined several of my colleagues in attending his funeral in Lincoln, NE. It was inspiring to be with the people who knew him best and loved him most. Jim was a giant in Nebraska politics not because of the power he wielded but because of the respect and affection he had earned. Jim Exon was a decent man, without pretension or prejudice. He spoke plainly. He called it like he saw it. He did what he thought was right, regardless of the pressure that might have been put on him. Jim laughed the same wonderful, booming laugh with Presidents as he did with the people back home. He was a large man, and he had a heart to match. That is why he was beloved in Nebraska and never lost an election, serving two terms as Governor and then three terms as Senator. That is why he was popular even as the father of the Democratic Party in an overwhelmingly Republican State. And that is why his friendship and kindness meant the world to me. Jim and I were both members of the class of 1978, and we--and our wives--quickly became close friends. We served together on the Armed Services Committee; in fact, we sat next to each other for 18 years. We had honest, substantive debates about our defense policy, and I will always cherish the memories of that time. His only interest was the security and prosperity of our country and his beloved Nebraska. Jim worked for a strong national defense. He supported responsible budget policies. And he was ahead of his time in warning against terrorism and arguing for a Department of Homeland Security. For so many of us, he was a source of wise counsel and trusted advice. With Jim, you could always be certain he was telling you what he thought was right, and he usually was right. We will miss him terribly, but we are fortunate to have had him for so long. My thoughts and prayers, and those of my wife Barbara, are with his loving wife Pat and his entire family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders, or ``ICOM,'' Act of 2005. We have all heard the stories of how the first responders could not communicate on 9/11 and this lack of communication cost lives. The same situation is happening all over this country and we need to improve interoperable communications before more lives are lost. Attaining this objective will require substantial resources and a strong commitment by Congress and the Administration. This legislation takes an important first step in this effort. We have seen how bad the problem is in Michigan. For example, on the morning of Sunday, October 26, 2003, Michigan first responders held an exercise to test the emergency communications response capabilities at Michigan's international border with Canada. As we all know, during any emergency, effective communications is an absolute requirement. However, during the exercise, in order to communicate between fire agencies, the fire commanding officer needed 3 portable radios literally hanging around his neck and hooked to his waist band to attempt scene coordination. The Incident Commander was shuffling radios up and down to his ear and mouth in an attempt to figure out ``who'' was requesting or providing information. Further, the fire commanding officer had no communication with any law enforcement or Emergency Medical Service agencies. To communicate with those agencies, 5 additional radios would be required. This is totally unacceptable. First and foremost, the ICOM Act will provide dedicated funding for initiatives to achieve short- and long-term solutions to interoperability to States or regional consortia within each State for State-wide or regional communications planning, system design and engineering, procurement and installation of equipment, training and exercises, or other activities determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be integral to the achievement of communications interoperability. This legislation will also provide the recently authorized Office for Interoperability and Compatibility the resources and authorities necessary to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach, develop a national strategy, facilitate the creation of regional task forces in each State, fund and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts, encourage more efficient use of resources, and test and deploy more reliable and less costly public safety communications systems. Finally, the ICOM Act also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This includes promoting research through the Directorate of Science and Technology and Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, and considering establishing a Center of Excellence. The research agenda will focus on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of today's diverse public safety communications systems, examining how current and emerging technology can make public safety organizations more effective, and how local, State, and Federal agencies can utilize this technology in a coherent and cost-effective manner, evaluating and validating new technology concepts, and advancing the creation of a national strategy to promote interoperability and efficient use of spectrum. I recently authored an amendment that passed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that would assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The ICOM Act will complement that legislation by providing funding, support, research and development to improve interoperable communications on a national level.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders, or ``ICOM,'' Act of 2005. We have all heard the stories of how the first responders could not communicate on 9/11 and this lack of communication cost lives. The same situation is happening all over this country and we need to improve interoperable communications before more lives are lost. Attaining this objective will require substantial resources and a strong commitment by Congress and the Administration. This legislation takes an important first step in this effort. We have seen how bad the problem is in Michigan. For example, on the morning of Sunday, October 26, 2003, Michigan first responders held an exercise to test the emergency communications response capabilities at Michigan's international border with Canada. As we all know, during any emergency, effective communications is an absolute requirement. However, during the exercise, in order to communicate between fire agencies, the fire commanding officer needed 3 portable radios literally hanging around his neck and hooked to his waist band to attempt scene coordination. The Incident Commander was shuffling radios up and down to his ear and mouth in an attempt to figure out ``who'' was requesting or providing information. Further, the fire commanding officer had no communication with any law enforcement or Emergency Medical Service agencies. To communicate with those agencies, 5 additional radios would be required. This is totally unacceptable. First and foremost, the ICOM Act will provide dedicated funding for initiatives to achieve short- and long-term solutions to interoperability to States or regional consortia within each State for State-wide or regional communications planning, system design and engineering, procurement and installation of equipment, training and exercises, or other activities determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be integral to the achievement of communications interoperability. This legislation will also provide the recently authorized Office for Interoperability and Compatibility the resources and authorities necessary to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach, develop a national strategy, facilitate the creation of regional task forces in each State, fund and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts, encourage more efficient use of resources, and test and deploy more reliable and less costly public safety communications systems. Finally, the ICOM Act also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This includes promoting research through the Directorate of Science and Technology and Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, and considering establishing a Center of Excellence. The research agenda will focus on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of today's diverse public safety communications systems, examining how current and emerging technology can make public safety organizations more effective, and how local, State, and Federal agencies can utilize this technology in a coherent and cost-effective manner, evaluating and validating new technology concepts, and advancing the creation of a national strategy to promote interoperability and efficient use of spectrum. I recently authored an amendment that passed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that would assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The ICOM Act will complement that legislation by providing funding, support, research and development to improve interoperable communications on a national level.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Ohio as a cosponsor of this important amendment to improve air quality and public health by reducing emissions from diesel engines. I believe that this amendment will take important strides not only toward the stated goal of reducing emissions but also in making advanced clean diesel technology more viable in the United States. Diesel engines now can increase fuel economy by as much as 25 to 40 percent. If we can do that--and do it without harmful tailpipe emissions--we could make significant progress toward improving overall fuel economy and reducing our oil consumption. This bipartisan amendment would establish national and State grant and loan programs to promote reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment authorizes $200 million annually for 5 years to fund programs that will help us to replace older diesel technology with newer, cleaner diesel technology. The grant program, which will be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, has the potential to result in significant reductions in diesel particulate matter and help communities in meeting national ambient air quality standards. Under this amendment, 70 percent of the funds available would be to provide grants and low-cost revolving loans on a competitive basis for retrofit of buses, heavy duty trucks, locomotives, or non-road engines to help achieve significant emissions reductions particularly from fleets operating in poor air quality areas. The remaining 30 percent of the funds would go for grant and loan programs administered by states. The important steps that will be taken by these programs offer great promise for reducing diesel emissions and making clean diesel a commercially viable advanced vehicle technology in the U.S. Our friends in Europe have taken advantage of the opportunities that diesel offers for improving fuel economy and reducing oil dependence. We have not been able to do so here in the U.S. because of our concerns about tailpipe emissions. Initiatives such as those included in this amendment will help the U.S. to develop advanced diesel technology that will be able to meet our emissions standards in a cost-effective manner. I am pleased to join my colleagues today in supporting this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume that there are adequate ``existing authorities of appropriate Federal agencies'' to meet the goal of saving 7.64 million barrels of oil per day by 2025?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in CAFE standards?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume the Congress will provide other new authorities to the President?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume regulatory changes that would allow for greater use of diesel technology?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume regulatory changes in how the CAFE system works?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in ethanol production and use?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in tax incentives to encourage use of advance technologies?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume a major shift to use of renewable hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume a major increase in the use of hybrid electric vehicle technology?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in use of biodiesel fuels and technology?

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in the use of diesel engine technology?

Mr. LEVIN. Does this amendment set a goal of reducing imported oil or reducing overall use of fossil fuel?

Mr. LEVIN. To achieve the one million barrels of oil a day in savings required by 2015, must the President use existing authorities, or can the President seek additional authority?

Mr. LEVIN. If the President can seek additional authority to meet the requirement to save 1 million barrels of oil a day, would the Senator be willing to modify the amendment to make that clear?

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment sets a goal for a savings of 7.6 million barrels of oil by 2025. Are there assumptions made by the amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the goals for reducing this Nation's dependence on foreign oil that are embodied in the Cantwell amendment. We need to strive for energy independence, and I believe it is important to take bold steps toward reducing our oil consumption. Our policies have long ignored the problem of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and we remain as vulnerable to oil supply disruptions today as we have been for decades. Taking the steps necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is a critical objective for this country. I have long supported a broad array of Federal efforts to meet this objective. I believe that we need a long-term, comprehensive energy plan, and I have supported initiatives that will increase our domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner and provide consumers with affordable and reliable energy. There are many provisions included in this bill that will help take important steps in this direction-- particularly those provisions of this bill that address energy efficiency and renewable energy and will lead us toward greater uses of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. I have also long advocated Federal efforts that will lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology. As many of my colleagues have said, we need a level of leadership similar to the effort of a previous generation to put a man on the moon. I believe we need our own moon shot in the area of automotive technology to develop alternatives to petroleum and to make more efficient use of all forms of energy. We need a significantly larger effort than anything on the drawing boards. We need to put greater Federal resources into work on breakthrough technologies--such as hybrid technologies, advanced batteries, advanced clean diesel, and fuel cells--that will provide potentially dramatic increases in vehicle fuel economy and help us move toward making this Nation less dependent on foreign oil and reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal Government investment is also essential not only in research and development but as a mechanism to push the market toward greater use and acceptance of advanced technologies. For example, expanding the requirements for the Federal Government to purchase advanced technology vehicles will help provide a market for advanced technologies. We also must have far greater tax incentives for advanced technologies than have been proposed to date. I believe the goals for reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Cantwell amendment can be met by taking bold actions in the areas I have mentioned and without relying on increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Higher CAFE standards will not produce real results--they will only exacerbate the inherent discriminatory features in the CAFE system that give an unfair competitive advantage to foreign auto manufacturers and have contributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. Senator Cantwell and the sponsors of this amendment have assured the Senate and her amendment was modified so that there are no policy assumptions in this amendment that will increase CAFE standards. The goals of this amendment are laudable, and since they are simply goals--which after the modification can be achieved with new authorities, tax incentives for instance, and do not rely on use of existing authorities--I can now support the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Washington for making this modification. This is a very important modification from my perspective. But for this modification, the language of the amendment would propose that the goals that are set forth--which are only goals but nonetheless they are goals--would need to be achieved by implementing measures ``under existing authorities of the Federal agencies.'' That is the language which is in 151(c)(2)(B) of the amendment. That is lines 8 and 9 on page 4 of the amendment. Now, that is very problematic language and unacceptable language because if we are going to achieve the goals that are set forth, if we have any chance of doing so, it would have to be with significant changes in our authorities--for instance, in the tax incentives which would be so essential in order to achieve a reduction in imports of oil. There is no way I can see or that many others can see that we could achieve the kinds of reductions that are hoped for without significant tax incentives being put into the law--tax incentives that do not now exist. There are some existing authorities and some existing tax incentives, but they do not come close to what they must be if we are going to reduce the amount of imported oil that we use. So it is important to me that the existing authorities language either be removed or superseded in this amendment so that the President could seek and we could grant, if we so chose, new authority, additional authorities, new tax incentives, for instance, to move to new technologies. That is the effect of the modification to the amendment that was sent to the desk, which reads: Nothing in this section precludes the President from requesting additional authorities to achieve the targets in subsection (c). So that change seems to be very essential since there is no practical way that these goals can be met, in my book--either the short-term goals of one million barrels per day or the long-term goals of 7.64 million barrels per day--unless there are changes in our tax structure and the other authorities that we provide in the executive branch. This savings clause now makes it clear that both as to the short-term and the long-term goal for savings, there is not a limit in the amendment to using existing authorities but rather additional authorities can be sought by the President. I thank the Senator from Washington for making that change. In the colloquy between myself and the Senator from Washington, it makes clear that the amendment does not assume or require changes in technologies or CAFE standards or anything else. It is technology neutral. According to this colloquy, the amendment does not assume or propose an increase in CAFE standards. All of the other potential changes, technologically, that could help get us to where we want to go, including diesel technologies that are so important, hybrid technologies, hydrogen technologies--it does not put those specific technologies in place, either requiring them or, of course, not precluding them because this is technology neutral. That becomes critically important because, again, without those technologies there is no way we can achieve these goals. But there is no effort in this amendment to identify the specific technologies or the mechanisms by which these goals would be achieved. Particularly important, obviously, is the language that states that the amendment does not assume or propose an increase in CAFE standards, and another part of the colloquy makes it clear that the amendment neither assumes nor proposes regulatory changes to the CAFE system and that is not part of this amendment. So the colloquy will speak for itself. It is a lot longer than I have just summarized, but it is a very significant colloquy to me in terms of what the amendment does and what it does not do. I thank the Senator from Washington for working out this colloquy with me. modification of cantwell amendment 784

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, it is with great pride that I congratulate the University of Michigan Softball Team on winning the 2005 National Championship. The Wolverines completed an impressive season by defeating the two-time defending champion University of California-Los Angeles Bruins two games to one in thrilling fashion capped by a three run home run in the tenth inning of the final game of the 2005 College World Series. This victory marks the first time a team east of the Mississippi River has won this title and cements the University of Michigan program as a true national powerhouse in college softball. The Wolverines played with superb skill and dogged determination throughout the season and in the World Series to clinch their first championship, the second National Championship ever for a women's athletic program at the University of Michigan. The top ranked Wolverines entered Wednesday night's game hungry for the final win that would secure their first National Championship trophy. The Wolverines and Bruins split the first two games of the best of three series and were locked in a fierce battle in the third and final game to determine the ultimate victor. The Wolverines and Bruins ended regulation with the score tied at one run each. The tenth inning would prove pivotal as Samantha Findlay seized this opportunity and hit a three run homer to provide the boost necessary to secure this extra innings win. This grand display of athleticism, coupled with her play throughout the postseason, helped earn Findlay the Women's College World Series Most Valuable Player Award. That victory provided the perfect ending to a remarkable season for the University of Michigan Softball Team. After a 32 game winning streak at the beginning of the season, the Wolverines became the Nation's top- ranked college softball program for the first time in school history, and they were able to maintain the top ranking for the rest of the season. The Wolverines ended the season with 65 wins and 7 losses, the best record in school history and was one of three schools in NCAA history to hit 100 home runs in a season. Many members of the Wolverine team have been honored for their efforts both on and off of the field. Eight of the team's 19 members were named to the Big Ten all-conference team, including five on the Big Ten first team. Perhaps even more impressive is that six Wolverine players were named to the spring 2005 Academic All-Big Ten Conference team. The Wolverines' pitcher, Jennie Ritter, was honored with the Big Ten Pitcher of the Year title and was a finalist for the Amateur Softball Association's USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year. A member of the Big Ten second team, Samantha Findlay, earned an award as the Big Ten Freshman of the Year. The 2005 University of Michigan Softball team included Stephanie Bercaw, Angie Danis, Samantha Findlay, Alessandra Giampaolo, Tiffany Haas, Lauren Holland, Jennifer Kreinbrink, Grace Leutele, Becky Marx, Jessica Merchant, Rebekah Milian, Nicole Motycka, Jennie Ritter, Lauren Talbot, Michelle Teschler, Michelle Weatherdon, Lorilyn Wilson, Stephanie Winter, and Tiffany Worthy. This season proved to be an especially memorable one for Head Coach Carol Hutchins for several reasons. Coach Hutchins eclipsed the 900 career win mark during the season, and her 940th win resulted in a championship for the Wolverines. She currently enjoys the distinction of being the most victorious coach in University of Michigan history and currently ranks among the top ten Division I active coaches in career wins and winning percentage. As we honor this impressive triumph, I am reminded of the many times I have had the pleasure of congratulating a strong Wolverine team. Michigan can be proud of this most recent success, their fifty-second National Championship in school history. I am proud to join Senator Stabenow in congratulating the University of Michigan Softball Team on winning the 2005 Softball National Championship. I know my Senate colleagues share my admiration of the poise, skill and hard work necessary to achieve this milestone.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in recent years, there has been numerous reports regarding .50-caliber sniper rifles and the danger they pose to our communities and homeland security. It is important that we take action to prevent potential terrorists and violent criminals from having easy access to these dangerous weapons. The .50-caliber sniper rifle is a favorite weapon of militaries around the world. According to a report released by the Violence Policy Center last year, a .50-caliber sniper rifle is capable of accurately hitting a target over 1,500 yards away, and the ammunition available for the rifle includes armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive bullets. The report also cites the U.S. Army's manual on urban combat, which states that .50-caliber sniper rifles are designed to attack bulk fuel tanks and other high-value targets from a distance using ``their ability to break through all but the thickest shielding material.'' According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the leading manufacturers of the .50-caliber sniper rifle has also promoted their rifle's ability to destroy ``multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.'' While these capabilities may be desirable for military purposes, the .50-caliber sniper rifle provides the same capabilities to terrorists who may use them to bring down civilian aircraft, attack critical infrastructure, or kill innocent Americans. Currently, these powerful weapons are subject to only minimal Federal regulation and are treated the same as other long rifles including shotguns, hunting rifles, and smaller target rifles. A loophole in the law, commonly known as the ``gun show loophole,'' also allows for .50-caliber sniper rifles to be purchased without even a minimum background check. I have cosponsored 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 machine guns and sawed off shotguns. 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. The additional requirements would help ensure that these dangerous weapons do not fall into the hands of potential terrorists or violent criminals. We should recognize the extraordinary capabilities of .50-caliber sniper rifles and the danger they pose to our homeland security. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act to help protect our Nation from those who may wish to do us harm.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week there will be celebrations in observance of the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865, also known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was on this date that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the 13th amendment in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country. Since that time, over 130 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. Throughout the Nation, we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19 we celebrate ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' I am happy to join with my colleague, Senator Barack Obama, in commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day with the submission of S. Con. Res. 42, in recognition of the end of slavery and to never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history.